atheism is irrational

Author: n8nrgmi 3 years ago

Posts

Total: 618

#451

Tarik

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,481

Tarik

02.10.2022 05:00AM

-->

@Amoranemix

[a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim

Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.

I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?

but such definition would be contrived.

Exactly, so what was your point?

Maybe I should.

That’s all you got? Maybe you shouldn’t, see how easy that was 😛

Reality tends to give that impression to Christians.

That you should know what your talking about before making any claims about it? I’m pretty people on your side of the religion debate would agree with that one as well.

The concept of burden of proof eludes you. Read about it here :

This isn’t even responsive to the point I made but since you want to open up yet another can of worms I guess I’ll address it. First of all when Double_R first introduced said hypothetical example the burden of proof was on him to prove its coherence, but I guess since he’s on your side of things is why you don’t keep the same energy for him. Second I explicitly said why I took issue with the hypothetical feel free to go back and look, don’t expect me to put you up to speed especially since none of this was originally directed to you to begin with.

The fallacy you committed is the straw man, for I have not said otherwise.

Your just being pedantic at this point dude. Fact of the matter is he did more than just embrace implications, he said it was separate from the message and in the next breath said it wasn’t which is just deliberate lying on his part. Read between the lines man.

You are mistaken. Basing one's beliefs on reason and evidence does not prevent one from having beliefs.

No you are mistaken because that wasn’t even my argument, that also isn’t what skepticism is.

#452

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

zedvictor4

02.11.2022 07:45AM

@Tarik

Notwithstanding skepticism or scepticism. (Depending upon ones place of origin)

Piggybacking multiple cans of worms.

Now there's semantics for you.

#453

Amoranemix

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

Amoranemix

02.11.2022 01:30PM

-->

@Athias

Athias 436 to Lunar108 :
But why would they? If one believes one is "right" wouldn't considering a possible contradictory point undermine that?
Amoranemix 444 :
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russel
Athias 445 :
Explain how this applies.

There is probably a big overlap between those who don't question their own beliefs and those who are always certain of themselves.

Amoranemix 444 :
So, your argument is :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.
P3. A false premise and its extensions are irrational.
P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.
C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

We are already arguing about P1 and P2 elsewhere. Please demonstrate P3.
Athias 445 :
No, this imputes contradiction. So I retract my previous statement.

This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.
P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.
C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

We are already arguing about P1 elsewhere.

If I understand correctly, the presumption of the nonexistent being perceptible counts as an irrational premise. Claiming “God does not exist.” counts as its extension. P3 seems plausible.

In the statement

If A, then B

B is the implication of A.

I don't the term for the inverse relation, so I will call it inverse implication.

A is the inverse implication of B.

Therefore 'claiming A' counts as the extension of B.

A general formulation of your argument :

A1. If person X knows A, then B.

A2. X claims A.

A3. B is irrational.

P_1. X presumes B. (from A1)

P_2. Claiming the inverse implication (i.e. making an extension) of an irrational premise is irrational.

C. Therefore, claiming A is irrational.

Under reasonable assumptions (like X is not lying), that seems valid and P_2 is plausible under reasonable assumptions.

So that leaves P1 or A1 to be demonstrated for the particular case of claiming God doesn't exist.

Athias 440 :
I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be. And it isn't rationally defensible for the reasons I've mentioned.
Amoranemix 444 :
In post 289 I terminated with the claim :
“In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.”
You disagreed with that claim. You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis,[1.] which in that instance is not rationally defensible.[2.] You merely hold that belief because you value it.[3.] You now argue that you don't have to rationally defend that belief because you didn't make any claim other than sharing your belief.[4.]

However, you actually did make a claim by stating “Not everyone” in response to my claim. You even identified a particular person that counts as an exception to my claim, namely yourself. So you claimed : “Athias did not agree, either tacitly or explicitly, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.”
Your claim needs to be rationally defensible. Subsequently you were unable to rationally defend it.
Athias 445 :
1. No, I didn't.
2. No, it isn't.
3. Redundant.
4. No, I haven't.

[1.] How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?

[2.] Correction : Indeed, it isn't.

[3.] How so ?

[4.] There is something else you haven't done : support your claim. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.

Amoranemix 444 :
[b] One does not identify Spino. I defined him.
You are assuming that knowing something about X, requires information from X. Please demonstrate that assumption.[*]
[c] You want me to explain the history of God from the Bible and the errors in that history ? That seems to be a lot of work. Why would I do that ?
Athias 445 :
[b] Okay.
[*] Not an assumption.[78] In order to acquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.
[c] You stated:
“for those who make that claim [that God does not exist] may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.”
In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]

[78] I call what one assumes is an assumption.

You still haven't demonstrated what you have assumed. You seem to be relying on the principle that if one defines something, the subject of the definition exists. Please demonstrate that principle.

[79] Because I am lazy.

You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?

@ Athias :

You are systematically quoting out of context. That makes discourse harder to understand and can lead to confusion like who has the burden to prove what.

Amoranemix 449 :
Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ?[a] Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?[b] Is a quantum wave function material ?[c]
The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.[d]

Something useful to define seems everything.[e] Does it include nonexistent things ?[f] Does it include impossible things ?[g] The dictionary is unclear about that.
Another useful term to define is opposite, such that can be established whether X is the opposite of Y.[h] The dictionary is again too vague.
Yet another useful concept to define would be to perceive, e.g. to establish whether imagining something qualifies as perceiving.[i]
Athias 450 :
[a] Why wouldn't I?
[b] I don't; definition does.
[c] [no response]
[d] So, what is your preferred use of the term, exist?

[e] everything: all things which exist; the antipode of nothingness.
[f] Nothing does not exist. The nonexistent does not exist.
[g] Impossible in accordance to which measure?
[h] opposite: diametrically opposed; inconsistent with respect to... etc.
[i] perceive: to employ or use perception.
perception: the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

So yes, "imagination" would qualify as perceiving.[81]

[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias, unnecessary limitations and unnecessary complications and filling.

Now it's your turn again.

[b] Why does your definition treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?

[c] You forgot to answer my question.

[d] I haven't thought about it but I don't think I have a preferred use for the term 'exist'.

[f] That does not answer the question.

[g] Two cases : by measure of the laws of nature and by measure of the laws of logic.

[81] can the nonexistent be imagined ?

You still have not supported your claims. What are you waiting for ?

Amoranemix 449 :
[68] I don't know. I made a suggestion though.
[b] The dictionary derives it from the verb to exist.
For concrete things, to exist is to be part of the real world.[j]
For abstract things I don't know. You, on the other hand, were adamant that numbers exist.[k]
[e] You haven't honoured your burden of proof yet. From reading the discussion your attribution to zedvictor4 does not seem to match his beliefs.
Athias 450 :
[j] What is your preferred description of "the real world"?
[k] I'm not adamant; I'm certain that numbers exist. But if I'm to engage you on this point, I must first understand the distinction, ontologically, that you are creating between the abstract and a physical object, which I presume you consider "part of the real world."
[e] There's no burden of proof.[80] You made a request as to my attribution. I've submitted to you that it's in one of our previous discussions (maybe even before you joined this site.) If and when I find it, I take no issue presenting it to you.
And once again, I'm not accountable for that which "seems" to you. ("Seem" is not an argument.) If zedvictor4 wishes to clarify or rebut my characterization of his position, I take no issue retracting my statement.

[j] I haven't thought about it, but I don't think I have one.

[k] Both can be part of the real world or not.

[80] Yes, there is, but if zedvictor4 is fine with being accused of having the rationale that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent, then so am I.

#454

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

02.12.2022 07:06AM

-->

@Amoranemix

There is probably a big overlap between those who don't question their own beliefs and those who are always certain of themselves.

And that gap is?

We are already arguing about P1 elsewhere.

Where elsewhere?

If I understand correctly, the presumption of the nonexistent being perceptible counts as an irrational premise. Claiming “God does not exist.” counts as its extension. P3 seems plausible.

In the statement
If A, then B
B is the implication of A.
I don't the term for the inverse relation, so I will call it inverse implication.
A is the inverse implication of B.
Therefore 'claiming A' counts as the extension of B.

A general formulation of your argument :

A1. If person X knows A, then B.
A2. X claims A.
A3. B is irrational.
P_1. X presumes B. (from A1)
P_2. Claiming the inverse implication (i.e. making an extension) of an irrational premise is irrational.
C. Therefore, claiming A is irrational.

Under reasonable assumptions (like X is not lying), that seems valid and P_2 is plausible under reasonable assumptions.
So that leaves P1 or A1 to be demonstrated for the particular case of claiming God doesn't exist.

This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.
P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.
C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Do you have a contention, query, or criticism about this argument?

[1.] How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?

I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.

[2.] Correction : Indeed, it isn't.

I was not confirming your statement. I meant, "No, it isn't."

[3.] How so ?

Stating belief is based on value is redundant.

[4.] There is something else you haven't done : support your claim.

I remember stating this in response to your statement:

Is that indeed your argument ? If so, please demonstrate P1.

You forgot to answer my second question : Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

First, let's define exist:

exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.

Let's also provide some supplementary definitions:

real: true or actual.

material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.

spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Do you object to the descriptions as delineated by these definitions? If so, substantiate your objection.

And you responded:

Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ? Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ? Is a quantum wave function material ?
The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.

We are still in the middle of this argument, as you will see below.

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.

Humor me: why haven't I supported my position to your satisfaction?

78] I call what one assumes is an assumption.

Substantiate this assumptive characteristic.

You still haven't demonstrated what you have assumed.

I have not assumed.

You seem

Seem is not an argument.

relying on the principle that if one defines something, the subject of the definition exists.

We are still disputing the definition of exist (or maybe not? I haven't grasped your position on this.)

You are systematically quoting out of context. That makes discourse harder to understand and can lead to confusion like who has the burden to prove what.

First, I'm not "quoting out of context." I've merely regurgitated what you've stated. And there's no confusion: I know what my burden is; I know what your burden is; you conveyed no willingness to assume this burden.

[a] I asked first,

So?

but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias,

Bias cannot be avoided.

unnecessary limitations

That is the point of definition particularly in the context of debate. To set limitations. And since you've done all but explicitly state it, what is unnecessary about the definition I've provided?

[b] Why does your definition treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?

Since the scope of the description is to contain that which meet said description, the material and immaterial are included. Do you object?

[c] You forgot to answer my question.

No, I didn't. I chose not to answer it.

[d] I haven't thought about it but I don't think I have a preferred use for the term 'exist'.

So then, which definition of the term, exist, do you believe applies in this discussion we're having--your preference notwithstanding?

[f] That does not answer the question.

It most certainly does, especially since I've provided a parameter.

by measure of the laws of nature and by measure of the laws of logic.

So abstracts?

[81] can the nonexistent be imagined ?

No.

You still have not supported your claims. What are you waiting for ?

We are still hung up on the definition of the term, exist. What are you waiting for?

[j] I haven't thought about it, but I don't think I have one.

Then what description of the "real world" do you believe applies to this discussion--your preference notwithstanding?

[k] Both can be part of the real world or not.

Explain.

Yes, there is, but if zedvictor4 is fine with being accused of having the rationale that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent, then so am I.

My being correct in my characterization of zedvictor's position is of no consequence. I'm relaying knowledge I've acquired from my experience discussing the subject with zedvictor. If zedvictor happens to point this out as an error, then I take no issue, once again, retracting my statement. But that doesn't mean I have a burden. Because, once again, I'm not obligated to validate or invalidate your impression.

#455

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

02.12.2022 07:12AM

-->

@Amoranemix

[79] Because I am lazy.
You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?

Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness. If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand. Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.

#456

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

zedvictor4

02.12.2022 03:33PM

-->

@Athias

Skimming through on a wet Saturday afternoon.

And I was both pleased and intrigued to see a reference to myself in the above discussion.

Exactly what are you referencing here?

As I would like to recap , before I might comment.

#457

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

02.15.2022 12:35PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Exactly what are you referencing here?

As I would like to recap , before I might comment.

Amoranemix:

I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.

Athias:

No, he has only concluded as much based on his reasoning.

Would you like to weigh in?

#458

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

zedvictor4

02.16.2022 07:50AM

-->

@Athias

Well.

In so much as we think therefore we are,

Imagination is an internal electrochemical thought process that occurs.

And thus we might conclude that to imagine, is a logically and physically consistent process.

Though whether or not, the illusory outcome of this occurring process is existent, is perhaps one for the semanticists to argue over.

#459

Amoranemix

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

Amoranemix

02.17.2022 02:48PM

-->

@Tarik

@Athias

Amoranemix 449 :
[a] I presented “seem” as an alternative to what you presented, namely nothing. Neither of us are held accountable for nothing.[a']
[b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.
[c] Read the Bible.
Ask Christians.
www.compellingtruth.org/is-God-a-person.html [c']
[d*] What do you mean ?
[e] Climb out from under your rock and observe the real world.
[f] They provide strong inductive evidence that the physical laws cannot be broken.
[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.
[g**] I have not made that contention. Yet I have supported it.
Athias 450 :
[a] Still does not make "seem" an argument, which is the only thing with which we ought to concern ourselves when having a debate/discussion.
[a'] We are accountable to our arguments.
[b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.
[c] I have.
[c'] Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?
[d*] Perhaps, you can target "all-loving" characteristic ascribed to God, as opposed to demonstrating a literal distinction between personhood and the concept of love.
[e] I have. And this is not substantiation.
[f] They provide strong inductive evidence that anything outside of their mathematically proven framework would be inconsistent with their mathematically proven framework.
[g*] I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?
Explain your support.[81]

[a] If were to state that it still doesn't make “nothing” an argument, I too would be committing a straw man fallacy.

I disagree. In most debates there are other things of importance than whether “seem” is an argument.

[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

BTW, nothing is no evidence.

[c'] No.

[d*] OK.

[e] Proper debating is done based on common ground, i.e. what debating sides agree upon. Initially, I am entitled to assume that you believe popular things like the earth being round, the laws of logic, speak standard English, and have a sense of love and justice similar to my own. In the mean time you have provided evidence that you have a peculiar worldview.

Observing events involving sentient life-forms, do you see any deviation from perfect love or perfect justice ?

[g*] You are mistaken. Double_R introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. I merely claimed God seems inconsistent.

[81] What part of my support have you failed to understand ?

Amoranemix 449 :
I would say nonexistence is the negation of existence. X has nonexistence if the statement 'X exists' is false.
Nonexistence is a state, so nothingness and unreality don't seem to describe that properly.
Athias 450 :
What is your preferred description of nonexistence?

I haven't thought about it and I don't think I have one.

Nonexistence : not real, not part of the universe. For some X that is nonexistent, the statement 'X exists' is false.

Amoranemix 449 :
Please demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises.
Of course, rocks are irrational, as they can't reason, but I am assuming that is not the meaning of irrational you are using.
Athias 450 :
The conclusion does follow from the premises.[82] The only contention you can possibly levy is whether the premises have been substantiated. And I did provide substantiation for my premises.

[82] Claiming so, does not make it so.

Amoranemix 449 :
[76] How so ? What definition for impossible would you propose that would make it rationally defensible to assert that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist ?
[77] I haven't asked you to substantiate the argument, but to support (indirectly) P1 : “For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.”
Athias 450 :
[76] I am not assuming the responsibility of your onus.[76'] It's your argument, even if you're using it to demonstrate a perceived inconsistency in my reasoning.[76''] You must substantiate your premises.
Based on a premise you have yet to define and provide logical parameters, and a conclusion which extends it.[83]

[76'] Indeed, but more importantly, you are not honouring your burden of proof.

[76''] It is my argument in the sense that I explicated it, not in the sense that I stand by it or rely on it to substantiate my position. Since no one is willing or able to support a key premise of the argument, it does not qualify as evidence for its conclusion, which is that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist. I disbelieve the conclusion anyway.

[83] No. Requesting something does not always require a base. That request does not.

Tarik 441 :
[a] Because God is objective.
[b] Seriously dude, if you don’t believe in objective morality you could’ve saved us both the time and started with that but if your arguing that objective morality exists without God then I’ll gladly like to hear your argument for that one.
Amoranemix 449 :
[a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[b] No one having a monopoly on X, does not imply that X does not exist. It is indeed possible to define objective morality such that Bashar al-Assad (or God) has an monopoly on it, but such definition would be contrived.[b']
Tarik 451 :
[a] Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim [quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik] :
“Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.”[84]
I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?[85]
[b'] Exactly, so what was your point?

[a] You forgot to answer my question. I will answer yours though. You asserted God is objective. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

[84] You are mistaken. I didn't open that can of worms. Sadolite did.

[85] The problem with objective morality (and objective in general), is that it is vague. I have explained that in www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333/

In post 223 Double_R made that distinction : he argues God's morality is subjective because it is chosen by God and anyone using it. You can disagree (with that defintion of objective), but didn't. You merely baldly asserted that God is objective. The object or entity God may be objective (assuming it exists), but that is not relevant, as anyone is objective that way. What is relevant is whether God's morality, opinion or choices are objective and if they are, whether only his morality, opinion or choices are.

Sadolite claimed atheistic morality is subjective. However, no one has presented a case supporting that the reasons why that is so don't also apply to Christian morality, i.e. that Christian morality is the exception.

If choosing an objective moral standard (using some definition) is enough to have objective morality, then there can be plenty of different objective moralities, unless one relies on a contrived special pleading definition that only makes one's favourite morality objective.

[b'] See above.

Tarik 441 :
…Again seriously dude, your gonna accuse me of making assumptions about a hypothetical and not demonstrating it and you have no idea what the hypothetical even is?[70] That makes no sense,[71] before you can accuse me of anything pertaining to assumptions on a hypothetical topic knowing said hypothetical topic at hand is required.[72]
Amoranemix 449 :
[70] Maybe I should.
[71] Reality tends to give that impression to Christians.
The concept of burden of proof eludes you. Read about it here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) [a]
The assumption I have asked you to support is that Double_R's hypothetical is incoherent. If you are unable to prove it then the most likely reason is its falsehood. That is common with Christian assumptions.
[72] Indeed, if your assumption were true, providing the assumption would help you prove it, but only then. However, you seemed to be referring to the hypothetical that that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral. Christians aren't as stupid as they pretend.
Tarik 451 :
[70] That’s all you got?[86] Maybe you shouldn’t, see how easy that was ?ￂﾠ
[71] That you should know what your talking about before making any claims about it?[87] I’m pretty people on your side of the religion debate would agree with that one as well.
[a] This isn’t even responsive to the point I made [88] but since you want to open up yet another can of worms I guess I’ll address it. First of all when Double_R first introduced said hypothetical example the burden of proof was on him to prove its coherence,[89] but I guess since he’s on your side of things is why you don’t keep the same energy for him. Second I explicitly said why I took issue with the hypothetical feel free to go back and look,[90] don’t expect me to put you up to speed especially since none of this was originally directed to you to begin with.

[86] No. It is not my duty to give all I have got.

[87] Assuming you are not referring to me in particular, but to people in general (i.e. “one” i.s.o. “you” and “your”), then that is indeed something that tends to confuse Christians. They sometimes make claims without knowing what they are talking about. That makes it difficult for them to back up their claims.

[88] The point you tried to make was irrelevant. It was about the preparatory work required for doing things I didn't do. The point you made was your ignorance on the concept of burden of proof.

[89] You are mistaken. Presenting a hypothetical does not require one to demonstrate its coherence.

[90] For clarity (the skeptic's friend), again, I am assuming the hypothetical is from Double_R in post 260 : “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral.” Where did you explicitely say why you took issue with it ?

Amoranemix 449 :
[72] You are mistaken. I have not quoted you but formulated your 'theorem' myself.
The distinction between a theorem and its proof eludes you. A theorem is a statement that can be proven. A proof is a deductive argument that establishes the truth of the theorem. If you can't prove it, then that probably means it is false. That is probably the case with your statement, in which case it is not a theorem.
[73] The fallacy you committed is the straw man, for I have not said otherwise.
Tarik 451 :
[72] [ no response]
[73] Your just being pedantic at this point dude.[91] Fact of the matter is he did more than just embrace implications, he said it was separate from the message and in the next breath said it wasn’t which is just deliberate lying on his part.[92] Read between the lines man.

[72] Christians aren't into claim-supporting. They prefer to make claims and leave the supporting to others.

[91] Says the guy who critized me for claiming not to be actively participating in the discussion about morality.

[92] Having been unable to back up your accusation, you resort to making a different one.

You failed to specify 'it' to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy). 'it' apears to refer to a claim from which a conclusion about belief is drawn. Please show where Double_R has said 'it' was not separate from the message.

#460

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

02.17.2022 10:57PM

@Amoranemix:

[a] Still does not make "seem" an argument, which is the only thing with which we ought to concern ourselves when having a debate/discussion.
[a] If were to state that it still doesn't make “nothing” an argument, I too would be committing a straw man fallacy.
I disagree. In most debates there are other things of importance than whether “seem” is an argument.

"Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements. I did not "straw man" you; I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."

[b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.
[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.

[c'] Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?
[c'] No.

Then why did you submit it?

[e] Proper debating is done based on common ground, i.e. what debating sides agree upon. Initially, I am entitled to assume that you believe popular things like the earth being round, the laws of logic, speak standard English, and have a sense of love and justice similar to my own. In the mean time you have provided evidence that you have a peculiar worldview.

Peculiar? How do you mean?

Observing events involving sentient life-forms, do you see any deviation from perfect love or perfect justice ?

Define "perfect love." Define "perfect justice."

[g*] You are mistaken. Double_R introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. I merely claimed God seems inconsistent.

Double_R is irrelevant. I was making reference strictly to our back-and-forth. Let's transmute that "seem" into an actual argument. On what basis would God "be" inconsistent? What measures are you applying?

[81] What part of my support have you failed to understand ?

All of it. You have yet to inform it.

I haven't thought about it and I don't think I have one.

Then what objections do you bear to the one I provided earlier? Your preference notwithstanding which definition of exist to you believe applies in matters of ontology?

Nonexistence : not real, not part of the universe. For some X that is nonexistent, the statement 'X exists' is false.

So that begs the question: are thoughts, concepts, and products of imagination not part of the universe? If not, why?

[82] Claiming so, does not make it so.

I'm not merely claiming. I take no issue attempting to indulge your satisfaction as long as your parameters are made clear. Hence, my attempt to have you make clear the description of existence you believe applies to this debate.

[76'] Indeed, but more importantly, you are not honouring your burden of proof.

I have no particular burden here--at least with respect to this particular portion of our discussion. You're attempting to extrapolate my reasoning and extend it using a different argument. This argument however operates on the affirmation of descriptions of both "impossible" and "exist" you believe applies but have yet to delineate--much less, explain how the two relate. Instead you're attempting to have me refute descriptions which are presumably accepted (argumentum ad ignorantiam.) You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise, but you have yet to submit your metrics because that would necessitate making the aforementioned descriptions which you hold applicable clear.

So for simplicity's sake, I'll ask these questions: what description of "impossible" do you believe applies to our discussion? What description of "exist" or "existence" do you believe applies to our discussion? How do the two relate--i.e. possibility and existence?

[76''] It is my argument in the sense that I explicated it, not in the sense that I stand by it or rely on it to substantiate my position.

It is your argument in the sense that it's your premise; you however presume I should assimilate it based on how you intend to extend my reasoning. Because the argument isn't really whether I am arguing this :

A. X is impossible.
P1. For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.
C. Therefore, claiming X does not exist is irrational.

It's:

Assuming Athias maintains the same descriptions of "impossible" and "exist" as I do, if Athias maintains his premise and extends it to its logical conclusion, then said conclusion would be inconsistent with the assumed identical descriptions of "impossible" and "exist."

And that's your argument, not mine.

Since no one is willing or able to support a key premise of the argument, it does not qualify as evidence for its conclusion, which is that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist. I disbelieve the conclusion anyway.

I don't doubt that you do; but how am I to understand the extent or nature of this disbelief if you're holding your descriptions hostage?

#461

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

02.17.2022 11:09PM

-->

@Amoranemix

[God: TF, TS, THG]-Are-You-Lucky Number-Alpha-Roman Numeral, 50.

Just a suspicion.

#462

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

02.17.2022 11:17PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Imagination is an internal electrochemical thought process that occurs.

And you think this is what imagination is? Can you observe this independent of your capacity to imagine?

Though whether or not, the illusory outcome of this occurring process is existent

Why wouldn't it? Isn't your description of an "internal electronchemical thought process" absent your capacity to control for your thoughts independent of your own mind functionally identical to that which you'd characterize as illusory?

#463

Tarik

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,481

Tarik

02.18.2022 06:00AM

-->

@Amoranemix

[84] You are mistaken. I didn't open that can of worms. Sadolite did.

That was your quote I quoted, you even admitted so when you said

quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik

The objectivity/subjectivity of something can refer to two things : to a term or to a concept.

You asserted this. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

#464

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

zedvictor4

02.18.2022 07:48AM

-->

@Athias

Exactly my dilemma.

We think and we assume.

And rigged up to a monitor, a real time electro-chemical process relative to a given thought could probably be detected.

So we could easily prove that the process is existent.

Though whether the relative internal image or narrative is existent separate from the process is less certain.

And for sure I think that an imagination is a thought process, variously defined.

Basically just internal data processing.

In fact sitting here typing this text, I seemingly, simultaneously think, imagine and type.

12 days later

#465

Amoranemix

Debates: 0

Posts: 137

Amoranemix

03.02.2022 05:15PM

-->

@Tarik

@Athias

Amoranemix 439 :
Try basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. That is what skeptics do.
Tarik 441 :
Except skepticism is contrary to belief.
Amoranemix 449 :
You are mistaken. Basing one's beliefs on reason and evidence does not prevent one from having beliefs.
Tarik 451 :
No you are mistaken because that wasn’t even my argument,[93] that also isn’t what skepticism is.

You are mistaken again. You having been mistaken did not depend on 'basing one's beliefs on reason and evidence (not) preventing one from having beliefs' being your argument. It was perfectly possible for you to be mistaken without having made that argument.

Tarik 441 :
Your right that is difficult to say for certain, contrary to that second to last sentence.[74] One thing you and your boyfriend have in common is the contradictory element of your arguments and inability to comprehend logic.[75] You must be a relativist.
Amoranemix 449 :
[74] Indeed. If you based your beliefs on reason and evidence, you would not need to fear the truth coming out. You could then promote clarity in stead of confusion.
[75] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
Tarik 451 :
[no response]

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.

Amoranemix 453 to Athias :
There is probably a big overlap between those who don't question their own beliefs and those who are always certain of themselves.
Athias 454 :
And that gap is?

What gap are you referring to ?

Amoranemix 453 :
We are already arguing about P1 elsewhere.
Athias 454 :
Where elsewhere?

P1 is “If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.“

I first mentioned the premise in post 419 and we started debating it via the adventures of Spino the Spinosaur.

Athias 454 :
This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.
P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.
C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Do you have a contention, query, or criticism about this argument?

P1 requires demonstration.

Amoranemix 453 :
[1.] How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?
[2.] Correction : Indeed, it isn't.
[3.] How so ?
[4.] There is something else you haven't done : support your claim.[4.'] One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.[4.'']
Athias 454 :
[1.] I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.
[2.] I was not confirming your statement. I meant, "No, it isn't."
[3.] Stating belief is based on value is redundant.
[4.] I remember stating this in response to your statement:
[quotes from Amoranemix 439 and Athias 440 with definitions]
And you responded:
“ Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ? Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ? Is a quantum wave function material ?
The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.”
We are still in the middle of this argument, as you will see below.
[4.''] Humor me: why haven't I supported my position to your satisfaction?

[1.] You forgot to answer my question.

[2.] I suspected as much. That is why I corrected you.

[3.] Why is that ?

[4.'] We are arguing about definitions while you should be supporting your claim.

It is the prerogative of the side that presents a case / argument to choose definitions, within reason.

[4.''] Because it is false.

Athias 445 :
[*] Not an assumption.[78] In order to acquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.
[c] You stated:
“for those who make that claim [that God does not exist] may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.”
In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]
Amoranemix 453 :
[78] I call what one assumes is an assumption.
You still haven't demonstrated what you have assumed.[a] You seem [b] to be relying on the principle that if one defines something, the subject of the definition exists.[c] Please demonstrate that principle.
[79] Because I am lazy.
You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?
Athias 454 :
[78] Substantiate this assumptive characteristic.
[a] I have not assumed.
[b] Seem is not an argument.
[c] We are still disputing the definition of exist (or maybe not? I haven't grasped your position on this.)

[78] Name-giving is not an assumptive characteristic. In the interest of understanding I gave the substantiation of a verb form according to a method common in the English language.

[a] Your discourse in post 440 seemed to be missing the point without that assumption. I assumed you were actually trying to support your position about Spino and that appeared to be the way you were reasoning. Apparently I misunderstood. Please explain how “[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?” is supposed to support that one cannot know Spino does not exist.

[b] In debates I have the habit of using words that are not an argument. I have noticed you do that too. Is that inappropriate ?

[c] If you can't find the right terms to make your argument, you may even invent terms. That is what I did with 'inverse implication'. You could for example add a qualifier before or after 'exist' or 'existence'.

Amoranemix 453 :
You are systematically quoting out of context. That makes discourse harder to understand and can lead to confusion like who has the burden to prove what.
Athias 454 :
First, I'm not "quoting out of context."[93] I've merely regurgitated what you've stated. And there's no confusion: I know what my burden is; I know what your burden is;[94] you conveyed no willingness to assume this burden.[95]

[93] You have done and keep doing that. You break up sentences and omit quoting parts of sentences. I am even combining and readding fragments you have separated to put them in context. I am also usually quoting farther back to provide more context.

[94] That you (pretend to) know what you your burden is and what my burden is does not exclude your confusion. Moreover, usually people try to confuse others.

[95] Maybe. Maybe not. I have shown no unwillingness to assume my burden. You on the other hand have shown unwillingness to assume your burden of proof.

Amoranemix 453 :
[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias,[a'] unnecessary limitations[a''] and unnecessary complications and filling.
Now it's your turn again.
[b] Why does your definition treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?
[c] You forgot to answer my question.
[d] I haven't thought about it but I don't think I have a preferred use for the term 'exist'.

[f] That does not answer the question.
[g] Two cases : by measure of the laws of nature and by measure of the laws of logic.
[81] can the nonexistent be imagined ?

[h] You still have not supported your claims. What are you waiting for ?
Athias 454 :
[a] So?
[a'] Bias cannot be avoided.
[a''] That is the point of definition particularly in the context of debate. To set limitations. And since you've done all but explicitly state it, what is unnecessary about the definition I've provided?
[b] Since the scope of the description is to contain that which meet said description, the material and immaterial are included. Do you object?
[c] No, I didn't. I chose not to answer it.
[d] So then, which definition of the term, exist, do you believe applies in this discussion we're having--your preference notwithstanding?

[f] It most certainly does, especially since I've provided a parameter.
[g] So abstracts?
[81] No.
[h] We are still hung up on the definition of the term, exist. What are you waiting for?

[a] You have again failed to answer my question

[a'] You can at least try and it can at least be reduced.

[a''] You are correct: I haven't stated there is something unnecessary in your definition. Is there ?

[b] I don't understand, but since I am not interested in discussing definitions and don't want to give you more excuses to stall, I don't object.

[c] You were impolite.

[d] I don't know. It is your claim (premise P1). I suspect that with God (not) existing people mean God is part of reality, i.e. makes reality different through his existence, other than by being believed to exist. Reality can be considered to be the universe.

[f] The question was : “Does everything include nonexistent things?”, where everything is all things that exist.

Your response : “Nothing does not exist. The nonexistent does not exist.”

I agree that answers the question. The answer is no. Everything excludes nonexistent things.

[g] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

[81] So the nonexistent cannot be imagined. Does imagining something nonexistent cause it to exist or is it impossible to imagine something if it does not exist prior ?

[h] I am waiting for you to support your claim.

#466

Tarik

Debates: 1

Posts: 2,481

Tarik

03.02.2022 09:00PM

-->

@Amoranemix

Unlike for a circle, people don't understand what morality is, which causes them to confuse the subjectivity of the term with the subjectivity of the concept.

For arguments sake let’s say your right that no one understands morality, then under that pretense how do you even know it exists in the first place?

#467

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

zedvictor4

03.02.2022 09:14PM

@Tarik

Such is the dilemma Tarik.

One cannot be certain of something that one cannot be certain of.

#468

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

03.03.2022 03:38AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Exactly my dilemma.

We think and we assume.

And rigged up to a monitor, a real time electro-chemical process relative to a given thought could probably be detected.

So we could easily prove that the process is existent.

And how is the observation of the process any less subject to thought than the internal image?

Though whether the relative internal image or narrative is existent separate from the process is less certain.

Is that really the subject of argument? Nevertheless, if we were to entertain it, why would the presumption that it's separate from the process any less "imagined" than its association to said process?

And for sure I think that an imagination is a thought process, variously defined.

Basically just internal data processing.

In fact sitting here typing this text, I seemingly, simultaneously think, imagine and type.

Exactly. So how does one control for one's internal data processing?

#469

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

Athias

03.03.2022 06:30AM

-->

@Amoranemix

What gap are you referring to ?

Pardon. What "overlap" is that?

P1 requires demonstration.

Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual." (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist. If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist. And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known. Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."

P1 demonstrated.

Athias 454 :
[1.] I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.
[1.] You forgot to answer my question.

Your question was already addressed in post #440.

[2.] I suspected as much. That is why I corrected you.

You've corrected nothing; once again, I was not confirming your statement.

[3.] Why is that ?

Because of the meaning of "value."

4.'] We are arguing about definitions while you should be supporting your claim.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. And that's my point. You questioned the definitions I've submitted, and when pressed to expand on your scrutiny, you provide rather than substantiation, more questions.

It is the prerogative of the side that presents a case / argument to choose definitions, within reason.

"Within reason"? What would be an unreasonable choice?

[4.''] Because it is false.

Substantiate your assertion that my position is false.

[78] Name-giving is not an assumptive characteristic.

This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You claimed "knowing something about X requiring information from X" is an assumption. I rejected your characterizing it as an assumption, and then subsequently demanded that you "substantiate this assumptive characteristic."

Please explain how “[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?” is supposed to support that one cannot know Spino does not exist.

Because, "Spino" is an identifier, i.e. a name which provides information. Once you've identified "Spino," acknowledged information of its existence.

[b] In debates I have the habit of using words that are not an argument. I have noticed you do that too. Is that inappropriate ?

No matter how many times you attempt to reciprocate in this tit for tat, "seem" is not now nor has it ever been an argument. And when you employ it in your discussions with me, I will without fail point that out.

If you can't find the right terms to make your argument,

I already did and submitted them.

you may even invent terms.

Are you being facetious?

You could for example add a qualifier before or after 'exist' or 'existence'.

No need.

I have shown no unwillingness to assume my burden.

Yes, you most certainly have.

You on the other hand have shown unwillingness to assume your burden of proof.

I'm the only person in our discussion providing information to his argument. You see, I am not lazy.

You have again failed to answer my question

I didn't fail to answer your question. Your question was already addressed in post #454.

[a''] You are correct: I haven't stated there is something unnecessary in your definition.

What? Do you not remember this:

[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias, unnecessary limitations and unnecessary complications and filling.

[b] I don't understand, but since I am not interested in discussing definitions and don't want to give you more excuses to stall, I don't object.

Stalling? Buddy, I asked you about these definitions over a month ago. And it's just in latest response that you've made a decision about them one way or another; I am not the one who's stalling.

[c] You were impolite.

My politeness is not a subject of discussion.

[d] I don't know.

You have affirmed that my position is false. Is that not based on a counterexample or counterfactual?

It is your claim (premise P1). I suspect that with God (not) existing people mean God is part of reality, i.e. makes reality different through his existence, other than by being believed to exist. Reality can be considered to be the universe.

Is this the position you maintain? Because I'm not having a discussion with "people." I'm having a discussion with you.

The question was : “Does everything include nonexistent things?”, where everything is all things that exist.
Your response : “Nothing does not exist. The nonexistent does not exist.”
I agree that answers the question.

Then what was your point in stating that it didn't answer your question to begin with? And yes, I excluded the last sentence of the portion because that is your response, not mine. I only own that I which I state.

[g] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

The laws of physics or nature are inextricably tied to Mathematics--an abstract; logic is abstract. So when you state you measure "impossibility," you are applying abstracts, correct?

[81] So the nonexistent cannot be imagined. Does imagining something nonexistent cause it to exist or is it impossible to imagine something if it does not exist prior ?

Neither. The nonexistent does not exist, and therefore there is no "it" to imagine. And if "it" exists prior to one's imagination, then its existence is independent of one's imagination.

#470

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,074

zedvictor4

03.03.2022 06:47AM

-->

@Athias

I agree that processes are seemingly one and the same. Call them thoughts, call them electro-chemical data processing.

So we can detect the process, can we project the image externally?

I don't see why not.

Well, the argument that "atheism is irrational", is basically just a theistic dig at atheists.

Nonetheless, if we break the processes down to a base level of electro-chemical function, we can therefore question the rationality of all such processes, labelled theistic or atheistic or anything I suppose.

Labelling outcomes wont alter the base reality of the argument. Which is, GODS are not actually known to be anything other than an internal electro-chemical process.

As of course, are NO GODS.

So one processes and produces outcomes relative to acquired and stored data. So management/control of such processes is therefore a facet of one and the same process and it's acquired parameters......Self control or not, as might be judged.

#471

Deb-8-a-bull

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,205

Deb-8-a-bull

03.03.2022 07:58AM

Atheists dont even know what happens when they die. ( apart from decay of the body. )

Theists on the other hand , know exactly what happens when we die. ( and in much detail )

So rational.

#472

Deb-8-a-bull

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,205

Deb-8-a-bull

03.03.2022 08:05AM

Theists know what happens to them when they die frommmm beliving in god and joining and being in a religious group and the allocated holy book that goes with said group.

Somehow.

I could know what happens when i die if i believed in a god.

Yeah , rational.

Theists could not be 85% sure what happens when they die.

Maybe 75% sure

It isn't rational to be ummmm 93.2% sure you know what happens when you die.

Hang on.

Its not rational to believe in god 90%

#473

Deb-8-a-bull

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,205