Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

J C · 13-07-2015 05:40PM

MrPudding wrote: »

So... Magic. Got it.

Gerry069 wrote:

And willow wand ........

Ye could say that ... I'm a believer in much more plausible reasons though ... like an omnipotent God.:)

J C · 13-07-2015 05:46PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Since that demonstration remains unattempted, wouldn't you agree that the reasonable course of action is to suspend belief until the god is evidenced?

I would argue that He is evidenced ... in all of Creation.
... and indeed in you too El_Duderino.

... you are living breathing evidence of the original appliance of an omnipotent power and intelligence AKA God ... and therefore of His existence.:)

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2015 05:49PM

J C wrote: »

I would argue that He is evidenced ... in all of Creation.
... and indeed in you too El_Duderino.

... you are living breathing evidence of the original appliance of an omnipotent power and intelligence AKA God.:)

Would you be satisfied by that kind of circular reasoning as an answer to any other question?

J C · 13-07-2015 05:55PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Would you be satisfied by that kind of circular reasoning as an answer to any other question?

Where is the circle in my reasoning?

antiskeptic · 13-07-2015 06:17PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah you could take that approach if you want. So an omnipotent being could convince an individual of their existence.

Omnipotence doesn't come into it. You just need to have a means of being able to convince someone beyond reasonable doubt. Your issue appears to centre around taking your preferred prime method (empirically demonstrable) of the pedestal and replacing it with something superior/more fitting.

Sure. You have the answer in the definition. The being is omnipotent so they could do what they like (as long as they exist). This is what I was saying about defining god into existence.

I was merely pointing out that it needn't be necessary to remain open to other hypotheses in the matter of Gods existence. An able enough God can provide sufficient conviction such as to obviate the need to consider the matter further.

If we're not even going to bother to look into it as second hand evidence then you're asking me if an omnipotent being CAN do something. I thought you might be aiming for something a little more ambitious than that.

There wasn't more to it that me addressing your original position about remaining open to future, alternative explanations. Along the way we've bumped into some of the usual suspects: empirical evidence uber alles (yet there is no particular reason for that to be the only acceptable means of God's self demonstration), real vs. hallucination (a sub-set of the empirical uber alles viewpoint), the hypothetical view (which denies the possibility of arrival at a firm, definitive conclusion not subject to further change - but that view itself only being a hypothesis).

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2015 06:53PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Omnipotence doesn't come into it. You just need to have a means of being able to convince someone beyond reasonable doubt. Your issue appears to centre around taking your preferred prime method (empirically demonstrable) of the pedestal and replacing it with something superior/more fitting.

I was merely pointing out that it needn't be necessary to remain open to other hypotheses in the matter of Gods existence. An able enough God can provide sufficient conviction such as to obviate the need to consider the matter further.

There wasn't more to it that me addressing your original position about remaining open to future, alternative explanations. Along the way we've bumped into some of the usual suspects: empirical evidence uber alles (yet there is no particular reason for that to be the only acceptable means of God's self demonstration), real vs. hallucination (a sub-set of the empirical uber alles viewpoint), the hypothetical view (which denies the possibility of arrival at a firm, definitive conclusion not subject to further change - but that view itself only being a hypothesis).

On the last point, I don't know everything about maths but 2+2=4 is not a hypothesis so we agree on that point.

OK so the question is whether a fairly potent being can convince a person of it's existence. Now I have to step away and say I don't know whether a fairly potent being could convince anyone of anything without you defining that characteristic into, or out of, that being. This need to define your preferred being into existence wouldn't arise if the being was existent and evident.

Are you actually proposing an alternative method of arriving at information outside the normal means we have as humans? If so I'd like to hear about them. If not then your point boils down to accepting that god is not demonstrated but ruling it into existence by proposing some nebulous alternative to knowing about the god that only applies to the god. You put it so eloquently it's a shame to have to tell you it's a case of garden variety special pleading.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2015 07:08PM

J C wrote: »

Where is the circle in my reasoning?

Read back through the post before. You claimed god is evidenced. Creation exist and god created creation therefore god exists.

J C · 13-07-2015 07:35PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Read back through the post before. You claimed god is evidenced. Creation exist and god created creation therefore god exists.

The universe and everything in it had to have an equal or greater power to created it (the law of causation) ... that ultimate cause is on such a scale and specified complexity as to be practically omnipotent ... which neatly describes God.

That is linear reasoning ... and not in the least bit circular.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2015 07:51PM

J C wrote: »

The universe and everything in it had to have an equal or greater power to created it (the law of causation) ... that ultimate cause is on such a scale and specified complexity as to be practically omnipotent ... which neatly describes God.

That is linear reasoning ... and not in the least bit circular.

Fair enough, when you restate the point it's not circular. It's still not very satisfying though.

I suppose the god character is specially exempt from the law of causation? More of a suggestion of causation. Can we create exceptions at will or have you defined your god to exclusively fill the exception? Have you heard about the other god who lives outside your god's realm of existence. I hear he created your god (which it obviously needs a creater in order to conform to the suggestion of causation). And outside that realm of existence there is another god who....

antiskeptic · 14-07-2015 09:18AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On the last point, I don't know everything about maths but 2+2=4 is not a hypothesis so we agree on that point.

Progress comes in small steps. That's evolution!

OK so the question is whether a fairly potent being can convince a person of it's existence. Now I have to step away and say I don't know whether a fairly potent being could convince anyone of anything without you defining that characteristic into, or out of, that being. This need to define your preferred being into existence wouldn't arise if the being was existent and evident.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'defining your preferring being into existence'. I'm using if/then statements to, remember, challenge the notion that one need necessarily remain in the realm of open-hypothesis when it comes to concluding God exists.

IF God exists AND is capable of demonstrating his existence to a person in a non-empirical way, (the AND is a not-unreasonable proposal so let's, for the sake of argument grant that) THEN a permanent state of hypothesis isn't required of one to whom He demonstrates hisself.

God isn't being stated to exist (such as to require you to believe either in his existence). All that occurs is your position on perma-hypothesis being dissolved.

Are you actually proposing an alternative method of arriving at information outside the normal means we have as humans? If so I'd like to hear about them.

It isn't necessary (for the purposes of dismantling your position) to go into that - indeed, the Christian position is that God evidencing himself to a person involves their spiritual receptors (as it were) first being rebooted so as to be able to perceive God (a bit like a having a Skybox installed instead of rabbits ears).

Whilst this can be explained to you, there isn't any way for you to access God/Sky channels without this facility - the only way that you, too, could come to experience it's workings. You can explain red to a blind man all you like...

being If not then your point boils down to accepting that god is not demonstrated but ruling it into existence by proposing some nebulous alternative to knowing about the god that only applies to the god. You put it so eloquently it's a shame to have to tell you it's a case of garden variety special pleading.

Hmm.

If the IF condition has been satisfied, then a person to whom God reveals himself thus will know God exists for sure - and no longer needs to keep their hypothesis open. Since the IF condition is a potentially satisfiable condition, your "special pleading" point would require a person to keep the God-hypothesis open even if the IF has been satisfied in their case. This, of course, would be a nonsense.

There must, therefore, be a flaw in your application of the fallacy. Since you can't be sure the IF condition hasn't been satisfied in say, my case.

You put it so eloquently ..

Why, thank you!

antiskeptic · 14-07-2015 01:10PM

J C wrote: »

The universe and everything in it had to have an equal or greater power to created it (the law of causation) ... that ultimate cause is on such a scale and specified complexity as to be practically omnipotent ... which neatly describes God.

What's specified complexity? I mean, if you start out with a team of monkeys bashing away at keyboards (comparatively non-complex) you can, given sufficient time, end up with the works of Shakespeare (comparatively complex). It wasn't omnipotence that produced the works, just some potence and time

Gerry069 · 14-07-2015 04:15PM

J C wrote: »

Ye could say that ... I'm a believer in much more plausible reasons though ... like an omnipotent God.:)

Well there is proof magic and a willow wand works. Have you not read all the Harry Potter books?

J C · 14-07-2015 05:36PM

Gerry069 wrote: »

Well there is proof magic and a willow wand works. Have you not read all the Harry Potter books?

... you are a man of great faith indeed.

I'm a bit of a 'doubting Thomas' myself ... and that is why I don't have enough faith to not believe in God.:)

Gerry069 · 14-07-2015 06:27PM

J C wrote: »

... you are a man of great faith indeed.

I'm a bit of a 'doubting Thomas' myself ... and that is why I don't have enough faith to not believe in God.:)

Pascal's Wager ?

MrPudding · 14-07-2015 08:10PM

Gerry069 wrote: »

Pascal's Wager ?

Yes, the idea that your all knowing god is too stupid to know when you actually believe or when you are just pretending because you are scared you might go to hell.

MrP

J C · 14-07-2015 08:26PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, the idea that your all knowing god is too stupid to know when you actually believe or when you are just pretending because you are scared you might go to hell.

MrP

... Paschal's Wager is actually the idea that you're better off choosing God rather then Satan ... and thereby possibly choosing Heaven rather than Hell ... in both this life and the next.

A good summary of Paschal's Wager is that being Saved is a one-way bet ... and a dead cert. with no downsides and considerble upsides.

... and yes, he's the same Blaise Paschal, philosopher and mathematician, who gave his name to Paschal's Triangle and Paschal's Law ... so his wager is well thought through (as you'd expect from somebody of the logical and mathematical eminence of Blaise Paschal).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_law

J C · 14-07-2015 08:55PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's specified complexity? I mean, if you start out with a team of monkeys bashing away at keyboards (comparatively non-complex) you can, given sufficient time, end up with the works of Shakespeare (comparatively complex). It wasn't omnipotence that produced the works, just some potence and time

Do you really believe that??

Don't mention the war ... but nearly nobody uses this anymore as a proof for Atheism.:)

El_Duderino 09 · 15-07-2015 06:54AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'defining your preferring being into existence'. I'm using if/then statements to, remember, challenge the notion that one need necessarily remain in the realm of open-hypothesis when it comes to concluding God exists.

IF God exists AND is capable of demonstrating his existence to a person in a non-empirical way, (the AND is a not-unreasonable proposal so let's, for the sake of argument grant that) THEN a permanent state of hypothesis isn't required of one to whom He demonstrates hisself.

God isn't being stated to exist (such as to require you to believe either in his existence). All that occurs is your position on perma-hypothesis being dissolved.

It isn't necessary (for the purposes of dismantling your position) to go into that - indeed, the Christian position is that God evidencing himself to a person involves their spiritual receptors (as it were) first being rebooted so as to be able to perceive God (a bit like a having a Skybox installed instead of rabbits ears).

Whilst this can be explained to you, there isn't any way for you to access God/Sky channels without this facility - the only way that you, too, could come to experience it's workings. You can explain red to a blind man all you like...

Hmm.

If the IF condition has been satisfied, then a person to whom God reveals himself thus will know God exists for sure - and no longer needs to keep their hypothesis open. Since the IF condition is a potentially satisfiable condition, your "special pleading" point would require a person to keep the God-hypothesis open even if the IF has been satisfied in their case. This, of course, would be a nonsense.

There must, therefore, be a flaw in your application of the fallacy. Since you can't be sure the IF condition hasn't been satisfied in say, my case.

Why, thank you!

We're already in agreement that addition isn't subject to perma-hypothesis. Why bother going round the houses to demonstrate the same point by using an unknown entity?

Look at the first line of the first 3 paragraphs in your last post.
1 You're not defining god into existence.
2 Let's presuppose god does exist and has met your conditions.
3 god has met the conditions and perma-hypothesis is dissolved.

IF/THEN does not = therefore

Your position isn't falsifying empirical hypothesise, it's simply skipping over the demonstration of evidence by presupposing it has already met the burden of proof.

If your intention was to disprove pertinent hypothesis, I did that with the example 2+2=4. Going further brings with it some kind of burden of proof. IF my aunt had whatzits, THEN she'd be my uncle. It's NOT reasonable to assume she's my uncle.

antiskeptic · 15-07-2015 08:22AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We're already in agreement that addition isn't subject to perma-hypothesis. Why bother going round the houses to demonstrate the same point by using an unknown entity?

We're looking at whether a perma-hypothesis is necessary in the case of concluding God exists.

Look at the first line of the first 3 paragraphs in your last post.

Okay

1 You're not defining god into existence.

No I'm not.

2 Let's presuppose god does exist and has met your conditions.

We're not presupposing he exists. We're saying if he exists/self demonstrates then

3 god has met the conditions and perma-hypothesis is dissolved.

Not "that he has" but "if he has then" a state perma-hypothesis isn't a reasonable demand to make

IF/THEN does not = therefore

Therefore God exists? I agree, it doesn't = that.

Your position isn't falsifying empirical hypothesise, it's simply skipping over the demonstration of evidence by presupposing it has already met the burden of proof.

I'm not sure what you mean by falsifying empirical hypotheses. And I'm not trying to demonstrate any evidence such as to be involved with burden of proof.

IF my aunt had whatzits, THEN she'd be my uncle. It's NOT reasonable to assume she's my uncle.

The problem with this IF/THEN is that your attaching illogic. An aunt, per definition can't be your uncle. She could, at best be a transgender aunt or a mislabelled uncle.

Whereas there isn't anything illogical about a) God existing b) God demonstrating his existence. That's an IF/THEN that can be satisfied.

If it has been satisfied then the believer thus exposed would know that it has been satisfied and it is reasonable for them to assume God exists (better said, they would know God exists). And it would be reasonable for them to reject the notion that keep the God-hypothesis open.

It wouldn't be reasonable for you to assume he exists based on my say so.

Conclusion: since you don't know whether the IF/THEN has been satisfied in, say, my case, you aren't in a position to insist I keep the hypothesis open. You would need to be agnostic about my situation.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-07-2015 08:57AM

Sure. If God existed AND demonstrated itself to someone in the form of personal revalation through their spiritual antenna, to the degree that it has met the burden of proof, it is no longer subject to hypothesis for the individual who has experienced that demonstration.

I agree that I'm agnostic about that personal revelation because it's occurrence is indistinguishable from its non occurrence. The same can be said of any god or mythical and imaginary creature, delusion and hallucination.

You're hardly going to assert the existence of the god based on someone else's personal revelation though. That's not how we learn things about reality.

antiskeptic · 15-07-2015 09:12AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. If God existed AND demonstrated itself to someone in the form of personal revalation through their spiritual antenna, to the degree that it has met the burden of proof, it is no longer subject to hypothesis for the individual who has experienced that demonstration.

Where burden of proof merely means the person is utterly convinced - there wouldn't necessarily be any means for the person to measure against empirical type burden of proofs.

This, of course doesn't mean God exists (I could be a brain in a jar subject to alien experimentation) - it just means the person concludes they need look no further.

I agree that I'm agnostic about that personal revelation because it's occurrence is indistinguishable from its non occurrence.

A wise decision. It protects against falling into the clutches of false gods at any rate.

You're hardly going to assert the existence of the god based on someone else's personal revelation though. That's not how we learn things about reality.

I'd assert the existence of God based on my own personal revelation. But only in a background sense such as to embark on discussions like this where my conviction can be used to construct argumentation which counters positions like the perma-hypothesis in the matter of God's existence which you yourself forwarded.

I'm not relying on the assertion at any point - just on reasoned argumentation. The aim is to drive the 'opponent' back to passive agnosticism. It's a closer position to acceptance of God's existence than is the positive agnosticism (such as the demand for perma-hypothesis in the case of God's existence)

hinault · 15-07-2015 09:32AM

J C wrote: »

... Paschal's Wager is actually the idea that you're better off choosing God rather then Satan ... and thereby possibly choosing Heaven rather than Hell ... in both this life and the next.

A good summary of Paschal's Wager is that being Saved is a one-way bet ... and a dead cert. with no downsides and considerble upsides.

... and yes, he's the same Blaise Paschal, philosopher and mathematician, who gave his name to Paschal's Triangle and Paschal's Law ... so his wager is well thought through (as you'd expect from somebody of the logical and mathematical eminence of Blaise Paschal).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_law

An excellent post.

It will be still lost on some here.

15-07-2015 09:35AM

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Criticism

Covers the presuppositions necessary to use Pascal's Wager quite well.

In Bayesian terms, this can be stated as saying non-believers attribute uniform prior probabilities to the existence of any particular god; all equal, and all infinitesimal. Pascal's Wager alone cannot update these probabilities as the reasoning applies only to the One True God out of an infinite number of possible gods. Without any further information to whittle this down, the odds of inadvertently worshiping the wrong god is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular god existing increases does Pascal's Wager become useful, i.e., if one god could be assigned even a mere 1% chance of being the One True God, Pascal's Wager would present a clear benefit. Hence for anyone constrained by a bias towards a particular god, the Wager is far more clear cut and supportive of their belief.

hinault · 15-07-2015 09:45AM

You see.

Delirium · 15-07-2015 09:49AM

J C wrote: »

... Paschal's Wager is actually the idea that you're better off choosing God rather then Satan ... and thereby possibly choosing Heaven rather than Hell ... in both this life and the next.

A good summary of Paschal's Wager is that being Saved is a one-way bet ... and a dead cert. with no downsides and considerble upsides.

... and yes, he's the same Blaise Paschal, philosopher and mathematician, who gave his name to Paschal's Triangle and Paschal's Law ... so his wager is well thought through (as you'd expect from somebody of the logical and mathematical eminence of Blaise Paschal).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_law

The wager isn't well thought out.

It works from the basis that you're better off living life presuming God exists than not. It chooses one deity over the rest, but doesn't explain why. A person may still end up in some form of Hell due to picking the Christian god over some other deity.

Then you have the various branches of Chrisitianity to choose from as well. Choose the wrong one and you could end up condemned to Hell for doing some permitted in your chosen denomination but is actually sinful in the 'correct' denomination.

And all of this is built on the presumption that this gambit will outsmart the creator of reality!!

antiskeptic · 15-07-2015 10:45AM

SW wrote: »

The wager isn't well thought out.

It works from the basis that you're better off living life presuming God exists than not. It chooses one deity over the rest, but doesn't explain why. A person may still end up in some form of Hell due to picking the Christian god over some other deity.

Wouldn't that be a pisser!-

Then you have the various branches of Chrisitianity to choose from as well. Choose the wrong one and you could end up condemned to Hell for doing some permitted in your chosen denomination but is actually sinful in the 'correct' denomination.

Quite! A central tenet of much of Christianity is that you can't live in such a way as to make heaven a possibility. Salvation is by grace and not works (how you live).

Indeed, it could be argued that trying to live as if God exists would be a dangerous thing to do since living as God exists would likely mean you try to live a 'good' life and in so doing you'd be fooled into supposing your chances of salvation being increased. Which might blind you to the fact that you never can live a good enough life (the view held by much of Christianity)

lazybones32 · 15-07-2015 12:55PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's specified complexity? I mean, if you start out with a team of monkeys bashing away at keyboards (comparatively non-complex) you can, given sufficient time, end up with the works of Shakespeare (comparatively complex). It wasn't omnipotence that produced the works, just some potence and time

Six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys + one computer + four weeks for them to get creative = "Notes towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare". Limited Edition 25 pounds.

"They get bored and they <snip> on the keyboard rather than type." - Geoff Cox, Plymouth University.

http://notesonshakespearesmonkeys.blogspot.ie/

Gerry069 · 15-07-2015 04:18PM

J C wrote: »

Do you really believe that??

Don't mention the war ... but nearly nobody uses this anymore as a proof for Atheism.:)

Atheism is by definition non belief. How is it possible

to prove non belief???

J C · 15-07-2015 07:22PM

Gerry069 wrote: »

Atheism is by definition non belief. How is it possible to prove non belief???

It certainly is attempted (without much actual success, I might add) ... via all of the ideas that Atheists use to 'shore up' their position that God doesn't exist and/or isn't needed to explain the existence of the Universe and everything therein.

El_Duderino 09 · 15-07-2015 07:24PM

Grand. So you are convinced due to personal revelation. To anyone else your testimony is completely indistinguishable from hallucination or delusion or fabrication. It's occurrence is indistinguishable from its non occurrence and your testimony should be completely unconvincing to anyone except yourself.

antiskeptic wrote:

I'd assert the existence of God based on my own personal revelation. But only in a background sense such as to embark on discussions like this where my conviction can be used to construct argumentation which counters positions like the perma-hypothesis in the matter of God's existence which you yourself forwarded.

If you weren't convinced by argument, why bother with argument? If God wants to convince people surely he'll just use their spiritual antenna and give them incontrovertible evidence of his existence. With no need to hypothesise, right?

antiskeptic wrote:

I'm not relying on the assertion at any point - just on reasoned argumentation. The aim is to drive the 'opponent' back to passive agnosticism. It's a closer position to acceptance of God's existence than is the positive agnosticism (such as the demand for perma-hypothesis in the case of God's existence)

Which reasoned argument are you going to use for the existence of a god?

FWIW I was already agnostic about god. Exactly the same as monsters under the bed, aliens, unicorns and all the other imaginary creatures you could create special standards of conviction for.

You don't get to pretend arguments for a god should be subject to rules which you make up just for the god. That's exactly what special pleading is.

antiskeptic wrote:

Where burden of proof merely means the person is utterly convinced - there wouldn't necessarily be any means for the person to measure against empirical type burden of proofs.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments