Debate: - Religious debate [Archive]

Kadagar_AV

05-26-2010, 09:40

You mean like a formal debate setup?

How would there be a ruling on this debate and which other limitations would you implement? (e.g. number of rounds)
Are both contestants going to open with an affirmative position?

I do not think a ruling is possible in this case. I don't even think a ruling would be a good idea. The question has such a big implication on peoples life that a "X scored 2 points" isn't really viable. However, everyone can of course read it and see what they themselves think. We could set the time limit at 15 posts each (30 posts all in all, or about a month in time). With a possible extension if both parts feel there is more to add.

A post would look (after the opening)

*reply to anything yet unsettled
* reply to last post
* new question

I think the easiest would be for one poster to open. Not with a huge rant though, but with ONE short question. The other side can then answer it elaborately and come with a new question of his choice. After this the first poster can then elaborate on his own initial question.

That way no side has an advantage in the opening, and we will avoid loooooooooong opening rants trying to cover everything.

Am more than ready to let the other side choose if they want to open up or not, so def not trying to get some strategical advantage. Will most def do my best to make it fair :)

Sigurd

05-26-2010, 10:07

I do not think a ruling is possible in this case. I don't even think a ruling would be a good idea. The question has such a big implication on peoples life that a "X scored 2 points" isn't really viable. However, everyone can of course read it and see what they themselves think. We could set the time limit at 15 posts each (30 posts all in all, or about a month in time). With a possible extension if both parts feel there is more to add.

Ok...

A post would look (after the opening)

reply to anything yet unsettled
reply to last post
new question

I think the easiest would be for one poster to open. Not with a huge rant though, but with ONE short question. The other side can then answer it elaborately and come with a new question of his choice. After this the first poster can then elaborate on his own initial question.

That way no side has an advantage in the opening, and we will avoid loooooooooong opening rants trying to cover everything.

Am more than ready to let the other side choose if they want to open up or not, so def not trying to get some strategical advantage. Will most def do my best to make it fair :)

Personally I like to debate religious matters, but since I am agnostic, I tend to debate these matters for the sake of debating; like a game.
Its about finding fallacies and pointing them out and to cover your tracks by finding an unassailable logic formulation.
It is therefore important IMO, if a debate should be fair, that both contestants opens with an affirmative argument for their "side" in a debate.

Take your suggestion: Why is there a God.
The pro side will make an affirmative using formal logic explaining why there must be a God.
The con side will make an affirmative explaining why there can't be a God.

Then both sides has something to work with. As you said, the initial affirmative statement should be short, to the point and built up as an argument with a set of propositions and a conclusion.
These are prepared in advance and posted nearly simultaneously (at least they shouldn't be based on the other contestant's affirmative statement).

Then a few rounds of contesting each other's statements or positions. Then, as you mentioned, there could be a few rounds of questioning each other to positions yourself for a final rebuttal.

Kadagar_AV

05-26-2010, 10:32

Ok...

Personally I like to debate religious matters, but since I am agnostic, I tend to debate these matters for the sake of debating; like a game.
Its about finding fallacies and pointing them out and to cover your tracks by finding an unassailable logic formulation.
It is therefore important IMO, if a debate should be fair, that both contestants opens with an affirmative argument for their "side" in a debate.

Take your suggestion: Why is there a God.
The pro side will make an affirmative using formal logic explaining why there must be a God.
The con side will make an affirmative explaining why there can't be a God.

Then both sides has something to work with. As you said, the initial affirmative statement should be short, to the point and built up as an argument with a set of propositions and a conclusion.
These are prepared in advance and posted nearly simultaneously (at least they shouldn't be based on the other contestant's affirmative statement).

Then a few rounds of contesting each other's statements or positions. Then, as you mentioned, there could be a few rounds of questioning each other to positions yourself for a final rebuttal.

I am not sure an agnostic is very suitable to represent the deist side. I was hoping someone like Rhyfelwyr (or someone else with a with a strong religious belief), would pick up the glove.

It might however be argued that an agnostic is not all that bad, as discussion would be deism at large, not Christianity in specific. However, I am more than willing to also take the discussion against a pure Christian, but, then the debate has less impact on the forums readers of other deist faiths.

I guess I think someone with a personal faith who is ready to listen to input from other deists would be the best choice.

IF, however, the deists on this forum feel comfortable letting you handle the discussion, and if you in return are ready to work much as a moderator (know anything about being moderator? (pun intended)) for your team, I see no problem having an agnostic at the helm.

About opening:

Formal logic as to why it is a God? Feels a little unfair to the deist side.

As I said in my opening post, initial arguments can be quite easy: there is a God / there is not a God. Deist religion is a positive factor in the world / deist religion is a negative factor in the world.

Those being the two main questions, or?

We could even boil it down to "there is/isnt a god.

However, if other side would want, we could phrase ourselves in, say, maximum 100 words as opening up statements.

My idea of first poster opening with just a short question however levels the playing field a lot.

Initial poster gets to pick the question, but is second to elaborate on it.

It is a very efficient way to open a debate.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-26-2010, 10:46

Do we have any Deists here?

Kadagar_AV

05-26-2010, 10:49

Do we have any Deists here?

Yes.

No?

Sigurd

05-26-2010, 10:57

Do we have any Deists here?
That would be any Christian religion besides The Catholic church and Mormons.

edit:
I suspect Kadgar means theist.
Saying it fast enough it sounds the same. At least that is the traditional religious debate; the theist vs. the atheist.

Kadagar_AV

05-26-2010, 11:10

That would be any Christian religion besides The Catholic church and Mormons.

I was a bit unclear... There are so many subcategories that I get a bit lost sometimes.

With deists I pretty much meant anyone believing in one supreme being, so Mormons and Catholics would be included. My bad however, would anyone care to teach me what the proper word would be?

I am pretty sure it is not "faith-head" ;)

Of course, a deist would be the most logical choice for a debate, unless we want arguments such as "I am right and I know I am right because I know I am right"

Sigurd

05-26-2010, 11:34

I am not sure an agnostic is very suitable to represent the deist side. I was hoping someone like Rhyfelwyr (or someone else with a with a strong religious belief), would pick up the glove.

Fair enough, but I have studied a few theological debates and know an argument or two.

It might however be argued that an agnostic is not all that bad, as discussion would be deism at large, not Christianity in specific. However, I am more than willing to also take the discussion against a pure Christian, but, then the debate has less impact on the forums readers of other deist faiths.

I guess I think someone with a personal faith who is ready to listen to input from other deists would be the best choice.
At least you will get better reactions from such... eh? :wink2:

IF, however, the deists on this forum feel comfortable letting you handle the discussion, and if you in return are ready to work much as a moderator (know anything about being moderator? (pun intended)) for your team, I see no problem having an agnostic at the helm.
Just don't think of me as a moderator in the Backroom. I am as much a visitor here as you are. This is Banquo's, CountA's, Seamus' and Clegane's domain.
I could cheat and slap you with a 999 pointer and win by walkover. :beam:

About opening:

Formal logic as to why it is a God? Feels a little unfair to the deist side.
You would think that naturally... I am of another opinion. But this depend on both sides taking an affirmative position as an opener.

As I said in my opening post, initial arguments can be quite easy: there is a God / there is not a God. Deist religion is a positive factor in the world / deist religion is a negative factor in the world.

Those being the two main questions, or?

We could even boil it down to "there is/isnt a god.

However, if other side would want, we could phrase ourselves in, say, maximum 100 words as opening up statements.

My idea of first poster opening with just a short question however levels the playing field a lot.

Initial poster gets to pick the question, but is second to elaborate on it.

It is a very efficient way to open a debate.
The bolded part is the classic of all debate.
A 100 word opening position is too narrow. You wouldn't be able to build a good case with that limitation. If I do this and with the angle I am thinking of - I would need a longer opening. I am not sure how long. But the initial post could be a teaser of the main arguments and the full argument could be developed during the remainder of the debate.

There needs to be a defined scope. Too many religious debates jumps from point to point and angle to angle, without the opposition being able to answer the first point; the so-called topic bouncing method. A defined scope keeps us on topic and prevents us from drawing in meta stuff.
If we are discussing the existence of God - it would be out of scope to drag evolution or Catholic priests into it. A particular God would also be out of scope. (I would debate the existence of a creator and not Jesus in particular)

Andres

05-26-2010, 11:52

This is starting to sound like a debate on how you are going to debate... You guys don't have Belgian roots by any chance?

Off topic: A bit like Belgian politicians about reforming the structure of our State. "First, we will negotiate on the rules of the debate that we will have on how we are going to do the negotiations about how we are going to conduct the dialogue between the communities, which we need to have before we will enter the negotiations on the framework and references of the..."

And then they wonder why it takes so long before things actually move.

This reminds me, there's still a debate between me and Louis about BHV that hasn't finished yet. Not that we're in a hurry, we'll both be reduced to dust and ashes once BHV is solved. I wonder what will happen first: a) the apocalyps or b) a satisfying solution for BHV. My money is on a).

Rhyfelwyr

05-26-2010, 13:22

Seamus Fermanagh

05-26-2010, 13:45

Nice idea to set up parameters in advance. When and if a debate is begun, please do so in a new thread and I can than close this "information" thread and let the debate start clean.

Sigurd

05-26-2010, 13:46

Rhyfelwyr

05-26-2010, 14:45

In a time before Wikipedia, I held to the meaning of Deism as religion without revelation. A religion with closed books and no figure head who can say: Thus saith the Lord.
Judasim of old was not Deist as they had prophets who spoke the will of God and claimed directly intervention from God, but nowadays only Mormonism and Roman Catholics claim to know the will of God through his mouth piece. (I am not counting the short lived sects who usually ends in a local doomsday).
But they are all Theists as they believe in a supreme being, the creator of our world or universe.

Are you saying that this would mean Protestants are deists? I've never seen them called this in any of the history books or anything, deism always seems to have been made quite distinct.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-26-2010, 16:59

Louis VI the Fat

05-26-2010, 20:45

BHVMaking the solvable unsovable so as not to have to solve it is at once surrealist, stupid and brilliant. Most Belgian then.

Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time is the sign of imbecility. Ttrying something different each time but managing the same result over and over is a mark of brilliance. The combination of the two makes it sheer surrealism.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-26-2010, 20:55

Kad. Just start a thread with a title like "Atheism is humble, religion is arrogant". And then argue reasonably with the people who reply.

It's the backroom way.

Beskar

05-26-2010, 21:13

No one can win the debate, because you got tons of religions who mostly say they are the correct one, and the others are false. So you will have masses of "religious infighting" then you got others who think religion is a bunch of crook for deluded people.

End of the day, it would ultimately be pointless.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 01:59

I think I'll pass.

Although for whoever does debate, I think the deism/theism issue should be cleared up. As I understand it, deism means a God that sets everything in motion, but then does not/cannot intervene in the workings of the universe after that. A sort of 'universe making factory' as I heard it somewhere.

On the other hand, theism tends to mean a god that does interact with the universe and maybe also people to varying degrees.

Sad to hear you wont pick up the gauntlet... I do however hope you will help strenghten the religious side, I know you have a thing or two to say about faith from previous threads.

Nice idea to set up parameters in advance. When and if a debate is begun, please do so in a new thread and I can than close this "information" thread and let the debate start clean.

Yepp yepp, intended that. How do we keep the discussion therad free of other posters though? Maybe both partys could PM their reply to you or some other mod, and you post it on the forum. So thread can stay locked for others?

In a time before Wikipedia, I held to the meaning of Deism as religion without revelation. A religion with closed books and no figure head who can say: Thus saith the Lord.
Judasim of old was not Deist as they had prophets who spoke the will of God and claimed directly intervention from God, but nowadays only Mormonism and Roman Catholics claim to know the will of God through his mouth piece. (I am not counting the short lived sects who usually ends in a local doomsday).
But they are all Theists as they believe in a supreme being, the creator of our world or universe.

I think the belief in "god" could well be enough as marker for the religious side. I dont intend the debate to steer into catholic priests fiddling young boys, nor Muhammeds pedophile tendencies. So the exact variation of faith is not really important, it is the bigger question of a "god" that is at hand. So does not really matter if you are theist, deist or basicly whatever.

I think I'll pass as well. I don't have the energy, and it's not a topic that interests me a great deal.

Well, you are technically correct. However, all Christians believe in a Present and Active God, and in Revelation. Bear in mind that most forms of Protestantism allow for "minor" or "unofficial" Revelation direct from God. So Christians are not Deistic.

Same as to Rhyfelwyr, I hope you strenghten the religious team :)

Kad. Just start a thread with a title like "Atheism is humble, religion is arrogant". And then argue reasonably with the people who reply.

It's the backroom way.

Those threads often lose focus fast. Might be fun with something new for a change, no? Dont mind me, I enjoy drunken bashing as much as the next one ;)

No one can win the debate, because you got tons of religions who mostly say they are the correct one, and the others are false. So you will have masses of "religious infighting" then you got others who think religion is a bunch of crook for deluded people.

End of the day, it would ultimately be pointless.

I dont think you are correct doing that assumption. Anyone remember Zain? He came here all creationist, and upon having spent some weeks here he started to seriosly question his own belief. People do listen to reason. Occasionaly. I know I would, with no doubt in my mind, be religious if someone could make it clear to me as to why I should be.

So no, I do not think this debate must be pointless. If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

And heck, if absolutely nothing else, it would give anyone interested a chance to stretch their brain muscles a little bit :)

Seamus Fermanagh

05-27-2010, 03:22

We've done debate threads like this before. The mods let everyone know that it is a private fight and that they must bow out until the floor is opened to all comers. Mods excise any threads that get in the way. Simple enough.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 03:39

Beskar

05-27-2010, 04:05

I dont think you are correct doing that assumption. Anyone remember Zain? He came here all creationist, and upon having spent some weeks here he started to seriosly question his own belief. People do listen to reason. Occasionaly. I know I would, with no doubt in my mind, be religious if someone could make it clear to me as to why I should be.

So no, I do not think this debate must be pointless. If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

And heck, if absolutely nothing else, it would give anyone interested a chance to stretch their brain muscles a little bit :)

I don't think it would produce any changes for anyone in an atheist position, since a "hardcore atheist" wouldn't suddenly be convinced of a supernatural being. On the otherhand, hardcore fundamentalism is obviously reasonless (for example, world is 6,000 years old, etc).

End of the day, ignostic/igtheism is obviously the best position.

Quoted from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism):

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of god:

1. The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'god'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does god exist?" as meaningless.

Here is the part explaining theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism).

Edit: That is also my own stance on religion.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 04:32

rotorgun

05-27-2010, 04:43

I don't think it would produce any changes for anyone in an atheist position, since a "hardcore atheist" wouldn't suddenly be convinced of a supernatural being. On the otherhand, hardcore fundamentalism is obviously reasonless (for example, world is 6,000 years old, etc).

End of the day, ignostic/igtheism is obviously the best position.

Quoted from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism):

Here is the part explaining theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism).

Edit: That is also my own stance on religion.

My Dear Beskar(What exactly does Beskar signify?). I am saddened that one of such enlightenment as you, should take such a posistion. Know Ye not that "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)? I mean no offense, but if say, Einstein would have taken such a view toward the atom, would he have created the theory of realativity? If did not Columbus believe that the Earth was round, would he have made his historic voyage in 1492? Please forgive my presumption upon our recent aquiantance, but it is inconcievable for me to believe that you really feel this way deep down.

I shall pray for you.

PS: I don't wish anyone to think that I think that my faith is infallible, for much is the influence of man upon religion. I just want the record to stand that I am a God fearing soul who hedges his bet upon the existence of a diety.

PPS: I apologize if this is premature, as the debate has not been agreed upon yet.

Beskar

05-27-2010, 05:23

Know Ye not that "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)? I mean no offense, but if say, Einstein would have taken such a view toward the atom, would he have created the theory of realativity? If did not Columbus believe that the Earth was round, would he have made his historic voyage in 1492?

Though, Einstein didn't wake up one morning, wrote in his book "E = MC2". He devised his theory on the connections and interactions based upon earlier work, he simply realised mass and energy are interconnected and devised a formula based upon this. This mathetical formula as been tested, through evidence obtained through fusion, fission and other various methods. Again with Columbus, he believed there was another route to India, other than going around Africa, and thus set sail and rediscovered American continent (Records show that the early French tribes, Mongols, Vikings, and even Eygptians have once all visited).

However, what you also fail to consider is the other concepts and ideas which were disproven. Why does your faith compare with Einstein and Columbus and not those of lets say, the Catholic Church who were strong advocates of the "Flat Earth" concept and the world being the centre of the universe.

These are simply ideas. If you want to translate this across, you would be saying that the concept of a supernatural being, in whatever form, is simply an idea some one came up with, with no current basis on reality.

So while you convey an idea, it is simply that. Just because my Nan believes in fairies living under fairy bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Bridge#Castletown_Road), doesn't actually mean fairies are living there. As for religion, I am presuming Christian, what makes your concept the correct one, and not that of the Hindu God Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) who is from a far older religious order. Also in the Christian faith, while many of the routes are present in Judea-ism, is also present in Pagan rituals and belief, therefore not even correctly attributed to this supernatural being which you might believe in.

You could also remove yourself from any organised religion, but then you end up in wish-washy terrority, such as pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism). I remember some one who once argued and believed that energy was "god." This argument revolves around the fact, such as Einstein, that energy is interchangable with matter and is the fundamental of the universe. They made it sound somewhat like the Force in Starwars. Ultimately, it boiled down to "You are just calling an object another name? Like the ancient Eygptians deitifying the Nile? for almost the same reasons as you speak of with energy."

As you are unfamilar with me, I will provide some further insight. I was pretty much indoctrinated as a child as a methodist Christian. I was top in bible class, was the star-pupil of the church and was once even commented on by a international church leader (that church branches equalivant to a pope, as it were) as being a future preacher. So I am not from an uninformed view of religion, I had real personal experience. I remember being told feelings such as guilt was "God telling you to do the right thing", but it was simply attributing real human feelings to something which simply isn't there. I simply grew up and realised things aren't actually like that. I remember struggling, trying to find some validation, some shred of existence, which I found none. The only things which are real are the people around you, the love and fellowship. Churches are communities, once you are in these communities, it is very hard to leave. Many simply put aside their views and feelings of "god" and simply stay there for the ritual of it all, as Orwell famously said "Ignorance is bliss". As Marx comments "Religion is the Opium of the People", he is correct, but where he fails in that sentence is fully explaining why that is. Such as Religion is the Opium of the People, so are other ideologies. Animal Rights activists have a religious quality around them, and their meetings, and they want to simply lessen animal suffering. What is cynically worse, being implied by the comment is references to the past and present where Religion is very often used to exploit the masses, as a means of control. "You better do this and this, or the bogeyman gets you!", "if you work really really hard, the bogeyman will give you 70 virgins" and such-like.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 05:35

Beskar, you want a religious debate, FINE! :)

However, try to stay at least vaguely on topic. Or make a new thread. Or do it in PMs. Plenty of options feel free to pick one. I would however frown upon further trying to derail this thread. Specially as I already asked you once.

Dont get me wrong, I more than welcome a religious debate. As my OP shows. However, this is not the place for it, get my point?

rotorgun

05-27-2010, 05:37

Though, Einstein didn't wake up one morning, wrote in his book "E = MC2". He devised his theory on the connections and interactions based upon earlier work, he simply realised mass and energy are interconnected and devised a formula based upon this. This mathetical formula as been tested, through evidence obtained through fusion, fission and other various methods.

Again with Columbus, he believed there was another route to India, other than going around Africa, and thus set sail and rediscovered American continent (Records show that the early French tribes, Mongols, Vikings, and even Eygptians have once all visited).

These are simply ideas. If you want to translate this across, you would be saying that the concept of a supernatural being, in whatever form, is simply a construct. While you quoted ideas which are founded, how about all those ideas which failed? Why is the priority in your example placed on the successful idea "The world is not round" compared to the position of the catholic church "The world is flat".

So while you convey an idea, it is simply that. Just because my Nan believes in fairies living under fairy bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Bridge#Castletown_Road), doesn't actually mean fairies are living there. As for religion, I am presuming Christian, what makes your concept the correct one, and not that of the Hindu God Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) who is from a far older religious order.

Also in the Christian faith, many of the routes while some in Judea-ism, is also present in Pagan rituals and belief, therefore not even correctly attributed to this supernatural being.

You could also remove yourself from any organised religion, but then you end up in wish-washy terrority, such as pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism). I remember some one who once argued and believed that energy was "god." This argument revolves around the fact, such as Einstein, that energy is interchangable with matter and is the fundamental of the universe. They made it sound somewhat like the Force in Starwars. Ultimately, it boiled down to "You are just calling an object another name? Like the ancient Eygptians deitifying the Nile? for almost the same reasons as you speak of with energy."

A very good answer indeed! As for my faith, I am indeed a Christian, but not one of those militant type who discounts the beliefs of others; like many Hindus, I respect all religions, as long as they do not espouse violence. I shall also admit that my beliefs could be entirely wrong, for it would be the hieght of arrogance to make such a claim. I am just compelled to remind others, much as Saint Paul reminded the Greeks, that there is evidence of the "unseen God." I make no claim that the "Christian" idea of God is the only correct one, but feel strongly that one day we shall see him revealed. It is my belief that such an intelligence has already revealed himself in the very beauty of creation, and in the very laws of the universe itself.

Don't you agree that it is too highly ordered as to be a mere accident of design?

Thank You for your very thought provoking critisizm, all the same. I am honored.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 05:44

Rotor, I could most def argue against that.

But again, not the time, not the place.

PLEASE DO NOT GET ME WRONG: Excellent points, well worth debating.

I can promise you that I will meet your points Rotorgun :)

But ONCE AGAIN, save it for the debate.

In a way, it is part my fault. Anything with religion in it is bound to draw some fire.

May I ask some mod to clean up a bit? :)

rotorgun

05-27-2010, 05:46

My most humble apologies Dear friend. I shall indeed await the proper time and place. A fascinating subject!

Thanks.

Beskar

05-27-2010, 06:02

Last post because Kadagar-AV is unhappy with us doing it in this thread.

A very good answer indeed! As for my faith, I am indeed a Christian, but not one of those militant type who discounts the beliefs of others; like many Hindus, I respect all religions, as long as they do not espouse violence. I shall also admit that my beliefs could be entirely wrong, for it would be the hieght of arrogance to make such a claim. I am just compelled to remind others, much as Saint Paul reminded the Greeks, that there is evidence of the "unseen God." I make no claim that the "Christian" idea of God is the only correct one, but feel strongly that one day we shall see him revealed. It is my belief that such an intelligence has already revealed himself in the very beauty of creation, and in the very laws of the universe itself.

Don't you agree that it is too highly ordered as to be a mere accident of design?

Thank You for your very thought provoking critisizm, all the same. I am honored.

I actually ended up editing and expanding, I apologise. It is a habit of mine. I very often write something, then comes to me "I should have said this or that", "perhaps worded that better."

If you permit me to go slightly off-topic, your comment "that there is evidence of the "unseen God." reminded me of another post I made elsewhere, this is over a year old, so there will be some slight differences between now and then:

The most common and basic definition of a God is something that operates outside the natural order. Simply, a God cannot be naturalised regardless of the resources and capabilities that could ever be done. In short, God is the supernatural that can never be proven or shown to exist, it is unfalsible, which means it doesn’t exist. [You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, only that something does exist.]

This theoretically means that anything and everything that does exist can be shown or proven to exist. As God by its very nature of its definition operates only supernaturally, it can never be brought into existence.

This is the path that simply claims that anything that is there can be shown or proven to be there regardless of our own current limitations proposing we can some-day show it. This doesn’t claim everything that is currently classified as supernatural is actually supernatural; it claims that anything supernatural which can never be natural does not exist. As a God operates in the supernatural, therefore not natural, anything which is natural cannot be a God.

This theory does not deny the possibility of Massively Powerful Beings (MPB). A MPB is simply a being or even a technological object of immense power which can currently shock and awe us with our current levels of understanding. In short, it would be going back to 1000 BC with a Helicopter; it would shock and awe the people of that time period through their lack of understanding. In this, it could allow for the possibility of (in pure example) an Artificial Intelligence UFO at the Centre of the Universe controlling everything at a quantum level. The theory would only state that such an MPB is part of the natural world, not the supernatural; therefore, an MPB is not a God (by definition of a supernatural being). For instance, an argument could be that an MPB created the Big Bang, because of its existence and part of the natural world and from greater understanding; this MPB is not supernatural and therefore cannot be a God.

This theory also disagrees with any labelling of anything as a God. While other theist arguments might be the personification of let’s say energy being God. They say that energy creates matter, and is the fundamental source of everything in the Universe, however, as energy is not supernatural, it is not a God by the definition.

This is mainly addressing the concept of god as something classified as something supernatural. However, it highlights the possibility of things such as MPB (Massively Powerful Beings) which could have hypothetically created planet earth. But these could simply be aliens, a highly advanced computer, or things that would adequately fit other definitions, other than "god".

You also speak of things being very ordered and not opened to random chance. What is amazing if when you actually begin the comprehend how large the Universe is, you start to change opinions that perhaps it actually could have been random.
https://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7247/124813590407.jpg

The Universe is a wonderful, limitless, place of amazement, why stop ourselves short? Like Columbus who thought there might have been another way to India, and ended up discovering America instead, perhaps there is a great surprised around the next corner, why sell ourselves short, untill we find it?

Reenk Roink

05-27-2010, 07:27

If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

Well it's already been done on this very forum, a few times before. Notably, this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?73476-Regarding-Atheism-Agnosticism-Humanism-Rational-Skepticism-etc...&). It's fairly long, and it covers a ton of ground, but a lot of what I think you're looking for is there. You get the atheist/agnostic/skeptic position (wikipedia articles galore in the first post), and you also get an attack on atheism and humanism, and a proposed argument for god (standard cosmological argument) which is then defended as sound and attacked in various ways to reject the conclusion. You also get a discussion going on the very notion of rationality a bit and a side track on the logical nature and/or rationality of our common sense beliefs and also of science and inductive knowledge.

I tend to agree with the sentiments that you'd be better off creating a more informal topic (best if it's related to some current event issue) and then let the viewpoints spring. Yes it won't be as organized, and the discussion will meander in different places, but if you really want a debate on a certain argument, it's probably been covered. Also, there are much better places to look, like in books or scholarly articles on philosophy of religion and theology. :yes:

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 07:38

Reenk Roink, thread is 806 posts long, and first post I read was about contemporary art.

I think we can do a better job than that. Thanks for the link though, might be well worth a read. I still claim that that thread is kind of different from what I had in mind though.

miotas

05-27-2010, 16:31

With deists I pretty much meant anyone believing in one supreme being, so Mormons and Catholics would be included. My bad however, would anyone care to teach me what the proper word would be?

Monotheist would be the word you're looking for.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 16:32

Monotheist would be the word you're looking for.

Monotheist it is then! Thanks mate:)

Strike For The South

05-27-2010, 16:39

If you are not a protastent who reads the KJV bible you are going to hell

/thread

Centurion1

05-27-2010, 16:47

I do sometimes.......

I hate the differences in Bibles. Makes me feel like its all political bull and not spiritual at all

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 16:57

I do sometimes.......

I hate the differences in Bibles. Makes me feel like its all political bull and not spiritual at all

Save that for the debate. I would be more than ready to hear you out :)

Beskar

05-27-2010, 18:36

I do sometimes.......

I hate the differences in Bibles. Makes me feel like its all political bull and not spiritual at all

The Bible was never to be taken so literially, it never was. The oldest bible in the world (dates around 6th century) doesn't even have half the stories in the KJV and has stories not even in the KJV. There are also the fact catholic church cherry picked everything to go in the bible, and excluded a lot of the books, especially those who don't recognise Jesus' divinity but that of him being a man.

Kadagar_AV

05-27-2010, 18:45

Sigurd

05-28-2010, 09:34

Logging off now, would wish this thread to be remotely clean when I come back, is that doable?

Sigurd, will PM you :)
Right... you will PM me or I will PM Beskar? I am confused.

And to be perfectly clear. If I am going to debate, I want a set frame with one opponent. I have no time to handle multiple participants attacking my arguments.
One Opponent and a scope of what to debate. All this has to be agreed upon before casting the first st... eh.. argument.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-28-2010, 11:31

The Bible was never to be taken so literially, it never was. The oldest bible in the world (dates around 6th century) doesn't even have half the stories in the KJV and has stories not even in the KJV. There are also the fact catholic church cherry picked everything to go in the bible, and excluded a lot of the books, especially those who don't recognise Jesus' divinity but that of him being a man.

Actually, I'm afraid you are factually incorrect here.

Fun fact: The "Bible" as a coherent and fixed codex is a very modern concept that post-dates the Printing Press, the earliest bible is in fact in Greek, and came from an Orthodox Monastery in the Sinai (I believe that was it, may have been Syria), the date assigned is early 4th Century

the most interesting thing about this codex is that it does contain most of the books in "modern" Bibles and and only a few additional elements, mainly the Shepard of Hermes and a few extra epistles. this is hardly surprising though, as the canon was more of less set by Augustine at the end of the 4th Century, and the Vulgate (on which most modern western Bibles are actually based) was produced by Jerome at only a slightly later date.

Sigurd

05-28-2010, 12:31

I think we should limit this debate to one question. A question which will be answered by the debaters.
Every aspect of religion boils down to the one question: Does God exist?
If this one question is answered by: No, then all other aspects of religion falls crumbling to the ground.
The Bible can't be the word of God, Jesus can't be the Messiah and Christianity are built upon deception and is therefore not true.
Not only that... every other theistic religion falls crumbling to the ground.

This is the very core question that any theism vs atheism debate centers around. If this single question is answered, either theism falls or atheism falls.

Louis VI the Fat

05-28-2010, 13:08

Sigurd

05-28-2010, 13:30

Mwah...I dunno.
Even if somebody could positively prove that God exists, I'd still not be Christian. I'd oust Him from His throne and get a partay going.
Equality is my religion, it is the object of the slave to defeat his master or die trying.
That God exists is not equal to Christianity is true. And how would you oust Him from his throne if it is proven He exists, if He is a he at all? Are you picking up a gauntlet Louis?

Andres

05-28-2010, 13:51

Does God exist?

I've always found that a pointless question.

Religion is a matter of believing or not believing; I don't think "does God exist" is a good subject for a debate.

You believe, you don't believe or you haven't made up your mind yet; all of that subject to change when you grow older and get more experience in life. That's it, nothing more to talk about. It's not something you should debate.

Believing requires faith; it's not something rational (note: I don't use "it's not rational" in a pejorative meaning, but as simply stating a fact), so it doesn't belong in a debate. It's also something very personal, some people find strength in religion, others simply can't be bothered. We're all different and that's just fine.

Louis VI the Fat

05-28-2010, 13:52

how would you oust Him from his throne if it is proven He exists ?That which is real is greater than that which is imagined. No greater feat can be imagined than ousting God from His Throne, therefore the feat must necessarily exist. :book:

That's why Christians can never win. If God does not exists, you've been wrong all along. If He does exist, you'll have to worship me, the atheist that ousted Him.

That God exists is not equal to Christianity is trueWell it would be a serious bummer if it turned out He didn't exist, now wouldn't it? :tongue:

But, if you mean in the sense that a lot of what's worthwhile about Christianity holds up regardless of whether God exists or not, then I would certainly agree.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-28-2010, 14:19

That which is real is greater than that which is imagined. No greater feat can be imagined than ousting God from His Throne, therefore the feat must necessarily exist. :book:

That's why Christians can never win. If God does not exists, you've been wrong all along. If He does exist, you'll have to worship me, the atheist that ousted Him.

Well it would be a serious bummer if it turned out He didn't exist, now wouldn't it? :tongue:

But, if you mean in the sense that a lot of what's worthwhile about Christianity holds up regardless of whether God exists or not, then I would certainly agree.

Well, if God is God, he's not going anywhere, you are. However, I believe Sigurd's point was that proving that God exists does not prove He is the Christian God.

As to whether Christianity has any worth without God: no, I think it does not because the Divine Drama requires a Director, and the Children require a Father.

Andres

05-28-2010, 14:38

As to whether Christianity has any worth without God: no, I think it does not because the Divine Drama requires a Director, and the Children require a Father.

Isn't the idea of equality which Louis worships so fervently a child from the Christian "we're all equal before God"?

So yes, even without God, christianity has its' merits, because that part of your Holy Book offers a first step in the thought process that'll eventually lead to "we're all equal before the law", which is nowadays one of the fundamental principles of our legal systems.

Even if you don't believe in God, some parts of Christianity make sense.

:balloon2:

Sigurd

05-28-2010, 14:45

I've always found that a pointless question.

Alas, this is the very core question in the theist vs. atheist drama.
If both groups were content with belief and letting the other keep their belief, there would be no friction. Yet this thread, among many others like it hidden in the Backroom, testifies that it is not so.

Every debate or discussion across the expanse between the two groups always builds upon the presupposition that God exist (theist) or God don't exist (atheist).

If there should be any debate between representatives from those two groups then it should be dealing with that particular presupposition. All other debates are built on it anyways and will always boil down to it.

Andres

05-28-2010, 14:58

Alas, this is the very core question in the theist vs. atheist drama.
If both groups were content with belief and letting the other keep their belief, there would be no friction. Yet this thread, among many others like it hidden in the Backroom, testifies that it is not so.

Every debate or discussion across the expanse between the two groups always builds upon the presupposition that God exist (theist) or God don't exist (atheist).

If there should be any debate between representatives from those two groups then it should be dealing with that particular presupposition. All other debates are built on it anyways and will always boil down to it.

Yes, I know people keep talking about the "Does God exist" question; that doesn't mean it's not pointless, though :wink:

What's so wrong with live and let live?

Sigurd

05-28-2010, 15:19

Yes, I know people keep talking about the "Does God exist" question; that doesn't mean it's not pointless, though :wink:

What's so wrong with life and let life?
You probably mean live and let live... :beam:
No problem with me as I sit on the fence on this issue anyway. You got to ask Kadgar or any of the other individuals that keep opening these threads.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-28-2010, 15:20

Isn't the idea of equality which Louis worships so fervently a child from the Christian "we're all equal before God"?

So yes, even without God, christianity has its' merits, because that part of your Holy Book offers a first step in the thought process that'll eventually lead to "we're all equal before the law", which is nowadays one of the fundamental principles of our legal systems.

Even if you don't believe in God, some parts of Christianity make sense.

:balloon2:

It doesn't work so well without God though, because people are clearly not in all ways equal on Earth, and the "all equal" element falters without the butressing of belief in God.

Still, different argument.

Reenk Roink

05-28-2010, 15:53

Believing requires faith; it's not something rational

Not necessarily. Assuming the meaning of 'faith' is used here as believing without evidence (also assuming 'rational' is tied up with notions of evidence), I would actually think very few people believe because of faith. There are many personal experiences which constitute the evidence for the believers in god. Of course, these are hard to put forth in any kind of debate except as peripheral considerations, as they are of limited value to others being personally confined.

That is precisely why people have developed these arguments from god, relying on logic (used in the actual formal sense describing deductive form and not abused in the colloquial sense as is done so much) and based off premises from the world around us and common sense notions. This is a more widely accessible set of 'evidence' and so the arguments are purported to be rational. It's pretty telling that many a believer will not believe mainly because of these 'rational' arguments for god, but rather they are purported to show that such a belief is indeed rational.

Again, we got in this discussion in the thread I brought up before, discussing notions of rational belief. This is exactly why the common sense beliefs we hold and scientific beliefs/inductive knowledge were brought up and criticized harshly for not being rational, both based on their failure to adhere to logic and the lack of evidence. It was to show that the skepticism applied to belief in god /religion could just as well be applied to the above-mentioned, perhaps harsher, as the latter also were shown to not conform with simple logical form and rules.

Beskar

05-28-2010, 18:43

There is also another question.
Let's say a being created the Universe, why should we worship it and go to Mass every Sunday?

Would it even know or care if we did or not? How would we even know?

Louis VI the Fat

05-28-2010, 19:43

Well, if God is God, he's not going anywhere, you are. I wouldn't bet on it...

After all, why should I rule out becoming God as a career option if it has been managed before by a Palestinian carpenter*? A man's got to have ambition. :balloon2:

The others can stay as far as I'm concerned. We'll just have to teach Catholic children that four is one rather than three is one.

*yes he wasn't a humble carpenter but what we'd call an architect / foreman. A studied man. But that ruins the punchline.

Centurion1

05-28-2010, 19:51

are you gods son. because there is that little bit. if there is in fact a god and christians are in fact correct than jesus was in fact the son of god. and if he was the son of god he did not really choose it as a career no more than a prince decides to be king (barring asassination :tongue:) deus rex.

Beskar

05-28-2010, 20:20

God hates democracy, he is a totalitarian dictator at worst, Feudal Monarch at best.

gaelic cowboy

05-28-2010, 20:34

I now totally believe in God this revelation has come to me in order that he will not end the world before I get to see TopGearLive in Dublin next September. Thank you oh Cthulu

Rhyfelwyr

05-28-2010, 20:58

God hates democracy, he is a totalitarian dictator at worst, Feudal Monarch at best.

Indeed, there are many similarities between Christianity and Marxism. The belief that human history is determined by forces which the individual cannot control, the collectivist ethos, the struggle of the afflicted in a world which will only persecute them, and the apocalyptic battle at the end of it which results in the new heaven and earth/workers paradise.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-28-2010, 23:09

God hates democracy, he is a totalitarian dictator at worst, Feudal Monarch at best.

God doesn't hate democracy, he simply has no use for it with relation to himself. You don't run a househol using democracy, do you? Imagine if every parent said: "So, children, should you go to bed now?" or "Shall we decide that running in the road is a bad idea?"

Indeed, there are many similarities between Christianity and Marxism. The belief that human history is determined by forces which the individual cannot control, the collectivist ethos, the struggle of the afflicted in a world which will only persecute them, and the apocalyptic battle at the end of it which results in the new heaven and earth/workers paradise.

This is true, but Marxism is distinct in having A: always failed completely and B: being focused on this world, which never changes.

Rhyfelwyr

05-28-2010, 23:53

This is true, but Marxism is distinct in having A: always failed completely and B: being focused on this world, which never changes.

Another similarity is the pick-and-choose Marxists we see these days, very much like the pick-and-choose Christians they criticise so much. For example, modern Marxists completely ignore Marx's call to either genocide or assimilate potentially anti-revolutionary minorities. Just like with liberal pick-and-choose Christianity, we know have the liberal left, picking bits of Marxism and trying to piece them together with the democracy of the bourgeoisie.

At least I could respect the devotion of the old-style socialists.

rotorgun

06-02-2010, 05:22

I'm confused. Are we having a debate on whether we are going to have a debate, or are we debating already what we think we are debating? Here is something to consider:

# Verse 18. ”For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”

# Verse 19. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."

# Verse 20. “…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:”

# Verse 21. “Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and

Verse 22. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”-Romans, Chapter 2

PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

Beskar

06-02-2010, 05:55

God doesn't hate democracy, he simply has no use for it with relation to himself. You don't run a househol using democracy, do you? Imagine if every parent said: "So, children, should you go to bed now?" or "Shall we decide that running in the road is a bad idea?

In the House-hold, the parents make the decisions as legal guardians, also as such, the parents relationship is democratic and the children consult with their parents.

Obviously, this is describing one of those "perfect household" situations.

It was mainly a provocative statement for debate. One of the questions i always have, lets say the Christian God was real, why should you worship him? In many ways, he is like a Slave Master. He punishes those who defy him, he rewards his good servants, and wants to be worshipped. It is a rather dominating egotistical relationship. I don't intend to Godwin, but it is very similar to a Cult of Personality. Loyal supporters get rewarded, those who are not loyal end up on the short-end. I believe it even goes into if you live a veyr good life, you still end up going to hell for not worshipping him.

Then there are those institutions mainly in the catholic faith just like the Pope, which ranks people in a heirarchical structure, compared to Methodist concept of a personal God, where anyone can pray to him.

Sigurd

06-02-2010, 07:47

I'm confused. Are we having a debate on whether we are going to have a debate, or are we debating already what we think we are debating? Here is something to consider:

-Romans, Chapter 2

PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

You can't use the Bible as proof for the existence of God, thereby showing that atheism is false.
Calling the Bible the word of God presupposes the very thing you are trying to prove and it becomes circular reasoning. It begs the question. You need to first prove that God exist before showing how this God inspired the writers of this book.

In short - you can't use Bible quotes in this debate.

Kadagar_AV

06-02-2010, 09:43

Am on vacation...

When I come back (sunday or so) I will PM Sigurd and we will set the time and rules for the debate properly.

Thus no need to further discuss much in this thread...

Can still be open though, if anyone have things to add. Please do not turn it into a religious discussion quite yet though.

Oh, and I do find biblical quotes as a line of reasoning for proving Gods existance as refreshing. I hope the debate will bring more to the table however :)

Cute Wolf

06-02-2010, 09:52

this is interesting.... I'll keep up with that...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-02-2010, 12:02

In the House-hold, the parents make the decisions as legal guardians, also as such, the parents relationship is democratic and the children consult with their parents.

Obviously, this is describing one of those "perfect household" situations.

Well God is either a single parent, or three parents who always agree, or both; so there is no democratic consultation to take place. As regards the child/parent relationship: God is alway right and his children should always be obedient because of that. Even so, when his children are disobedient God will forgive if they will only admit to being wrong and ask for forgiveness.

It was mainly a provocative statement for debate. One of the questions i always have, lets say the Christian God was real, why should you worship him? In many ways, he is like a Slave Master. He punishes those who defy him, he rewards his good servants, and wants to be worshipped.

God is both infallable and impartial, as well as being just. He is a King, not a Slave Master. A Slave Master has his Slaves sacrifice for his benefit, God sacrifices Himself for his children/subjects.

As to why you should worship him: Counter question, why should you not? He is creator and ruler of the Universe.

It is a rather dominating egotistical relationship. I don't intend to Godwin, but it is very similar to a Cult of Personality. Loyal supporters get rewarded, those who are not loyal end up on the short-end. I believe it even goes into if you live a veyr good life, you still end up going to hell for not worshipping him.

You assmue a human viewpoint. Certainly, Personality Cults like Stalin's resemble religions, but the difference is sustantive because it is in the motivation and operation of the system. As I said, God is all powerful, infallable, and completely just. Your concept of "living a good life" does not include God, and therefore does not include His ordinances. So you apply your own standard of "good" instead of God's. Ergo, you might reach your own standard and consider tourself good, but you fall far short of God's (as does everyone).

the difference between you and a Christian would then be the recognition of the shortfall.

Additionally, you are rather fixated on the idea of hell as a "punishment". Hell, all window dressing aside, is the complete absense of God; something which no human beng suffers while alive. When you die you can go to be with God, or not, and the choice is your own.

what's to complain about, honestly?

Then there are those institutions mainly in the catholic faith just like the Pope, which ranks people in a heirarchical structure, compared to Methodist concept of a personal God, where anyone can pray to him.

Do you mean "catholic" or "Roman Catholic"?

Beskar

06-02-2010, 12:21

As to why you should worship him: Counter question, why should you not? He is creator and ruler of the Universe.

You are responding with a negative, which is argumentively illogical. The default state is the negative, ie: not worshipping, there is no God, there is nothing, etc. The null hypothesis. You need to actually give a reason to actually counter-it, thus, you cannot counter-claim as you have not defined any variables as to do it. In short, you have provided no alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis. :tongue:

I could always go "I am not a slave, there is no one above me". Even then, lets say a boss of a company, where they are in one social-system ranked higher, you don't worship them. Even in other examples such as family, you don't worship your parents, build temples, burn incense, etc. Also, worshipping is an illogical notion in itself, even if some one is more powerful than you, it doesn't automatically give them rights.

"He is creator and ruler of the Universe" - Where is his mandate as a ruler, What gives him that right? Isn't he simply a tyrant just because he has power behind him? As a creator, does that give you defacto rights of ownership? If you worked in a biscuit factory, do you have rights to all the biscuits you produced, why would it make him some sort of owner? etc etc etc could go on for ages.

Do you mean "catholic" or "Roman Catholic"?

They are the same thing. The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church), Also remember when they changed my high school name from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in-line with it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-02-2010, 13:37

You are responding with a negative, which is argumentively illogical. The default state is the negative, ie: not worshipping, there is no God, there is nothing, etc. The null hypothesis. You need to actually give a reason to actually counter-it, thus, you cannot counter-claim as you have not defined any variables as to do it. In short, you have provided no alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis. :tongue:

The Christian perspective is that belief in God is the default position, while the majority of people across the planet do believe in God. First it was said, "there is a God" and then someone said, "no there isn't". So what you are doing is defining the positive/negative relationship to your advantage, not proving anything.

I could always go "I am not a slave, there is no one above me".

Of course you can, but stating it doesn't make it true.

Even then, lets say a boss of a company, where they are in one social-system ranked higher, you don't worship them. Even in other examples such as family, you don't worship your parents, build temples, burn incense, etc. Also, worshipping is an illogical notion in itself, even if some one is more powerful than you, it doesn't automatically give them rights.

Worshipping is illogical when it is directed at people; because of their nature. God's nature is different, so the comparison is not apt.

"He is creator and ruler of the Universe" - Where is his mandate as a ruler, What gives him that right? Isn't he simply a tyrant just because he has power behind him? As a creator, does that give you defacto rights of ownership? If you worked in a biscuit factory, do you have rights to all the biscuits you produced, why would it make him some sort of owner? etc etc etc could go on for ages.

Parents rule over their children, Kings rule over their subjects.

They are the same thing. The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church), Also remember when they changed my high school name from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in-line with it.

There is a dissambiguation section in the article you linked, you should read it.

Beskar

06-02-2010, 13:45

The Christian perspective is that belief in God is the default position, while the majority of people across the planet do believe in God. First it was said, "there is a God" and then someone said, "no there isn't". So what you are doing is defining the positive/negative relationship to your advantage, not proving anything.

It is not "advantage", it is logic. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing/no change. Then you have to supply an alternative with evidence.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-02-2010, 13:51

It is not "advantage", it is logic. The null hypothesis is that there is nothing/no change. Then you have to supply an alternative with evidence.

Quite, and "no change" in this case can be defined as either "belief in God" or "lack of belief in God", given that belief is the traditional default I have the right to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate He does not exist. Only when atheists form the majority of the population can you justifiably claim that the atheist position is the null.

Beskar

06-02-2010, 14:02

Quite, and "no change" in this case can be defined as either "belief in God" or "lack of belief in God", given that belief is the traditional default I have the right to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate He does not exist. Only when atheists form the majority of the population can you justifiably claim that the atheist position is the null.

No, that is simply illogical. You are purposefully trying to twist logic in a horribly mutant deformed creature which should be shot on sight. The default is "nothing", zip, zing, zitch. No matter how "popular" or "old" or "traditional", "religious/atheist" it is. Nothing is simply that. It doesn't change because you want it too. The default value is constant at "nothing".

As such, the value is "there no such things as apples" untill I go to Tesco and go "here is an apple". The null is always that, unless there is a case for proven alternative hypothesis. The default isn't "there is an apple".

Sigurd

06-02-2010, 14:08

Quite, and "no change" in this case can be defined as either "belief in God" or "lack of belief in God", given that belief is the *traditional default I have the right to suggest that the onus is on you to demonstrate He does not exist. **Only when atheists form the majority of the population can you justifiably claim that the atheist position is the null.
*Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
**Argumentum ad Populum

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-02-2010, 15:17

No, that is simply illogical. You are purposefully trying to twist logic in a horribly mutant deformed creature which should be shot on sight. The default is "nothing", zip, zing, zitch. No matter how "popular" or "old" or "traditional", "religious/atheist" it is. Nothing is simply that. It doesn't change because you want it too. The default value is constant at "nothing".

As such, the value is "there no such things as apples" untill I go to Tesco and go "here is an apple". The null is always that, unless there is a case for proven alternative hypothesis. The default isn't "there is an apple".

Unless I'm right, and the natural position is belief. That's like saying "the sky doesn't exist" when standing under it. We percieve that the sky exists, all evidence points in that direction, so the onus is on the doubter.

*Argumentum ad Antiquitatem
**Argumentum ad Populum

Does that make me wrong, necessarily? I didn't say that God exists, merely that the onus is on the doubter.

Beskar

06-02-2010, 15:49

Does that make me wrong, necessarily? I didn't say that God exists, merely that the onus is on the doubter.

No it isn't, the Burden of Prove is for the person claiming something other than the null hypothesis. This is used logically both in Law and in Science. For example, in a liable case, the newspaper has to provide the evidence saying it is true, not for the victim to attempt to disprove. As such in my example above, the null hypothesis is that there is no apple, but you can easily supply the evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What you are doing is instead of simply admitting you have zero evidence, is trying to claw yourself out, and in the process, trying to appeal to the audience you are "in the right", when you are incorrect as a defense mechanism. I would give you more crediability if you simply admitted to the faults on your side, then simply attempt to deny and twist everything.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-02-2010, 16:07

No it isn't, the Burden of Prove is for the person claiming something other than the null hypothesis. This is used logically both in Law and in Science. For example, in a liable case, the newspaper has to provide the evidence saying it is true, not for the victim to attempt to disprove. As such in my example above, the null hypothesis is that there is no apple, but you can easily supply the evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What you are doing is instead of simply admitting you have zero evidence, is trying to claw yourself out, and in the process, trying to appeal to the audience you are "in the right", when you are incorrect as a defense mechanism. I would give you more crediability if you simply admitted to the faults on your side, then simply attempt to deny and twist everything.

I'm a historian, I use a negativistic paradigm. Namely, a hypophesis can be accepted so long as it fits the available evidence and cannot be disproved. That is a perfectly respectable way of working.

Sigurd

06-02-2010, 18:36

No it isn't, the Burden of Prove is for the person claiming something other than the null hypothesis. This is used logically both in Law and in Science. For example, in a liable case, the newspaper has to provide the evidence saying it is true, not for the victim to attempt to disprove. As such in my example above, the null hypothesis is that there is no apple, but you can easily supply the evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

What you are doing is instead of simply admitting you have zero evidence, is trying to claw yourself out, and in the process, trying to appeal to the audience you are "in the right", when you are incorrect as a defense mechanism. I would give you more credibility if you simply admitted to the faults on your side, then simply attempt to deny and twist everything.

Using null hypothesis in the question of God.

Null Hypothesis = There is no God
Alternative Hypothesis = There is a God

If either is untestable or unfalsifiable, the hypothesis is useless.
Given that the probability p value of finding observable data on either hypothesis is non existent, we have to conclude that this hypothesis can't be used.

God is metaphysical and hence removed from the scientific realm.
= Rejection of the null hypothesis.

Reenk Roink

06-02-2010, 20:01

First of all the burden of proof is not something set in stone for one side and not for the other. If someone is claiming/arguing that god exists to another person (who does not believe god exists), then the burden of proof is on the claimant. Similarly, if someone is claiming/arguing that god does not exist to another person (who does not believe that god does not exist), then the burden of proof is on the claimant.

To anticipate Russell's teapot being brought up, don't bother, Russell was wrong.

You can't use the Bible as proof for the existence of God, thereby showing that atheism is false.
Calling the Bible the word of God presupposes the very thing you are trying to prove and it becomes circular reasoning. It begs the question. You need to first prove that God exist before showing how this God inspired the writers of this book.

In short - you can't use Bible quotes in this debate.

You have completely missed rotorgun's point here Sigurd. You are simply incorrect in your assertion that "you cannot use the Bible as proof for the existence of God." The Bible, like other religious texts, is not only directed towards believers, but non believers as well. It speaks to the faithful for various reasons, but it also speaks to the heathen, to try and persuade and warn him among other things.

You then proceed to support this wrong assertion of yours by setting up an argument that rotorgun never used. The passage he quotes is not guilty of any such thing. It is not pointing to the divine origin of the Bible to prove the existence of the divine.

Sasaki Kojiro

06-02-2010, 20:07

I
PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.

What do you mean by "humble in my beliefs"? Are you saying that your beliefs could easily be false, or that you don't push them on other people?

Beskar

06-02-2010, 20:41

God is metaphysical and hence removed from the scientific realm.
= Rejection of the null hypothesis.

= Rejection of "God" in any rational debate.

If you cannot define "God" in any way other than an unfalsifiable definition, then don't bother debating it, since you automatically lose.

Blunt, but true.

Sigurd

06-02-2010, 22:21

You have completely missed rotorgun's point here Sigurd. You are simply incorrect in your assertion that "you cannot use the Bible as proof for the existence of God." The Bible, like other religious texts, is not only directed towards believers, but non believers as well. It speaks to the faithful for various reasons, but it also speaks to the heathen, to try and persuade and warn him among other things.

You then proceed to support this wrong assertion of yours by setting up an argument that rotorgun never used. The passage he quotes is not guilty of any such thing. It is not pointing to the divine origin of the Bible to prove the existence of the divine.

I don't think I have.
Did he not write this?:

# Verse 18. ”For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”

# Verse 19. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."

# Verse 20. “…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

# Verse 21. “Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and

Verse 22. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” -Romans, Chapter 2

PS: I am no radical Christian, but I am devout, and humble in my beliefs. I judge no man, but let him to look into the mirror of his own soul. These are some fairly convincing arguments, set forth in a very legal style, arguing against atheism.I see a lot of God said this and God said that as an argument against atheism. Which is argument against the belief that there is not a God. Which is arguments for an existing God. Which is circular reasoning.
He is using the supposedly word of God to argue the existence of a God (which is what arguing against atheism is) which is begging the question.
It is a fallacy and therefore not submittable in a debate about theism vs. atheism.

= Rejection of "God" in any rational debate.

If you cannot define "God" in any way other than an unfalsifiable definition, then don't bother debating it, since you automatically lose.

Blunt, but true.
I am just saying that you can't use the null hypothesis on the question of there being a God or not. It is a statistical tool used in other areas than a philosophical question.
I believe there are other logical reasonings more applicable. One particular of which I am prepared to argue in a formal debate.
I am not going to reveal it here, so don't ask. :beam:

Louis VI the Fat

06-02-2010, 22:54

I am not going to reveal it here, so don't ask. :beam:My money's firmly on a modern version of Aquinas' first mover argument. More precisely, a modern variant of the Kalam cosmological argument.

:coffeenews:

Reenk Roink

06-02-2010, 23:10

I don't think I have.
Did he not write this?:
I see a lot of God said this and God said that as an argument against atheism. Which is argument against the belief that there is not a God. Which is arguments for an existing God. Which is circular reasoning.
He is using the supposedly word of God to argue the existence of a God (which is what arguing against atheism is) which is begging the question.
It is a fallacy and therefore not submittable in a debate about theism vs. atheism.

That is the oddest interpretation of that passage and subsequent reasoning I have seen and I once skimmed through the tripe of the Skeptics Annotated Bible! :inquisitive:

Sigurd, if get you right, are you saying that since that passage says "God says" and mentions God in other ways, that it is somehow trying to infer the ontological reality of God? Are you saying that is how rotorgun is using it? Because that is the ONLY way it could be considered begging the question (and it would indeed be an incredibly subtle form of begging the question as well).

That's not at all what I saw rotorgun trying to do.

Which is argument against the belief that there is not a God. Which is arguments for an existing God.

Somewhat tangential to our discussion but, no, arguments against the belief that there is not a god do not necessarily constitute arguments for the existence of a god. I could argue that there is no proof against the existence of god. This argues against the belief that there is not a god. It does not make any positive argument for a god.

Which is circular reasoning. He is using the supposedly word of God to argue the existence of a God

No, as I've mentioned before, the ONLY way in which invoking the Bible in an argument (aside from an argument contained in the Bible that is itself circular) could be if it followed this pattern: God exists because the Bible said so and the Bible is true because it is the "word of God"/divinely inspired/what have you.

In other words, a reference to the Bible's mention of God and subsequent inference of his ontological reality from it which is then BACKED UP BY the authoritative nature of the Bible with this authority stemming from the God that the Bible asserted could be considered circular.

Say we tweak the argument and make it: God exists because the Bible said so and the Bible is true because of the Bible Code which demonstrates the mathematical perfection underpinning it. That escapes any charge of circular reasoning.

That is pretty obviously not what rotorgun is doing. At least I think so from the most reasonable interpretation of his post. We can let rotorgun tell us himself what he had in mind to settle the matter.

If someone however went through the Bible and found some argument which he then presented to us, it is perfectly OK.

P.S: Begging the question should not be considered a fallacy. It obviously isn't a formal fallacy of logic (the argument form A therefore A is deductively valid) and it's only considered an 'informal fallacy' (which is a meaningless designation because fallacy is so broadly defined in the informal sense and then purported to have the same status as an actual 'fallacy' in the formal sense) because Aristotle used to play a crappy game that we don't play now and thought it would be good to have a certain rule, which he then tried to add to the rules of reasoning and discussion and many since him have sadly accepted uncritically.

At the very best it can either be classified as a non-argument (not a fallacy) or be classified along with strawmen argument as things not to do in discussions because then it can be said that the discussion doesn't work as well when it happens (though I'd say a strawman is a big no-no whereas begging the question is nowhere near that level in a discussion... :shrug:).

My money's firmly on a modern version of Aquinas' first mover argument. More precisely, a modern variant of the Kalam cosmological argument.

The Kalam type arguments are quite different from the prime mover arguments that Aquinas referenced. The latter were drawn from the influence of Aristotle (and earlier), where as the Kalam type argument can be seen as a reaction to those arguments, to uphold the creation from nothing and creation of the universe so dear to the orthodox creed of Islam.