The Debate Hall Social Thread

[AltF4]

I sense us falling into a semantic hole from which no amount of definitions will help us climb out. Are you trying to make the distinction, Del, that one can have a belief in a god without the structure and community of an organized religion? Would you say, then, it's the structure that defines a religion as opposed to a mere belief?

And Dre, that's correct. I meant to talk about theology / religion / god / what term you please.

 

[Deleted member]

Hmm..? I've probably heard them all, and if not, then it's a derivative of something I've heard or faced.

 

[Dre89]

I sense us falling into a semantic hole from which no amount of definitions will help us climb out. Are you trying to make the distinction, Del, that one can have a belief in a god without the structure and community of an organized religion? Would you say, then, it's the structure that defines a religion as opposed to a mere belief?

Plenty of people have belief in God without religion, myself being one of them.

And Dre, that's correct. I meant to talk about theology / religion / god / what term you please.

Your muslim example showed a commitment to theology, not philosophy.

What I'm saying is that there is far greater justification for belief in God through philosophy than there is through theology. Theology isn't there to prove that God exists, or to convince you of the faith, it is there to teach of the faith once you've accepted it.

Del I find it interesting (and surprising) that you say that there is no academic requirement for a God debate, which God arguments have you read that lead you to this conclusion?

 

[Sieguest]

I sense us falling into a semantic hole from which no amount of definitions will help us climb out. Are you trying to make the distinction, Del, that one can have a belief in a god without the structure and community of an organized religion? Would you say, then, it's the structure that defines a religion as opposed to a mere belief?

I would say it's the structure that defines a religion. There are plenty of religions that believe in a God. Yet they all have a different approach to it.

The biggest example I'd say is Christianity: With Catholics, Baptists etc. All have the same central belief in the Christian God, yet they have different practices.

 

[Dre89]

Perhaps what defines a religion is that it believes in divine revelation, and that it formulates a theology on this basis.

Obviously the nature of those theologies would differ greatly between religions, partcularly between the world and indigenous religions.

Does anyone agree with Del that no academic knowledge is required for God debates? I definitely disagree. If anyone agrees with Del, I'd be curious to know the God arguments they've read which lead them to this conclusion.

 

[rvkevin]

Del I find it interesting (and surprising) that you say that there is no academic requirement for a God debate, which God arguments have you read that lead you to this conclusion?

I tend to agree with him. I have no philosophical or theological background, either in an academic setting (other than Phil101) or having read a single book on the subject, yet know of most of the common arguments and their flaws just from perusing the web. While it may be helpful to have read some of the leading philosophers, it is far from necessary. You might get a curve ball once in awhile from not reading every source, but if you're scientifically literate, then it shouldn't be too hard to figure out (and if you can't figure it out, that's what Google is for.).

 

[Dre89]

But science has nothing to do with the God debate. Science can only refute religions that claim that the world is X when Y science shows it is in fact Y. Science has no authority in meaphysics, for metaphysics is essentially that which came before the natural world, the natural world being what science is limited to.

The internet isn't considered an academically viable avenue, at my uni (Notre Dame) I'd fail an essay if the majority of my sources were from the web.

I did PH101 at my uni too, and it doesn't begin to paint the picture of the God debate.

Could you explain the ontological argument to me then? I still to this day haven't been able to understand it.

 

[Deleted member]

I sense us falling into a semantic hole from which no amount of definitions will help us climb out. Are you trying to make the distinction, Del, that one can have a belief in a god without the structure and community of an organized religion? Would you say, then, it's the structure that defines a religion as opposed to a mere belief?

Yeah, I've said this for a while now. I believe there's a God. But would I classify myself as religious? Heck no. I don't follow any sort of religious behaviour; I just simply think there is one. There's a difference.

The reason I separate God debates and religious debates is that oftentimes religious debates devolve into inane discussions on debunking Christianity or Islam or criticizing something silly about a religion.

Yet even things like "the problem of Evil" is not a God problem, it's a religion problem. It's only religion that says God is omnipotent; that's exclusive to religion and therefore should be left at the door when it comes to proper discussions on God.

I dunno. Proper God discussions don't really go much further than "hey, what's up, you believe? Yeah? No? Well, okay, let's move on then".

That's why you don't need any academic background. I don't care if you don't understand the ontological argument (it's circular, by the way) because it's not proven, nor is it factually based. So it's just one egg in a basket to choose from. It's silly getting worked up over this.

(Ontological philosophies believe that if we can realize the concept of a perfect being, then it therefore must exist. Otherwise it is not perfect. This is again a religion problem, because I don't purport nor do I suggest that God is perfect)

 

[Dre89]

Yet even things like "the problem of Evil" is not a God problem, it's a religion problem. It's only religion that says God is omnipotent; that's exclusive to religion and therefore should be left at the door when it comes to proper discussions on God.

I think I am alone in thinking that this is a massive misconception. I think it's impossible for God to exist without having the omni attributes, but that's another debate.

I dunno. Proper God discussions don't really go much further than "hey, what's up, you believe? Yeah? No? Well, okay, let's move on then".

That's why you don't need any academic background. I don't care if you don't understand the ontological argument (it's circular, by the way) because it's not proven, nor is it factually based. So it's just one egg in a basket to choose from. It's silly getting worked up over this.

Empirical equals worthwhile, but worthwhile does not equal empirical.

Do you consider it fact that science has the potential to deduce truths about the natural world? This truth is not evidenced through experience. Science is only accepted as meritous because of the philosophy that it deduces truth.

The application of science produces conclusions, not truths, but it is through a philosophical lens that we assume that those conclusions equate to reality.

That's why I feel the God debate is worthwhile, because logic can still deduce truth outside of empricism. And as I've shown before, you must apply logic outside of empiricism to conclude that empiricism actually deduces truths.

I also feel the God debate is worthwhile because it has practical implications. Empirical truths are not the only things that have practical implications. Take morality for example. In modern society, morality has been reduced to merely not harming others against their own will, and virtually anything which does not violate this code is permissable.

Now that belief is not based on a factual, empirical truth, yet most people still act upon it as if it were a definitive truth. So I feel the God debate is necessary because it is yet another non-empirical truth/belief that should be acted upon.

 

[Deleted member]

I think I am alone in thinking that this is a massive misconception. I think it's impossible for God to exist without having the omni attributes, but that's another debate.

No it's not, it's just another opinion. We won't get anywhere in this "other debate" because you have no reason to believe God is perfect, and I have no reason to believe he isn't perfect. I still think I'm in the clear, however, because I'm not giving God any attributes. You are. Why?

Empirical equals worthwhile, but worthwhile does not equal empirical.

I have no idea what you're talking about, sadly.

Do you consider it fact that science has the potential to deduce truths about the natural world? This truth is not evidenced through experience. Science is only accepted as meritous because of the philosophy that it deduces truth.

The application of science produces conclusions, not truths, but it is through a philosophical lens that we assume that those conclusions equate to reality.

*sigh* yes science probably does hold the answers. They aren't here yet. Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.

That's why I feel the God debate is worthwhile, because logic can still deduce truth outside of empricism. And as I've shown before, you must apply logic outside of empiricism to conclude that empiricism actually deduces truths.

I also feel the God debate is worthwhile because it has practical implications. Empirical truths are not the only things that have practical implications. Take morality for example. In modern society, morality has been reduced to merely not harming others against their own will, and virtually anything which does not violate this code is permissable.

Now that belief is not based on a factual, empirical truth, yet most people still act upon it as if it were a definitive truth. So I feel the God debate is necessary because it is yet another non-empirical truth/belief that should be acted upon.

There is zero logic surrounding the God debate...the only thing I can think of are statements that are "less illogical", because every opinion regarding God's existence is illogical unless you're agnostic. (this will incite some moron "atheists"*** but whatever)


Edit: I'm just gonna repeat this so no one will confuse me

Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.

***you're probably agnostic. Don't bite my head off, please...

 

[Dre89]

No it's not, it's just another opinion. We won't get anywhere in this "other debate" because you have no reason to believe God is perfect, and I have no reason to believe he isn't perfect. I still think I'm in the clear, however, because I'm not giving God any attributes. You are. Why?

Long story short, out of necessity. I have reason to believe it is impossible for it to be any other way. That's pretty much why I believe in God in the first place, because I have reason to believe that atheism is impossible.

I have no idea what you're talking about, sadly.

Empirical is worthwhile, but there are worthwhile avenues that are not empirical.

*sigh* yes science probably does hold the answers. They aren't here yet. Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.

I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying that the only reason why we believe it is right is because of the philosophy that scientific methodology is meritious.

There is zero logic surrounding the God debate...the only thing I can think of are statements that are "less illogical", because every opinion regarding God's existence is illogical unless you're agnostic. (this will incite some moron "atheists"*** but whatever)



Edit: I'm just gonna repeat this so no one will confuse me

Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.
Your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.

***you're probably agnostic. Don't bite my head off, please...

If you're accepting of science but critical of philosophy then you're setting a massive double-standard.

The nucelus of both practices is logic. Saying philosophy is pointless because is just opinions is saying that there is no such thing as logic, that one thing cannot be more logical than another.

The problem is science is just opinions too then. Yes it provides conclusions, but it is just our opinion that it equates to the truth.

Take for example the scientific proof that the world is round, and what Alt mentioned about the muslisms, that some of them believe the world is flat because it is briefly hinted at in the Quaran. Why do you believe the scientific take? Because it is more logical. You're accepting that logic can be objectively measured, and that it deduces truth.

Philosophy is no different, it is the use of logic to deduce truth.

If you're going to say philosophy is worthless because it is just opinions, then you have to say the same about science, in fact science was actually invented by a philosopher, but of course then that means it's worthless, because it's all just opinion, without any objective way to measure its merit.

Ironically, you have used a philosophical argument to bash philosophy.

 

[rvkevin]

But science has nothing to do with the God debate. Science can only refute religions that claim that the world is X when Y science shows it is fact Y. Science has no authority in metaphysics, for metaphysics is essentially that which came before the natural world, the natural world being what science is limited to.

How do you determine if a premise is true? Scientific literacy is not only about knowing facts, I used it in a similar way Neil Tyson uses the term, as a method of understanding the world, a method of thinking. Consider it similar to Shermer's "Baloney Detector," when you hear an obtuse claim (such as if you can imagine a certain being, then it exists in reality), the detector goes off and your understanding of reality informs your decision. Maybe scientifically literate wasn't the right phrasing, but I thought it was nicer than my first instinct of saying "anyone with a functional brain should be able to figure it out".

The internet isn't considered an academically viable avenue, at my uni (Notre Dame) I'd fail an essay if the majority of my sources are from the web.

Depends on the sources and what your using them for. As for getting an experts view on the topic, what's the difference between reading someone's papers on paper or on a screen? How about their debate posted on youtube? The internet does not solely consist of Wikipedia, there are some good sources. And if your just using the information for inspiration, where it comes from is indifferent, unless you are unable to filter out bad ideas and recognize good ones.

Could you explain the ontological argument to me then? I still to this day haven't been able to understand it.

You don't need to understand an argument to defeat it. You don't even need to read an entire argument to show it is unsuccessful. By the way, here's a fun video of the ontological argument (Onto-illogical) by someone who dropped out of high school.

 

[Sieguest]

Empirical equals worthwhile, but worthwhile does not equal empirical.

Do you consider it fact that science has the potential to deduce truths about the natural world? This truth is not evidenced through experience. Science is only accepted as meritous because of the philosophy that it deduces truth.

The application of science produces conclusions, not truths, but it is through a philosophical lens that we assume that those conclusions equate to reality.

That's why I feel the God debate is worthwhile, because logic can still deduce truth outside of empricism. And as I've shown before, you must apply logic outside of empiricism to conclude that empiricism actually deduces truths.

I was following until the last section.

There is nothing to evidence directly to God's existence. What can logic definitively prove about God? Unlike in Science, observations and tests, things that can be evidenced provide those logical conclusions. We have mere speculation and religious texts on God

 

[Dre89]

I was following until the last section.

There is nothing to evidence directly to God's existence. What can logic definitively prove about God? Unlike in Science, observations and tests, things that can be evidenced provide those logical conclusions. We have mere speculation and religious texts on God

As I've said before, observations and tests provide conclusions. It is our logic that makes us assume that they equate to reality.

It's circular to assume that only empirical evidence is definitive, for what is the evidence that empirical evidence is definitive? Whatever it is, it certainly isn't empirical, otherwise that would be circular.

The above paragraph shows that we can conclude definitive truths (or at least we assume we have) without empirical evidence.

The best God arguments are from necessity, not complexity. This is what separates polytheism from monotheism. Monotheism is actually philosophically plausible, and provides no unnecessary complexities, whereas polytheism does.

For example, what I consider evidence of God is the nature of the universe itself. It's like looking at a painting; the nature of the object suggests it was created by a painter, you don't need empirical evidence to conclude this. I'm obviously summing it up really quickly though.

 

[Sieguest]

As I've said before, observations and tests provide conclusions. It is our logic that makes us assume that they equate to reality.

Okay.

It's circular to assume that only empirical evidence is definitive, for what is the evidence that empirical evidence is definitive? Whatever it is, it certainly isn't empirical, otherwise that would be circular.

The above paragraph shows that we can conclude definitive truths (or at least we assume we have) without empirical evidence.

Wouldn't the evidence for empirical evidence be the fact that the evidence was derived with the five senses?

The best God arguments are from necessity, not complexity. This is what separates polytheism from monotheism. Monotheism is actually philosophically plausible, and provides no unnecessary complexities, whereas polytheism does.

For example, what I consider evidence of God is the nature of the universe itself. It's like looking at a painting; the nature of the object suggests it was created by a painter, you don't need empirical evidence to conclude this. I'm obviously summing it up really quickly though.

What about the nature of universe makes it evident that God created it? I'm not sure whether I'm being narrow or over simplifying it, but isn't it really just Planets, Stars, Galaxies and etc.

If you bring up the idea that Earth just happened to be ideal for life out of all the other planets. That's remaining within our solar system. What's to say there's not another ideal planet that happens to in another system much further away?

Now I believe there is a God, but I don't see how there's a way to actually prove it.

 

[Dre89]

Okay.


Wouldn't the evidence for empirical evidence be the fact that the evidence was derived with the five senses?

But then there is also the question of whether the senses can deduce truth. There is a whole field of philosophy called epistemology which is the study of knowledge.

There are multiple assumptions in science, but they appear natural to make, so we are justified in making them.

What about the nature of universe makes it evident that God created it? I'm not sure whether I'm being narrow or over simplifying it, but isn't it really just Planets, Stars, Galaxies and etc.

If you bring up the idea that Earth just happened to be ideal for life out of all the other planets. That's remaining within our solar system. What's to say there's not another ideal planet that happens to in another system much further away?

Now I believe there is a God, but I don't see how there's a way to actually prove it.

Long story short, it's that the universe, and everything within it is finite, and requires something beyond the restraints of the limitations of being a natural entity to have created it.

All of my reasoning is explained in an old thread I made.

 

[AltF4]

Long story short, it's that the universe, and everything within it is finite, and requires something beyond the restraints of the limitations of being a natural entity to have created it.

All of my reasoning is explained in an old thread I made.

Just really quick: This is what I was talking about when I said that religious talks wind up devolving into discussions on theoretical physics.

We know nothing about the universe being finite. In fact, there are many plausible theories which state that it is not. (The many worlds interpretation of QM) We don't know yet.

Where is this other thread you speak of?


But what I really wanted to respond to was this assertion that philosophy and science are essentially the same and on the same standing. I disagree. Science does not have logic at its heart, it has empiricism at its heart.

The concept of taking your theories and putting them to the test in the real world is what science is about. Not mere applications of logic. If you produce results which are not falsifiable by experimentation, then you are not doing science.

Science is not just merely a more useful branch of philosophy. Their methodologies are fundamentally different.

 

[Deleted member]

Dre., I still have no idea what you're talking about. What I did manage to comprehend, though, I did not like in the slightest. You're putting words in my mouth by somehow garbling what I'm saying and elaborating it on a ridiculous tangent that makes zero sense to me. Maybe it's your wording.

"Philosophy is no different, it is the use of logic to deduce truth."

Uh, perhaps...but God falls under metaphysics. There is little to no logic required for anyone to participate in metaphysical debates.

1. God has not been proven to exist or to not exist

2. Therefore, truths surrounding the concept of a non-religious God do not currently exist

3. Philosophers have only given their opinion on the matter

4. In conclusion, your dog's opinion is as good as Descartes's

Dude, I'm a philosophy minor at my university. I've never called philosophy worthless.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Perhaps what defines a religion is that it believes in divine revelation, and that it formulates a theology on this basis.

Obviously the nature of those theologies would differ greatly between religions, partcularly between the world and indigenous religions.

Personally I don't think religion has to involve anything divine to be called a religion, but whatever, it's just a matter of opinion.

Does anyone agree with Del that no academic knowledge is required for God debates? I definitely disagree. If anyone agrees with Del, I'd be curious to know the God arguments they've read which lead them to this conclusion.

I agree with Del. I'd be curious to know what God arguments you've read which lead you to your conclusion.

in fact science was actually invented by a philosopher,

Just noting that nobody "invented" science.

 

[blazedaces]

I agree with Del. I'd be curious to know what God arguments you've read which lead you to your conclusion.

He already mentioned he's a philosophy minor... I doubt he hasn't heard all of the major ones...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Just really quick: This is what I was talking about when I said that religious talks wind up devolving into discussions on theoretical physics.

We know nothing about the universe being finite. In fact, there are many plausible theories which state that it is not. (The many worlds interpretation of QM) We don't know yet.

Where is this other thread you speak of?


But what I really wanted to respond to was this assertion that philosophy and science are essentially the same and on the same standing. I disagree. Science does not have logic at its heart, it has empiricism at its heart.

The concept of taking your theories and putting them to the test in the real world is what science is about. Not mere applications of logic. If you produce results which are not falsifiable by experimentation, then you are not doing science.

Science is not just merely a more useful branch of philosophy. Their methodologies are fundamentally different.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=260899

That's the thread, but that was when I first came here so it's probably not my best work, and my argument is probably a bit mroe developed than it is now. Don't make the mistake everyone else did and assume I was trying to refute big bang and evolution, I was trying to refute atheism, with particular reference to atheist big bang and evolution.

Anything that aims at truth is an application of logic. The only reason why apply an empirical methodology is because we feel it is logical, we feel it achieves the truth.

Science and philosophy both strive at truth. The difference with science is that the methodology, or premises employed are never questioned, and that it produces falsifiable results.

I never said science is philosophy, but it needed philosophy to be put in practice. As I mentioned before, the evidence that empirical evidence deduces truth is not empirical, for that would be ciruclar.

Del about the God argument, you make out as if they're just blurting out opinions with no justification behind them. God arguments follow the premise-conclusion formula, meaning that they are based on logic. Saying I believe in God because it gives me comfort will always be a more irrational argument than the cosmoligcal argument.

There are plenty of truths society has concluded without empirical evidence. What about the way we live our lives? That wasn't conlcuded on empirical evidence, should we neglect that now too?

And Alt it's virtually impossible that the universe could be infinite. You have to commit several logic fallcies to do so. I've heard of a few the infinite time theories (M-theory, infinit vacuum etc.) and from what I understand even scientists admit there is little evidence backing them up.

To be honest it doesn't even matter anyway. As soon as you give time a particular structure, as soon as you say time is X, there are then metaphysical issues with its self-necessity, and it merely becomes another type of dependant being.

 

[AltF4]

We should really make a separate thread for this. But until then...

1) "Atheistic big bang"? I mean, really, now. There is no such thing. I can't help but feel like the use of such a term is just a petty attempt to slander real science, and create gut reactions from the religious.

The Big Bang Theory has nothing at all to do with religion except for the fact that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the old testament. We don't go around calling heliocentrism "Atheistic Astronomy" because it contradicted christian dogma. We don't call the theory of an Earth older than 6000 years "Atheistic Geology".

It has nothing to do with god nor religion. It is secular. There is a huge difference between atheistic and secular.


2) (Referring to the other thread you linked to) All of your arguments have to do with theoretical physics. Despite your claims to the contrary.

Every one of your assertions goes:

-Here's a contradiction that I can't find a solution to. Therefore god must exist to solve it.

It's a plain old argument from ignorance. It's not an argument at all. It's just a statement that you have a question that we don't yet have an answer to. Big deal. That does not necessitate a god to fill the gap.

Furthermore, most of your points have already been answered. Enter Hawking's No Boundary Proposal.

It specifically solves the "problem" of finite time and space. You would think that if time and space were finite, then it would have to have a boundary. But this isn't true. Think of the surface of a sphere. It is finite in size, yet has no boundaries.

Similarly, time and space can also be so shaped. Shaped such that we can have a finite amount of time and space, but without any pesky "boundary conditions" like the ones you point out. This is really quite well known. But perhaps not in philosophy circles...

 

[Dre89]

We should really make a separate thread for this. But until then...

1) "Atheistic big bang"? I mean, really, now. There is no such thing. I can't help but feel like the use of such a term is just a petty attempt to slander real science, and create gut reactions from the religious.

The Big Bang Theory has nothing at all to do with religion except for the fact that it contradicts a literal interpretation of the old testament. We don't go around calling heliocentrism "Atheistic Astronomy" because it contradicted christian dogma. We don't call the theory of an Earth older than 6000 years "Atheistic Geology".


It has nothing to do with god nor religion. It is secular. There is a huge difference between atheistic and secular.

What I said has nothing to do with religion either. I'm arguing that is logically impossible that the world for exist without God. In that thread, I was arguing that it was impossible for big bang to be coneived of without God, not that the big bang didn't happen period.

Besides, the Catholic Creation story isn't supposed to be interpreted literally.

2) (Referring to the other thread you linked to) All of your arguments have to do with theoretical physics. Despite your claims to the contrary.

Every one of your assertions goes:

-Here's a contradiction that I can't find a solution to. Therefore god must exist to solve it.

It's a plain old argument from ignorance. It's not an argument at all. It's just a statement that you have a question that we don't yet have an answer to. Big deal. That does not necessitate a god to fill the gap.

Have you read all my arguments in that thread?

I'm sick of seculars/liberals always trying to attack me instead of my argument. It seems that seculars can't accept the possibility that a thiest/deist actually had premises before concluding God exists, seculars always seem to assume that we build premises under the assumption that God exists.

It's not an argument from ignorance, because the only reason why I even came to believe in God was because I concluded that the world could not have existed without a higher being.

Ask me any question, about any of my premises, and I'll give you justification for them. I'm sick of seculars assuming I'm religious simply becuase I believe in God, and assuming I just assumed God existed before I made my premises and attribute the argument from ignorance to me. Seculars need to grow up and learn that they're not the only people who put thought behind their positions.

Furthermore, most of your points have already been answered. Enter Hawking's No Boundary Proposal.

It specifically solves the "problem" of finite time and space. You would think that if time and space were finite, then it would have to have a boundary. But this isn't true. Think of the surface of a sphere. It is finite in size, yet has no boundaries.

I know of the no-boundary proposal. From what I've read it apparently still requires an absolute origin of the universe even if it does not begin at the singularity.

Similarly, time and space can also be so shaped. Shaped such that we can have a finite amount of time and space, but without any pesky "boundary conditions" like the ones you point out. This is really quite well known. But perhaps not in philosophy circles...

This paragraph is written as if you didn't read what I said before. As soon you attribute time shape, or any particular structure for that matter, you remove it's self-necessity and render it a finite being. I'll explain this later.

Look let's start a one on one thread on this. I'll call it "Dre vs. Alt" if you like. You're apparently supposed to be God around here (mind the irony) so even though I don't expect to win (through the lens of the neutral judge), I'd like to see the man in action and see how far I can take you.

I'll wait for your OK to make the thread.

 

[Deleted member]

Del about the God argument, you make out as if they're just blurting out opinions with no justification behind them.

...But...but...LKSGJDFL gklfgdfgdf ugh they are! There's never "true" justification for believing in a God. That is what the God debate is: people blurting out their opinions. There's no factual evidence on either side. Yet again, your dog's guess is as good as Descartes's.

God arguments follow the premise-conclusion formula, meaning that they are based on logic.

Sure, albeit extremely fallible logic! Logic that no rational human being would accept! Logic that only appeals to you because of the mysteriousness behind our universe! You seem to forget that not every God argument follows one of the cookie cutter philosophies regarding God!

Saying I believe in God because it gives me comfort will always be a more irrational argument than the cosmoligcal argument.

No! It really won't! They're equally silly -- and I say that as a person who believes in a God!

There are plenty of truths society has concluded without empirical evidence. What about the way we live our lives? That wasn't conlcuded on empirical evidence, should we neglect that now too?

What are you even talking about? Seriously, what are you referring to?

 

[Dre89]

You're saying that the God debate is pointless because it isn't centred on empirical evidence.

I'm saying that we conclude truths about alot of things without empirical evidence, so we can do the same with God.

 

[Deleted member]

Where have I said anywhere that I think the debate is pointless?

We cannot (yet) conclude anything about God. We do not have any justification (physical or psychological or whatever)

 

[AltF4]

I'm not fond of 1v1 threads. Mostly because I have a nasty habit of jumping into other peoples' threads and wouldn't want to deny others the same pleasure. Besides, I'm not a mod in here, you don't need my approval for anything!

Also, don't come to me with "I'm sick of other people picking on me" complaints. I'm not responsible for what other people do. Neither will I let up on something just because it happens to hit a sore spot with you. If it's wrong, I will point it out. And I expect everyone else to do the same. Good. Now on with the substance:

Besides, the Catholic Creation story isn't supposed to be interpreted literally.

Tell that to the Catholics who do believe a literal creation story. There are a lot of them. Particularly on the Texas Board of Education.

Let's see... you're making so many arguments against things I'm not saying. I will list them:

I'm sick of seculars/liberals always trying to attack me instead of my argument.

a) You don't know where I stand politically. So this "secular / liberal" thing is silly.
b) I did not "attack you". I specifically attacked your argument.

I'm sick of seculars assuming I'm religious simply becuase I believe in God

Don't know where this is coming from.

Seculars need to grow up and learn that they're not the only people who put thought behind their positions.

Also don't know where this is coming from. I never said nor insinuated that you haven't put thought into whatever it is you believe.

I know of the no-boundary proposal. From what I've read it apparently still requires an absolute origin of the universe even if it does not begin at the singularity.

No, it doesn't. It is a fully consistent scientific theory of the (non)origin of the universe, with no necessity for a god.

That right there contradicts everything you've been saying. It is perfectly plausible that the universe exists without a god having created it.



There. You made me post in quote-reply format, and I hate doing that...


PS: You clearly seem to have an alternate definition of the word "finite" from what I am using. You see, I'm an Engineer. When you say that space is or is not "finite" that word has a very specific geometric meaning. You say things like this:

As soon you attribute time shape, or any particular structure for that matter, you remove it's self-necessity and render it a finite being.

And that sentence makes no geometric nor physics sense. I can't venture a clue as to what it means.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not fond of 1v1 threads. Mostly because I have a nasty habit of jumping into other peoples' threads and wouldn't want to deny others the same pleasure. Besides, I'm not a mod in here, you don't need my approval for anything!

Also, don't come to me with "I'm sick of other people picking on me" complaints. I'm not responsible for what other people do. Neither will I let up on something just because it happens to hit a sore spot with you. If it's wrong, I will point it out. And I expect everyone else to do the same. Good. Now on with the substance:

The only reason why I mentioned it is because I felt you were guilty of it as well.

Tell that to the Catholics who do believe a literal creation story. There are a lot of them. Particularly on the Texas Board of Education.

The official stance is that it's not be taken literally. You'll always have Catholics who deviate away from the offical position.

Let's see... you're making so many arguments against things I'm not saying. I will list them:

a) You don't know where I stand politically. So this "secular / liberal" thing is silly.
b) I did not "attack you". I specifically attacked your argument.

You assumed I was just building premises around a conclusion I just merely assumed without jutsification

Don't know where this is coming from.

You claimed that I was making reference to religion.

Also don't know where this is coming from. I never said nor insinuated that you haven't put thought into whatever it is you believe.

You're assuming I just made the assumption that God exists and I alienate any conflicting argument with an argument from ignorance stance.

No, it doesn't. It is a fully consistent scientific theory of the (non)origin of the universe, with no necessity for a god.

That right there contradicts everything you've been saying. It is perfectly plausible that the universe exists without a god having created it. [/QUOTE]

That's just what I read somewhere so I won't argue it on a scientific standpoint.

But I will mention it's flaws metaphysically speaking.

Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate reality, and NBT supposes that this structe of time-space is in fact the ultimate relaity, therefore in attempting to replace God with time-space, it is subject to metaphysical critcism, because it must meet the criteria for being the ultimate reality.

In my eyes, you lost the argument (I know no one else will agree with me) as soon as you said time had shape. As soon as you say time is X, you're unintentionally conceding that it is a finite being, for any being with a degree of complexity, structure and limitation is finite.

Now obviously this assertion requires justification. The first question is whether time is a being, or just that which allows the motion of beings. As soon as you give time a structure, you have removed its simplicity, and made it finite.

It's not that I can't accept this NBT existing, it's that there's no explanation of what gave time that shape, or why it has that structure in particular.

Actually, before I continue with my argument, can you explain the difference between this and standard Looping Theory, both seem to suggest a finite succession of events in the universe, yet a structure that negates the need for a beginning. The reason why I ask is because I have criticisms of LT and I want to know if they apply to NBT too.

There. You made me post in quote-reply format, and I hate doing that...

Same.

 

[AltF4]

First, you need to tell me what the hell you mean by "finite". (See my PS in the last post)

If you don't think time has a shape, then you need to take it up with Einstein, not me. That was kind of what made him famous, you know.

 

[Sieguest]

In my eyes, you lost the argument (I know no one else will agree with me) as soon as you said time had shape. As soon as you say time is X, you're unintentionally conceding that it is a finite being, for any being with a degree of complexity, structure and limitation is finite.

hmmm...

It specifically solves the "problem" of finite time and space. You would think that if time and space were finite, then it would have to have a boundary. But this isn't true. Think of the surface of a sphere. It is finite in size, yet has no boundaries.

Similarly, time and space can also be so shaped. Shaped such that we can have a finite amount of time and space, but without any pesky "boundary conditions" like the ones you point out. This is really quite well known. But perhaps not in philosophy circles...

So Dre. you're saying that because something has shape, it is automatically finite?

I point out the part in red because it seems you ignored it. Because that's true.
A lot of graphs have shapes, but are infinite
Also consider an asymptomatic orientation (y=1/x). It has a shape, but it isn't finite.

Or take the graph x=y. It has a shape. It's a line. But it's infinite unless you make a boundary.

 

[rvkevin]

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

 

[Dre89]

Whether I believe time has a shape, or whether it's classed as a being or not is irrelevant to my argument, because I already acknowledge that time is contingent and not self-necessary (you'll hear me use this word/phrase alot, it will becoming annoying soon unfortunately, sorry).

When I say finite I mean contingent, or anything that isn't self-necessary. Anything that hasn't existed for eternity is finite or contingent, because considering it could not cause its own existence, it's existence must have being caused into actuallity by a prior being.

Right now you're probably thinking 'but I'm proposing time is infinite, therefore self-necessray by his definition'. The problem I have is that time does not have the attributes to be self-neccessary (SN from now on).

Here's a summed up version of my argument which I'll elaborate on as this debate progresses (you sure you don't want to move this to another thread?).

1. The original being, or ultimate reality, must be SN, this is self-explanatory and I doubt you'll have an issue with this premise.

2. To be SN the being must be infinite, for beings cannot cause themselves, and nothing prior could have it, for it would not be SN

3. As well as infinity, there are other traits required for SN, which we'll abbreviate as ABC.

4. Time does not have ABC (this will be explained later), therefore cannot be infinite, because there cannot be two SN beings.

5. What I consider to be the only possible being that would possess both infinity and ABC is what i commonly referred to as 'God', therefore God must exist due to the fact that our existence, and the nature of existence, necessitates it.

Note: When I say time cannot be infinite, I'm talking about time in the universe, in which change occurs in. I (as well as several other philosophers) argue that change and infinity are not compatible, which is part of the reason why time cannot be infinite.

So would you please be so kind as to epxlain to me the difference between Loop Theory (LT) and NBT. Thanks in advance.

(Come on Alt you know you want to move this debate into another thread, it'll prevent us from clogging up the Social Thread. Do it for the team).

 

[Dre89]

Sorry for the double post.

hmmm...


So Dre. you're saying that because something has shape, it is automatically finite?

I point out the part in red because it seems you ignored it. Because that's true.
A lot of graphs have shapes, but are infinite
Also consider an asymptomatic orientation (y=1/x). It has a shape, but it isn't finite.

Or take the graph x=y. It has a shape. It's a line. But it's infinite unless you make a boundary.

In a sense yes, because shape attributes complexity and limitation to the being.

Complexities necessitate a prior cause. If there is a complexity, there must be a reason for why it exists.

I always refer to paintings for examples of things, and this no different. The nature of a painting, it's immense complexity and constitution of finite parts (paints, frame etc.) necessitates a pianter.

This is why God is considered simple, for He is considered being itself. There is no unnecesarry complexity to His nature that requires a nature, He is simply existence.

In fact, this is why I believe in God. The original being, or ultimate reality, would have to being itself, with no unnecessary complexities, and what that being is is commonly referred to as God.

This is why I hate the Spaghetti monster argument, anyone who applies doesn't understand philosophical concept of the monotheistic God.

 

[Sieguest]

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

Interesting stuff. I'm still listening to it right now. But a lot of the snide remarks he makes are really starting to become a turn-off.

I mean it's a science discussion. Not science and then take a crotch shot at religion and God and stuff... then they wonder why they get so much hostility.

Sorry for the double post.



In a sense yes, because shape attributes complexity and limitation to the being.

Complexities necessitate a prior cause. If there is a complexity, there must be a reason for why it exists.

I always refer to paintings for examples of things, and this no different. The nature of a painting, it's immense complexity and constitution of finite parts (paints, frame etc.) necessitates a pianter.

This is why God is considered simple, for He is considered being itself. There is no unnecesarry complexity to His nature that requires a nature, He is simply existence.

In fact, this is why I believe in God. The original being, or ultimate reality, would have to being itself, with no unnecessary complexities, and what that being is is commonly referred to as God.

Hmm, then there's a probably a discrepancy on what we consider finite to mean.

At this point I think the discussion gets locked. Because really, how can we argue the definition of something?

I could bring up the circle.
The graph of a circle is infinite. Ne beginning or end.
The shape of the circle is finite.
The amount of lines you can put though a circle is infinite.

In fact I read through the source Alt provided and found this:

The universe would still be closed and finite, in one way of looking at it. But in another, it would appear open and infinite.

In one way, using your logic it would need creator. In another way it doesn't.

Looking back at Alt's Sphere example, I don't think he's necessarily giving time a shape, more so than saying that time can be finite in one way, and infinite in another.
Looking at time from a perspective in which it is infinite, you can't pin a shape to it.
Another look at time, it may have shape.

So how does this work? Could it be that time behaves like an infinite, but looks like a finite thing? Just like a circle?

 

[Dre89]

That video straw-mans religion alot. But Dawkins is involved so you can't expect anything else really.

Alot of theists may be ignorant, but atheists are far more guilty of straw-manning the opposing argument to suit their needs.

I've said it a hundred times before, Dawkins is disliked in the philosophical community by both theists and atheits alike. His books are just money-making ventures, and he straw-mans his opposition for the sake of his arguments.

I read a God debate he was in and I was surprised by his lack of understanding of the cosmological argument.

I've seen his books at mainstream book stores where no other academic literature was sold. That just shows his books are designed to leech money off consumers who will believe the first academic book they read, rather than have it reviewed by the academic community.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So, basically he's to atheism what Al Gore is to climatology? Interesting argument.

 

[Dre89]

Well if Al Gore is a bad climatologist then yes.

I'm not too familiar with athiest philosophy, which is why I am currently reading the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, but from I understand Anthony Flew was a very good athiest (he's a deist now).

 

[rvkevin]

This is why God is considered simple, for He is considered being itself. There is no unnecesarry complexity to His nature that requires a nature, He is simply existence.

And this is true because...?

P.S. Dawkins is my least favorite of the "new" atheists.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not saying "God exists, and He is being itself"

I'm saying "the original being must be being itself, and in our vocabulary the word God most accurately fits that".

There are other notions of God which portray Him as complex, which I believe they're flawed.

 

[rvkevin]

When you say being, do you mean existence, or something more like a mind?

Edit: I'm confused of what your saying and I realized that question won't clarify...

Are you saying that "the original being must be existence"? What would such a phrase mean?