Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 540
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Yes. 
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @nagisa3
    I don't see how knowledge is possible unless we assume the 3 fundamental laws of logic are invariant and universal. In any logical framework the framework and consistency must be equal to itself. In order for consistency to have any meaning, A must = A. 

    I'd examine the differences in explanatory power between a God versus no God world and see which one ours best resembles.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,197
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Do we further agree that no amount of evidence short of sufficient justifies belief?
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Yes. "Sufficient" evidence is the threshold for rationally warranted belief. A belief is rationally warranted when the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the claim. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Fallaneze
    As long as it understood that no actual metric or specific criteria for 'sufficiency' or 'preponderance' exists.
    Anything short of absolute proof leaves room for doubt..

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @keithprosser
    At a certain point, a belief becomes more rational than not. My criteria for sufficient evidence is when there's more information supporting the claim than against it. A "preponderance" of information is difficult to measure but I don't think it's a fruitless pursuit.
     
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Fallaneze
    Who or what claims the existence of gods.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Fallaneze
    "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."
    Do you have any evidence that would support the existence of the object in this man made claim?

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @disgusted
    The idea is that something that is proven to be neccessary must exist.   The Kalam and similar arguments purport to prove a prime, conscious creator is neccessary through pure logic alone - hence no evidence is required.

    My view is that such arguments show the origin of the universe was very strange, but they don't prove that strangeness was due to something that could reasonably be called a god, let alone God.


  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,691
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    Depends entirely on how you define theism.
    Are you trying to make an argument in support of a SPECIFIC GOD or GODS?

    (IFF) you are arguing in support of a NON-specific god or gods or some sort of necessary thing (THEN) no rational Atheist will object.

    A hypothetical necessary thing gets you nowhere closer to any sort of SPECIFIC GOD or GODS.

    Nanabozho is just as likely as Marduk which is just as likely as Jupiter which is just as likely as Brahman.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,691
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    At a certain point, a belief becomes more rational than not.
    You're describing Rational-Relativism.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,691
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @nagisa3
    I'm going to have to dispute knowledge being obtainable in the first place, maybe that is pedantic, but I'd argue any claim cannot be provable. 
    Rigorously defined logical terms and statements (tautologies) can be determined to be coherent (true) or incoherent (false).

    Truth requires facts and facts require indisputability, independent verifiability, and or provable logical necessity.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,691
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @nagisa3
    Tautologies can only be true within a given logical framework,
    Agreed.  I'm not sure that changes anything.

    Experimental facts, or empirical knowledge, can also never be said to be even provisionally true
    It sounds like you're referring to Hume's problem of induction.

    5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once. [LINK]

    Most published "studies" never reach 2 sigma.

    There are very well established standards of evidence, although most people are not aware of them and most claims overstate their own confidence.

    Give me any true empirical fact.
    The planet earth exists.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,691
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @nagisa3
    All of that is to say, however, to show that you can't prove anything without first agreeing on terms and then you'll always be wrong or incomplete. Now, we can discuss whether we all think we should believe in god(s), but there is no way to give any evidence either way. And the prime mover argument assumes an origin to the universe, which I don't see how that's necessarily true. 
    Noumenon is a logical necessity.

    Fortunately (or unfortunately) we can't really say anything else about it.
  • WyseGui
    WyseGui avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 98
    0
    0
    4
    WyseGui avatar
    WyseGui
    --> @Fallaneze
    At the end of the day the debate will come down to providing some sort of proof to support the claim.We seemingly live in a universe where it is impossible to prove God real or not. Atheist are always going to take a logical stance on it. Theism isn't exactly logical but then I don't really think it is supposed to be.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @nagisa3


    Give me any true empirical fact.
    The planet earth exists.

    You can't prove this,
    You asked for an empirical fact.  The term 'empirical fact' is non-standard and I don't know what you think it means.  I do know there is a difference between true and provable, though, and you didn't ask for something that is provable.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @nagisa3
    I think facts don't need to be proven to be true.  They need proof only to be known to be true.

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @nagisa3
    If you read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you will get a more subtle view of what the word 'fact' refers to!

    What ever the internet says, we often use the word 'fact' for what is true but unproven.   Something can be a fact without being proven, but it can't be a fact unless its true.

    It was a fact that Australia was the biggest island in the Pacific even before it was discovered - facts exist to be discovered and proven; they do not come into existence by being discovered or proven.

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @nagisa3
    I appreciate your knowledge and careful epistemological approach to this but in order to share knowledge, at all, statements *must* be capable of being invariably and universally true. 

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    For anyone trying to follow along with the central discussion, here is where it left off.

    Secularmerlin asks, "Do we further agree that no amount of evidence short of sufficient justifies belief?"

    To which I responded "yes."

    I'm waiting to see his next move.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,197
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Ok then what is the difference between a universe with an unobservable deity and one with no deity at all? You have the floor.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,053
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @secularmerlin
    If that deity provides an afterlife the difference is very important.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @nagisa3
    Have you ever learned anything by reading about it? If yes, then knowledge can be shared. To say that knowledge can't be shared is a self-defeating statement since that itself is purported to be a statement of knowledge. If it's not purported to be a statement of knowledge then it's meaningless. We might as well be talking in gibberish. Nskekekekemdkdod wieodididkdkdk wodododkoeowpeodkdldododo wosododkdkdnowowododod

  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 948
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    (1) I object to your use of the term "observable" since we've established that the question of whether God exists is not subject to empirical inquiry. The differences must exist in understanding alone. 

    (2) we are not discussing "deity", we are discussing "God" defined as a "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

    Once you accept or reject these points I'll continue.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,197
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    If the being is unobservable then how do we tell the difference between it and no being at all? I think that is a fair question.