There is no evidence of a particular god’s existence

Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Total: 215
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Maybe this example will help clear things up:

More specifically, you'd have to draw a straight line from DEISM to your specific god(s)
I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that.
Ah, ok.

POE.

(IFF) an individual detects an act that seems, from their perspective to be an injustice (OR) may very soon lead to a perceived predictable injustice (AND) they can imagine that they could possibly intervene to prevent or significantly mitigate the injustice or the immediate consequences of such (AND) they determine the foreseeable cost of that action to be proportional to the benefit of the injustice being prevented or the consequences of such an injustice significantly mitigated (THEN) they should take action or suffer the consequence of being held morally culpable only to themselves and only by themselves.

As individual citizens, we are not legally responsible for the health and safety of all members of our society. Our laws generally reflect the consensus moral viewpoint of our society. There are certain agents within our society like police and firefighters who are held to a higher standard of expectation to take action to prevent harm or potential harm.

An individual standard of moral culpability would not seem to be a strong enough standard to hold someone morally responsible for an action or inaction. I would propose that the standard should be rather a reasonable expectation that a jury of their peers would consider them to be morally culpable to be much more relevant.

On the other hand, this self prescribed moral standard would seem to carry a bit more substantial weight if we imagine that "god" is the inactive observer of an injustice.
#92
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac




Mopac,

Your embarrassing silence is deafening to my post #48, which is obviously proof that you have finally succumbed to biblical logic, reason and biblical axioms that show Jesus is omniscient, and because of this fact, all Christians do not in any way have Free Will, thank your for your godly admittance this time!

I am also relieved that you jettisoned the Hell Bound Catholic Doctrine that went against Jesus being omniscient, and now accept Jesus' TRUE words within the scriptures as I have shown you in post $48, good for you Mopac, you're learning, praise!


.

#93
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that we just need to agree to disagree and move on because we are having two different conversations.

What I said:
can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.
What you said (summarized):
You're wrong because I think that morality should be determined by a jury.

I'm not arguing for the correctness of the Moral Argument right now. I'm not arguing for the existence of God right now. I am arguing for the existence of my argument that God exists (you can see how convoluted this is getting!). That's it. Nothing more. I don't know how else to say it. It was nice chatting. Have a great day.
#94
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that.
Sounds good.

I would argue the only way to have an objective standard of morality (e.g. stealing is inherently evil) is to have an objective lawgiver outside of humanity. There is the deistic argument.
Ok, you're putting the-cart-before-the-horse here.

First, define what you mean by "objective".

Second, define what you mean by "morality".

The cart, (motivated reasoning/snuck premise) is that -there is- "an objective standard of morality".

I will build a steel-man for you. [LINK]

(IFF) there is an (undetectable) objective standard of morality (THEN) there must be an (undetectable) objective (moral) lawgiver.

I would also argue that the moral foundation of the Bible is objectively better than any other moral system, whether religious or secular.
Here's the problem.  The only way you could determine if "The Bible" is "objectively better" than any other moral system would be if you, yourself were an objective being, capable of making objective statements.  Humans are inherently SUBJECTIVE (sample biased).

Even our judicial system in America is founded on biblical morality.
The American system of justice is based on British Common Law, and British Common Law is based on, Corpus Juris Civilis.

There are also health statistics and crime statistics that could be shown in support of this statement.
Like this? [LINK]

SUMMARY
Deistic Argument: A god is required for objective morality to exist
Snuck premise: "objective morality" necessarily "exists".

Theistic Argument: If the moral principles of the Bible are objectively better than other systems,
Snuck premise: humans can detect "objective standards".

Snuck premise: other systems can't have equally positive outcomes.

...it would follow that the God who gave them is better than all others.
Snuck premise: your version of god wrote "The Bible".

[NOTE] THIS IS THE KEY CLAIM THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED.  DIVINE AUTHORSHIP.

That God claims He is the only God and all others are false.
This claim is not unique, and incidentally, contradicted by "The Bible" itself.

_________________________________________________________

Now I have not given a fully researched and annotated presentation.
No problem, this is an informal debate.

Obviously, there are also debatable points in this argument that I'm sure you disagree with.
You are quite astute.

However, I have provided an argument that is logically coherent and evidence-based.
Eh, maybe not quite.

I don't see any fundamental laws of logic that I have violated, and that also doesn't automatically make me right.
I would agree that it is possible to make a logically valid statement that is not logically sound.

I have also given examples of evidence that could be used outside myself (logical case for morality, statistics, American judicial system) that support my argument.
Eh, maybe not quite.

Again, my evidence doesn't automatically make me right, it just supports my argument.
We need to talk about Standards-of-Evidence.

Given this example, can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.
I appreciate your enthusiasm.
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm not arguing for the correctness of the Moral Argument right now. I'm not arguing for the existence of God right now. I am arguing for the existence of my argument that God exists (you can see how convoluted this is getting!). That's it. Nothing more. I don't know how else to say it. It was nice chatting. Have a great day.
I'm not disputing you "have an argument".

I'm disputing that it is logically-coherent (and "evidence based").

For example, (IFF) the Hindu religion is objectively the highest possible moral good (THEN) the Hindu religion (and gods) must be true.

Do you see any problems with this logic?
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I don't understand how you can imagine that you can formulate a logical statement without rigorous and explicit definitions.
I do not contest a stipulated definition per se, but if we were to have a debate using a "rigorous and explicit" definition, then it would be entirely dictated by that definition. Case in point:
THAT IS CORRECT.  A RIGOROUS DEFINITION NECESSARILY LEADS TO AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION (TAUTOLOGY).

If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material [verifiable Quanta] or spiritual [unverifiable Qualia]. (Merriam Webster Dictionary.)
Ok.

God has real spiritual being. (Holy Texts.)
Citation please.

Therefore, God exists.
Not quite.

That is logically coherent. Debate over, right?
You've basically asserted that a god is an unverifiable Qualitative phenomenon (appeal to ignorance).

I use broad definitions in order to facilitate a conceptual context rather than one informed arbitrarily/conveniently by selected definitions.
an appeal to vagueness is an appeal to ignorance.  This is hardly definitive.

Furthermore, using broad definitions allows each party to challenge the other's premise using argument rather than dictionaries.
In other words, you actually enjoy debating pure, uncut OPINION.
#97
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
A RIGOROUS DEFINITION NECESSARILY LEADS TO AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION
Note the indefinite article. It leads to a conclusion.

If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material [verifiable Quanta] or spiritual [unverifiable Qualia].
Your modification is extraneous; unless it's mentioned in my citation, it's not relevant.

Citation please.
The Bible or the Torah.

Not quite.
Yes, quite. Absent of your attempt to modify my citation, the argument is logically coherent.

You've basically asserted that a god is an unverifiable.
No, I've "basically" argued nothing of the sort. Your modifications once again are irrelevant; point out the "rigorously defined" description in my citation that accounts for qualia and quanta.

an appeal to vagueness is an appeal to ignorance.  This is hardly definitive.
No one thus far has argued anything ambiguous; if there were an appeal to ambiguity, then it would be an equivocation, not an appeal to ignorance. Furthermore, since when is discussion restricted to the definitive? Discussion can be exploratory. I even used the term "explore" in a previous comment.

In other words, you actually enjoy debating pure, uncut OPINION.
No, in your words, which are incorrect. And my enjoyment is irrelevant. 
#98
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
@Fruit_Inspector
Here's the problem.  The only way you could determine if "The Bible" is "objectively better" than any other moral system would be if you, yourself were an objective being, capable of making objective statements.  Humans are inherently SUBJECTIVE (sample biased).
Well said. 

I would also argue that the moral foundation of the Bible is objectively better than any other moral system, whether religious or secular.
I vehemently disagree... I think the morality found in any Abrahamic religion is backwards, ignorant, bigoted, and gross. And to think, the morality argument is your favorite... 

#99
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas

Your embarrassing silence is deafening to my post #48, which is obviously proof that.....
That could be evidence to a lot of things. Not all of which fit your narative.
Topic's author
#100
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
If you were able to prove your particular god existed without resorting to general ontological arguments, would you? That is what I’m trying to get at.
Yes.
Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?


#101
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?
Depends on the context. If the context demands evidence, then of course.


Topic's author
#102
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
Would this context demand evidence?
#103
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Would this context demand evidence?
What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all? If I were to coach one on presenting an argument for the existence of God, I would inform them to highlight the significance abstracts have in rationalizing existence, and that it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist," while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?

That's the reason I asked you this question, which you've yet to answer: "what is your understanding of physicality without the imaginary concepts which help you rationalize it, i.e. mathematics, science, and logic?"


#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
The assertion substantiates itself.
#105
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It's very difficult to nullify something that it's very difficult to nullify.
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
...it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist,"
Are you suggesting that Thor, Big-Foot, Santa-Claus, and the words you are reading on the computer screen in front of you "EXIST" with equal validity?

Semantically, how do you differentiate between "real" and "imaginary"?

Would you say that, "god is real" and "god is imaginary" mean EXACTLY the same thing?

...while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?
These are very good questions about THE CLASSICAL PROBLEM OF IDENTITY.

For the moment, I'm primarily interested in distinguishing "real" from "imaginary". [LINK]
#107
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@zedvictor4:

The assertion substantiates itself.
No, it doesn't.

@3RU7AL:

Are you suggesting that Thor, Big-Foot, Santa-Claus, and the words you are reading on the computer screen in front of you "EXIST" with equal validity?
At this point, you're not even contending against their existence; instead, you attempt to qualify them with your notions of "equal validity." Such qualifications aren't necessary to the resolution of this discussion.

Semantically, how do you differentiate between "real" and "imaginary"?
I don't.

These are very good questions about THE CLASSICAL PROBLEM OF IDENTITY.
It's not about the classical problem of identity, which deals with the perception of self and its relation to others (e.g. Johari Window.) It's about perception itself. Everything one perceives is subject to the influence of one's mind. In order to discern "being" dependent and independent from the mind, one must control for both (and the irony of using abstracts is not lost on me.) How does one control for that which is independent from one's mind? Your newborn analogy doesn't suffice because any observation is still subject to the influence of the mind. It's a paradox. Whatever is discovered will be irrational until rationalized; it cannot be rationalized without the mind's influence.

Atheists such as yourself argue that the mind merely translates or "maps" that which is already there (e.g. physical stimuli.) But that is an unsubstantiated ontological postulate. Unless you were somehow able to control for that which your mind creates and that which it "receives," for lack of a better term, any gauges used to create distinctions between that which you call "real" and that which you call "imaginary" are necessarily based on assumption--regardless of how you qualify it (e.g. "reliable," "efficient," "rigorously defined," "logically coherent," etc.)

#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How does one control for that which is independent from one's mind?
Kurt Gödel solved this one already.
#109
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Kurt Gödel solved this one already.
Reference?
#110
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



Mopac,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE:  "That could be evidence to a lot of things. Not all of which fit your narative."

The bottom line is the FACT that you remain SILENT to Jesus being omniscient, and how it directly goes against your Catholic faith "pretending" that Christians have Free Will, of which my post #48 explicitly says they DO NOT vouchsafed with the inspired words of Jesus the Christ Himself!!!

Thanks Mopac for proving my point with your silence once again.  How does it feel to call Jesus a LIAR as my post #48 so dictates, without any ungodly and Satanic spin doctoring needed by you? Huh?





.



#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Kurt Gödel solved this one already.
Reference?
In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".
#112
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.
How does Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to the relation of perception and the mind?

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".
You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic, where you are still assuming truths. This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.
#113
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
It is written,

"Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."




#114
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
The One True God is evident. Ever present, and filling all things.

When we examine ourselfs and confess our errors, and make earnest to correct those errors out of a love of the truth, God is more and more revealed. When we stop thinking of the truth as being an intellectual apprehension and more of a way of life, God is revealed through the things that are made. It doesn't matter where you are  from or even what place  in time, God can be witnessed in the things that are made. Experience itself testifies that God Is Real.

And it is only after love of The Truth is seen as a walk and not simply the dead faith of intellectual assent that it is realized in truth, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." 





#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The NOUMENON is evident. Ever present, and filling all things.

When we examine ourselves and confess our PERCEIVED logical errors, and make earnest attempts to correct those PERCEIVED logical errors out of a love of the truth, NOUMENON is more and more revealed. When we consider thinking of the truth as being an intellectual apprehension and a way of life, NOUMENON is revealed through the things that are manifest. It doesn't matter where you are from or even what place in time, NOUMENON can be witnessed (deductively) in the things that are manifest. Experience itself testifies that NOUMENON Is Real.

And it is only after love of The Truth is seen as a walk and not simply the dead faith of intellectual assent that it is realized in truth, "NOUMENON is the primary logical necessity: and they that understand must clearly distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACTS from PURE OPINION." 
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.
How does Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to the relation of perception and the mind?
You're conflating "mind" and "brain".

Every identifiable system and individual concept (monad) is "incomplete".  Which is to say, contingent on (or, part-of) contextual concepts (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".
You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic,
It is similar to formal arithmetic because it is what formal arithmetic itself is based on.  This is Zeroth Order Logic.

...where you are still assuming truths.
These are testable, verifiable REAL-TRUE-FACTS, quite distinct from OPINIONS and assumptions.

This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.
Logic itself is the evidentiary basis.

If you took everything that you know and added it to everything that I know and then added that to everything that everyone has ever known and will ever know, what would you call that?

Perhaps, "the sum total of human knowledge"?

Are you disputing (somehow) that there is "human knowledge"?

(IFF) there is "human knowledge" (THEN) there must necessarily be "the sum total of human knowledge".
#117
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If you are in a religious group.  You choose what the real book that god wrote was . 
Picking your religion.  =  picking the one true book that god did.  




#118
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I'd say there is over 3billion non-secular God  believers.
Ok over 3.5 bill.
Stuff it. I reckon there is over 4 billion people that believe in a some kind of " bright white light god "


#119
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You're conflating "mind" and "brain".
How am I conflating "mind" and "brain"?

Every identifiable system and individual concept (monad) is "incomplete".  Which is to say, contingent on (or, part-of) contextual concepts (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".
You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic,
It is similar to formal arithmetic because it is what formal arithmetic itself is based on.  This is Zeroth Order Logic.

...where you are still assuming truths.
These are testable, verifiable REAL-TRUE-FACTS, quite distinct from OPINIONS and assumptions.

This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.
Logic itself is the evidentiary basis.

If you took everything that you know and added it to everything that I know and then added that to everything that everyone has ever known and will ever know, what would you call that?

Perhaps, "the sum total of human knowledge"?

Are you disputing (somehow) that there is "human knowledge"?

(IFF) there is "human knowledge" (THEN) there must necessarily be "the sum total of human knowledge".
How is any of this relevant in controlling that which is independent of the mind?
#120
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Facts =/= The Truth.

Noumenon literally means a mental object.


Your mind pervades your experience certainly, but it does not pervade mine. We have distinct minds. God on the other hand, Ultimate Reality, truly fills all things as all existence has its existence in God.