atheism is irrational

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 618
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you are making an ontological argument for Deism, you are no better off than you were before all of your "reasoning".

All you need to say is, "The Big Bang" = god(s).

The real trick is bridging the unfathomable gap between Deism and any particular religious (dogmatic) tradition.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
two things that are truly "independent" are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way
Agreed. So then can we describe "the external"--really, a postulate of the external--as real or existent since rationalization can neither detect nor interact with it?

the apophatic phaneron
How does aphophatic phaneron control for one's mind?

missing info

(before you can claim that "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho" either DOES (or) DOES NOT "exist", you must rigorously define "god(s)" and or "glipglorp" and or "nanabozho")
I am more than game to rigorously define whatever is needed. It should be noted that more than a month has passed since the scrutiny of the term, "exist," began.

(You and I both know that this discussion can go one way or another depending on which definitions apply. Thus, my hounding up until recently.)
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Athias
Athias 450 :
[j] What is your preferred description of "the real world"?
[k] I'm not adamant; I'm certain that numbers exist. But if I'm to engage you on this point, I must first understand the distinction, ontologically, that you are creating between the abstract and a physical object, which I presume you consider "part of the real world."
[e] There's no burden of proof.[80] You made a request as to my attribution. I've submitted to you that it's in one of our previous discussions (maybe even before you joined this site.) If and when I find it, I take no issue presenting it to you.
And once again, I'm not accountable for that which "seems" to you. ("Seem" is not an argument.) If zedvictor4 wishes to clarify or rebut my characterization of his position, I take no issue retracting my statement.
[j] I haven't thought about it, but I don't think I have one.
[k] Both can be part of the real world or not.
[80] Yes, there is, but if zedvictor4 is fine with being accused of having the rationale that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent, then so am I.
Athias 454 :
[j] Then what description of the "real world" do you believe applies to this discussion--your preference notwithstanding?
[k] Explain.
[80] My being correct in my characterization of zedvictor's position is of no consequence. I'm relaying knowledge I've acquired from my experience discussing the subject with zedvictor. If zedvictor happens to point this out as an error, then I take no issue, once again, retracting my statement. But that doesn't mean I have a burden. Because, once again, I'm not obligated to validate or invalidate your impression.
[j] Everything that exists, the universe.
[k] Both abstract and physical objects can exist.
[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.

Athias 445 :
In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]
[79] Because I am lazy.
You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?
Athias 445 :
Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness.[96] If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand.[97] Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.[98]
[96] You hide it well.
[97] So are you.
[98] Are you looking for a way out ?

[a] If were to state that it still doesn't make “nothing” an argument, I too would be committing a straw man fallacy.
I disagree. In most debates there are other things of importance than whether “seem” is an argument.
[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?
BTW, nothing is no evidence.
[c'] No.
[d*] OK.
[discourse continued further]
Athias 460 :
[a] "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements.[99] I did not "straw man" you;[100] I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."[101]
Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it.[102] You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.[103]
[99] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[100] The concept of straw man eludes you. Read about it here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.
[101] What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?
[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.
[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.
You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.

Ask Christians.
Athias 450 :
Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?
Amoranemix 459 :
No.
Athias 460 :
Then why did you submit it?
Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.
Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?
When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god. They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.

[continuation of discourse]
[e] Proper debating is done based on common ground, i.e. what debating sides agree upon. Initially, I am entitled to assume that you believe popular things like the earth being round, the laws of logic, speak standard English, and have a sense of love and justice similar to my own. In the mean time you have provided evidence that you have a peculiar worldview.
Observing events involving sentient life-forms, do you see any deviation from perfect love or perfect justice ?[a]
[g*] You are mistaken. Double_R introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. I merely claimed God seems inconsistent.
[81] What part of my support have you failed to understand ?
Athias 460 :
[e] Peculiar? How do you mean?
[a] Define "perfect love." Define "perfect justice."
[g*] Double_R is irrelevant. I was making reference strictly to our back-and-forth. Let's transmute that "seem" into an actual argument. On what basis would God "be" inconsistent? What measures are you applying?
[81] All of it. You have yet to inform it.
[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.
[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?
[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.
I am not aware that inconsistency requires a base.
My own measure.
[81] What does that mean, informing support ?
I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.

Athias 450 :
What is your preferred description of nonexistence?
I haven't thought about it and I don't think I have one.[*]
Nonexistence : not real, not part of the universe. For some X that is nonexistent, the statement 'X exists' is false.[']
Athias 460 :
[*] Then what objections do you bear to the one I provided earlier? Your preference notwithstanding which definition of exist to you believe applies in matters of ontology?
['] So that begs the question: are thoughts, concepts, and products of imagination not part of the universe? If not, why?
[*] You can find in post 449 the objection I have born to the definition you have provided earlier. I don't bear any objections. Get on with it.
I don't believe of any particular definition of exist that it applies in matters of ontology.
['] Some thoughts, concepts and products of imagination are part of the universe. Others aren't.

Athias 450 :
The conclusion does follow from the premises.[82] The only contention you can possibly levy is whether the premises have been substantiated. And I did provide substantiation for my premises.
[82] Claiming so, does not make it so.
Athias 460 :
I'm not merely claiming.[104] I take no issue attempting to indulge your satisfaction as long as your parameters are made clear. Hence, my attempt to have you make clear the description of existence you believe applies to this debate.
[104] Whatever else you have done is irrelevant. You have failed to demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises. If doing so requires another definition for existence, then stop stalling and provide one

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Amoranemix
[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.
You're late. zedvictor4 and I had already discussed this.

[96] You hide it well.
Hilarious.

[97] So are you.
Redundant.

[98] Are you looking for a way out ?
Out of this regressive and vacuous dynamic you've captained? Indeed. But I don't know you, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you have more to contribute.

[99] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Have I suggested either?

[100] The concept of straw man eludes you.
No, it doesn't.

You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.
I'm not arguing against your employment of the term, "seem," because I believe you've claimed "seem" is an argument; I'm arguing against your employment of the term, "seem" in argument--period.

What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?
There's a difference between stating, "I think," and "you seem." The former takes responsibility for your private gnosis, the latter does not.

[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.
I'll put an end to this nonsense right now:


Athias 421 :
“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.
I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.
- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.
- God is a person. Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.
- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.
- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.
- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.


- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.
[b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.
[b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.
[b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.
[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?
Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.
It's here where you either got confused or misinterpreted what was going on. When I stated, "I did present an argument," I was not AT ALL referring to your proposal that I refute your affirmation. In fact, I responded with this:

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead.
Why would "I" make the case? Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency?
[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.
I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?
I've had enough of this nonsense. Either explain your support, or I'm considering it a dropped point.

[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.
You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.
No, I didn't. That notion is a product of your own confusion. I extend my demand above.

Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.
Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?
If that's the case, then why did you initially state that your understanding of substantiation excluded providing someone else's opinion:

Athias 450 :
Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?
Amoranemix 459 :
No.
?

When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god.
Define "real god."

They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.
Explain the relevance of this allusion. Do you support the claims of these skeptics? And if so, explain.

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.
I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?
Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?
Do you object?

@font-face { font-family: 'graphik-web'; src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.eot'); src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.woff2') format('woff2'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bold-web.woff') format('woff'); font-weight: 700; font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; } @font-face { font-family: 'graphik-web'; src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.eot'); src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.woff2') format('woff2'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-lightitalic-web.woff') format('woff'); font-weight: 300; font-style: italic; font-stretch: normal; } @font-face { font-family: 'graphik-web'; src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.eot'); src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.woff2') format('woff2'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-regular-web.woff') format('woff'); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; } @font-face { font-family: 'graphik-web'; src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.eot'); src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.woff2') format('woff2'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-bolditalic-web.woff') format('woff'); font-weight: 700; font-style: italic; font-stretch: normal; } @font-face { font-family: 'graphik-web'; src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.eot'); src: url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.eot?#iefix') format('embedded-opentype'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.woff2') format('woff2'), url('moz-extension://b0e8ea58-d62f-4db1-a875-59dd69b215e7/vendor/graphik/web/graphik-medium-web.woff') format('woff'); font-weight: 500; font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; }
[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?
I am in no position to "doubt" if I don't know how you've defined "perfect love" and "perfect justice." So once again: define "perfect love"; define "perfect justice."

[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.
Non sequitur. My exchange with Double_R was my exchange with Double_R. My exchange with you is my exchange with you. Double_R is irrelevant to my exchange with you. If you're going to make reference to Double_R's argument, and support it, then it's your responsibility to assume stewardship of that argument.

My own measure.
What measure is that?

[81] What does that mean, informing support ?
Provide information to your support, or Explain your support.

I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.
Haha, my lap is bruising from all this laughter. Are you done derailing?

[*] You can find in post 449 the objection I have born to the definition you have provided earlier. I don't bear any objections. Get on with it.
I don't believe of any particular definition of exist that it applies in matters of ontology.
I did. If you didn't keep quoting me out of sequence, you could've seen it. I'll submit it here again:

P1 requires demonstration.
Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual." (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist. If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist. And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known. Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."

P1 demonstrated.
Objections?

['] Some thoughts, concepts and products of imagination are part of the universe. Others aren't.
Explain the division that separates the thoughts, concepts, and products of imagination that are part of the universe, and the others that aren't.

[104] Whatever else you have done is irrelevant. You have failed to demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises. If doing so requires another definition for existence, then stop stalling and provide one
I have demonstrated that my conclusion follows from the premises; I have provided definitions. So why don't you stop stalling, and read it?


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So then can we describe "the external"--really, a postulate of the external--as real or existent since rationalization can neither detect nor interact with it?
we can only describe it as "extant" to the degree that it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY

in other words, NOUMENON
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How does aphophatic phaneron control for one's mind?
the apophatic phaneron = one's mind
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
(You and I both know that this discussion can go one way or another depending on which definitions apply. Thus, my hounding up until recently.)
my impression is that you are generally making an ontological argument for the "existence" of "god(s)"

this is a relatively easy position to defend

as long as you avoid commitment to a SPECIFIC god and or gods
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
we can only describe it as "extant" to the degree that it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY

in other words, NOUMENON
What are some examples of logically necessary "extant" realities or objects in reality?

the apophatic phaneron = one's mind
Please explain.

my impression is that you are generally making an ontological argument for the "existence" of "god(s)"

this is a relatively easy position to defend

as long as you avoid commitment to a SPECIFIC god and or gods
Not really. Because my ontological argument doesn't focus on particular descriptions, or whether their capacities as described in books and/or mediums of mythos is consistent with physical law. My argument is that they simply "are." And this is defensible whether I'm making reference to a specific god, or all gods. As they say: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Not really. Because my ontological argument doesn't focus on particular descriptions,
which proves my point
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What are some examples of logically necessary "extant" realities or objects in reality?
the "self" is one of the most obvious examples

the "not-self" is another
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Please explain.
ap·o·phat·ic | \ ˌa-pə-ˈfa-tik  \
Definition of apophatic
of or relating to apophasis (see APOPHASIS sense 2involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not have

The phaneron (Greek φανερός [phaneros] "visible, manifest"[1][2]) is the subject matter of phenomenology, or of what Charles Sanders Peirce later called phaneroscopy.[3] The term, which was introduced in 1905, is similar to the concept of the "phenomenon" in the way it meant "whatever is present at any time to the mind in any way".[4]
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
which proves my point
It's not that it proves your point; easy =/= not entertaining one's opponent's measures.

the "self" is one of the most obvious examples

the "not-self" is another
Nice. But it's as you stated isn't it?: "two things that are truly 'independent' are unable to detect and or interact with each other in any way." I suppose my question would be: can we render distinction without independence?

If not, what's the utility in a logical necessity that neither detects nor interacts with reality?

ap·o·phat·ic | \ ˌa-pə-ˈfa-tik  \
Definition of apophatic
of or relating to apophasis (see APOPHASIS sense 2involving the practice of describing something by stating which characteristics it does not have

The phaneron (Greek φανερός [phaneros] "visible, manifest"[1][2]) is the subject matter of phenomenology, or of what Charles Sanders Peirce later called phaneroscopy.[3] The term, which was introduced in 1905, is similar to the concept of the "phenomenon" in the way it meant "whatever is present at any time to the mind in any way".[4]
That's not what I meant to request. I'm aware of aphophasis and phaneron. How does your qualification of phaneron as aphophatic create an equalivalence to one's mind?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
It's not that it proves your point; easy =/= not entertaining one's opponent's measures.
(iff) interlocutors cannot (explicitly) agree on definitions (then) they are not having a conversation
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
can we render distinction without independence?
yes, your eye is not your nose
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
what's the utility in a god that neither detects nor interacts with reality?

the ONLY way a god can interact with humans

is

(iff)

those humans are PIECES OF THAT GOD
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
That's not what I meant to request. I'm aware of aphophasis and phaneron. How does your qualification of phaneron as aphophatic create an equalivalence to one's mind?
think of a sponge

throw that sponge into a river

that flows into the ocean

how much information remains in that sponge

when it is old and crumbles to dust
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Aphophasis and Phaneron.

Overthink because one can.


The sponge thing was a good example.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
(iff) interlocutors cannot (explicitly) agree on definitions (then) they are not having a conversation
I--for the most part--agree.

yes, your eye is not your nose
The distinctions of which are determined by their primary functions, not their connection, correct? And those functions are independent of the other, yes? Though, I suppose one could argue olfaction can modulate visual perception.

what's the utility in a god that neither detects nor interacts with reality?
A "metaphysically objective" God? None.

the ONLY way a god can interact with humans

is

(iff)

those humans are PIECES OF THAT GOD
Please explain.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
think of a sponge

throw that sponge into a river

that flows into the ocean

how much information remains in that sponge

when it is old and crumbles to dust
I'd presume very little.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

A good argument for Atheism:

“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” -Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
A good argument for Atheism:

“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” -Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
Very uplifting. That's a good argument?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias
Very uplifting. That's a good argument?
Yes, it shows that if there was a God, he was an incompetent drunk before he died.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
Yes, it shows that if there was a God, he was an incompetent drunk before he died.
What would be an example of God's incompetence and/or inebriation?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias


Pediatric cancer?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


   Also Serial Killers
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
the ONLY way a god can interact with humans

is

(iff)

those humans are PIECES OF THAT GOD
Please explain.
what is your personally preferred definition of god ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
yes, your eye is not your nose
The distinctions of which are determined by their primary functions, not their connection, correct? And those functions are independent of the other, yes? Though, I suppose one could argue olfaction can modulate visual perception.
if your food looks good, but smells like rotten roadkill, you might not want to eat it

7 days later

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

" I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.“ —  Albert Einstein



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
" I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.“ —  Albert Einstein
well stated
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
@Athias
[76'] Indeed, but more importantly, you are not honouring your burden of proof.
[76''] It is my argument in the sense that I explicated it, not in the sense that I stand by it or rely on it to substantiate my position. Since no one is willing or able to support a key premise of the argument, it does not qualify as evidence for its conclusion, which is that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist. I disbelieve the conclusion anyway.[a]
[83] No. Requesting something does not always require a base. That request does not.
Athias 460 :
[76'] I have no particular burden here--at least with respect to this particular portion of our discussion. You're attempting to extrapolate my reasoning and extend it using a different argument. This argument however operates on the affirmation of descriptions of both "impossible" and "exist" you believe applies but have yet to delineate--much less, explain how the two relate. Instead you're attempting to have me refute descriptions which are presumably accepted (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,[105] but you have yet to submit your metrics because that would necessitate making the aforementioned descriptions which you hold applicable clear.

So for simplicity's sake, I'll ask these questions: what description of "impossible" do you believe applies to our discussion? What description of "exist" or "existence" do you believe applies to our discussion? How do the two relate--i.e. possibility and existence?[106]
[76''] It is your argument in the sense that it's your premise;[107] you however presume I should assimilate it based on how you intend to extend my reasoning. Because the argument isn't really whether I am arguing this :
A. X is impossible.
P1. For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.
C. Therefore, claiming X does not exist is irrational.
It's:

Assuming Athias maintains the same descriptions of "impossible" and "exist" as I do, if Athias maintains his premise and extends it to its logical conclusion, then said conclusion would be inconsistent with the assumed identical descriptions of "impossible" and "exist."

And that's your argument, not mine.[108]

[a] I don't doubt that you do; but how am I to understand the extent or nature of this disbelief if you're holding your descriptions hostage?
[104] Given that your support for an example case, i.e. claiming that God does not exist is irrational, was ambiguous, I assumed your support was an application of the more general principle that claiming Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational. The reason is that you appeared to attempt to support the general case i.s.o. the example case. But apparently, you don't stand by the general case. You have yet to honour your burden to prove the example case.
[105] Where have I stated that ?
[106] I already gave a description of existence in post 445. More than one may apply as we are discussing more than one subtopic.
Possibility is a requirement for existence. 'X is possible' means 'It is possible for X to be true or to exist.'
[107] You are mistaken again. A premise is not an argument and an argument is not a premise.
[108] No. I never made that argument.
Apparently you don't stand by the argument that I concocted (and you quoted) either, even though P1 is a rephrasal of a claim you made. So, I'll drop it. You still have to prove that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist, but I think we are already debating that elsewhere.

[a] I don't know. How much disbelief I hold depends on what is meant with impossible. Even with lax impossibility I still disbelieve it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist.

Tarik 451 :
[a] Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim [quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik] :
“Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.”[84]
I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?[85]
[b'] Exactly, so what was your point?
[a] You forgot to answer my question. I will answer yours though. You asserted God is objective. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!
[84] You are mistaken. I didn't open that can of worms. Sadolite did.
[85] The problem with objective morality (and objective in general), is that it is vague. I have explained that in www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333/
In post 223 Double_R made that distinction : he argues God's morality is subjective because it is chosen by God and anyone using it. You can disagree (with that defintion of objective), but didn't. You merely baldly asserted that God is objective. The object or entity God may be objective (assuming it exists), but that is not relevant, as anyone is objective that way. What is relevant is whether God's morality, opinion or choices are objective and if they are, whether only his morality, opinion or choices are.
Sadolite claimed atheistic morality is subjective. However, no one has presented a case supporting that the reasons why that is so don't also apply to Christian morality, i.e. that Christian morality is the exception.[*]
If choosing an objective moral standard (using some definition) is enough to have objective morality, then there can be plenty of different objective moralities, unless one relies on a contrived special pleading definition that only makes one's favourite morality objective.
[b'] See above.
Tarik 463 :
[a] [no response]
[84] That was your quote I quoted, you even admitted so when you said
“quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik “
[*] [no response]
[a] Practice what you preach!
[84] I have looked up the meaning of 'to open a can of worms' and indeed, I have not opened that can of worms. Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of that expression.
[*] Christians aren't stupid enough to believe the rubbish they utter.

Amoranemix on debate.org :
The objectivity/subjectivity of something can refer to two things : to a term or to a concept.
Tarik 463 :
You asserted this. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!
That was in a different thread. Go argue about it over there.

Amoranemix 459 to Tarik :
[86] No. It is not my duty to give all I have got.
[87] Assuming you are not referring to me in particular, but to people in general (i.e. “one” i.s.o. “you” and “your”), then that is indeed something that tends to confuse Christians. They sometimes make claims without knowing what they are talking about. That makes it difficult for them to back up their claims.
[88] The point you tried to make was irrelevant. It was about the preparatory work required for doing things I didn't do. The point you made was your ignorance on the concept of burden of proof.
[89] You are mistaken. Presenting a hypothetical does not require one to demonstrate its coherence.
[90] For clarity (the skeptic's friend), again, I am assuming the hypothetical is from Double_R in post 260 : “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral.” Where did you explicitely say why you took issue with it ?
Tarik 463 :
[no response]
[90] Christians don't have a case and they know it. They make-believe that they have a case. To avoid cognitive dissonance when asked to present it, they sometimes pretend they have already presented that case in the past.

Amoranemix on different forum :
Unlike for a circle, people don't understand what morality is, which causes them to confuse the subjectivity of the term with the subjectivity of the co
Tarik 463 :
For arguments sake let’s say your right that no one understands morality, then under that pretense how do you even know it exists in the first place?
I didn't say no one understands morality.
This thread is not about morality. Go argue about that where that is on topic.

What gap are you referring to ?
Athias 469 :
Pardon. What "overlap" is that?
The overlap consists of those people who fall into both categories, namely not questioning their own beliefs and always being certain of themselves.

Athias 454 :
This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.
P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.
C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Do you have a contention, query, or criticism about this argument?
P1 requires demonstration.
Athias 469 :
Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual."[91] (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist.[92] If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" [93] is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist.[94] And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.[95] Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."[96]

P1 demonstrated.[97]
[91] What definition is that ? If you wanted clarity you would have repeated that definition i.s.o. having me and anyone following along looking it up.
I assume you are referring to your definition from post 445 : “the absence of existence; the negation of being; nothingness; unreality, etc.”. You also provided 4 more definitions in post 440 :
exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.
real: true or actual.
material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.
spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
What does spiritual existence of God mean ? Does that mean that God exists in people's minds ?
I suspect that when people claiming God doesn't exist, they are referring to physical nonexistence.
[92] So, we have (with capitals) :
Everything: all things that exist
Nothing: all things that do not exist
Hence, if square circles dont' exist, then they are part of Nothing.
[93] We are not discussing the use of  'God does not exist' as a presupposition.
[94] Assuming the author is being honest, (s)he may not know and merely believe.
[95] Please demonstrate that.
[96] Please explain how that is supposed to follow.
[97] Not yet.