Yeah, I think that captures what most people mean by “God”, so let’s go with it. If I find out over the course of the debate that it’s not ideal for whatever reason, I’ll do it differently next time!
I disagree that according to the myths Zeus doesn’t have a physical form, but obviously, one could amend their hypothesis and say Zeus is non-physical, sure. But that’s my point: as hypotheses become more and more as hoc, they because less and less likely to be the best explanation of the evidence (in this case, lightning, various calamities sometimes claimed to be wrought by the gods, etc). Moreover, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence of something, when we should expect that thing to leave traces if it existed. For example, the absence of evidence for a planet between Venus and the Earth is pretty good evidence that there is no such planet. Do you really think we have no reason to believe that elves and fairies don’t exist? That’s silly. If there were little flying people or immortal people with pointy ears out there on planet Earth (depending on how you define “Elf”), we would expect to find traces of them: either direct observations of them, or little fairy skeletons, etc. That we do not find these traces is pretty strong evidence that elves and fairies don’t exist.
And even if I grant that you can’t disprove that God exists, then you shouldn’t be an atheist, because claiming that God does not exist goes beyond what you have said you can prove! If there is no way to show that God does not exist, then only agnosticism about his existence could ever be justified.
Yes! We can go to Mount Olympus, and lo and behold, there is no collection of gods waiting for us. Moreover, scientific explanations of lighting are more powerful explanations than appeal to Zeus. Those two facts undermine the “Zeus hypothesis.” Of course, one can always make a hypothesis more as hoc to explain the data, but that applies to any hypothesis or explanation, not just religious ones.
That’s a nice bit of rhetoric and flourish, Fauxlaw, but you’ve misunderstood my stipulation on several counts. For one thing, it is not “essentially [my] argument that Trump's motives have not been justified.” I have deliberately not made that claim and will not do so in this debate. Moreover, adopting a morally neutral stance when outlining Trump’s impact on the LGBTQ community is not to remove “the very core issue” or the “turning point” of the debate. It is to focus our analysis on one set of issues in a much broader debate. Before one can determine if a President’s policies were morally reprehensible or praiseworthy, one must determine what, exactly, those policies were in the first place. Deciding whether Trump’s actions are justified (legally or morally) would involve complicated questions of constitutional interpretation, subtle issues of religious freedom versus a religious license to discriminate, and so on, and my mind is not made up on many of those questions. So, I reject your request to remove the relevant restriction.
Perhaps you should have debated me! I don’t think it’s easy to prove such a thing.
Yeah, I think that captures what most people mean by “God”, so let’s go with it. If I find out over the course of the debate that it’s not ideal for whatever reason, I’ll do it differently next time!
The all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good creator of the universe. That’s a fairly standard definition of God.
I disagree that according to the myths Zeus doesn’t have a physical form, but obviously, one could amend their hypothesis and say Zeus is non-physical, sure. But that’s my point: as hypotheses become more and more as hoc, they because less and less likely to be the best explanation of the evidence (in this case, lightning, various calamities sometimes claimed to be wrought by the gods, etc). Moreover, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence of something, when we should expect that thing to leave traces if it existed. For example, the absence of evidence for a planet between Venus and the Earth is pretty good evidence that there is no such planet. Do you really think we have no reason to believe that elves and fairies don’t exist? That’s silly. If there were little flying people or immortal people with pointy ears out there on planet Earth (depending on how you define “Elf”), we would expect to find traces of them: either direct observations of them, or little fairy skeletons, etc. That we do not find these traces is pretty strong evidence that elves and fairies don’t exist.
And even if I grant that you can’t disprove that God exists, then you shouldn’t be an atheist, because claiming that God does not exist goes beyond what you have said you can prove! If there is no way to show that God does not exist, then only agnosticism about his existence could ever be justified.
Yes! We can go to Mount Olympus, and lo and behold, there is no collection of gods waiting for us. Moreover, scientific explanations of lighting are more powerful explanations than appeal to Zeus. Those two facts undermine the “Zeus hypothesis.” Of course, one can always make a hypothesis more as hoc to explain the data, but that applies to any hypothesis or explanation, not just religious ones.
Insightful analysis. I appreciate the feedback.
That’s a nice bit of rhetoric and flourish, Fauxlaw, but you’ve misunderstood my stipulation on several counts. For one thing, it is not “essentially [my] argument that Trump's motives have not been justified.” I have deliberately not made that claim and will not do so in this debate. Moreover, adopting a morally neutral stance when outlining Trump’s impact on the LGBTQ community is not to remove “the very core issue” or the “turning point” of the debate. It is to focus our analysis on one set of issues in a much broader debate. Before one can determine if a President’s policies were morally reprehensible or praiseworthy, one must determine what, exactly, those policies were in the first place. Deciding whether Trump’s actions are justified (legally or morally) would involve complicated questions of constitutional interpretation, subtle issues of religious freedom versus a religious license to discriminate, and so on, and my mind is not made up on many of those questions. So, I reject your request to remove the relevant restriction.