I don't necessarily buy into it. It's an interesting position though. Solipsism has been philosophically obstinate -- it seems ridiculous but it's very difficult to disprove.
The Big Bang theory is one of the most incontrovertible theories in all of theoretical physics. We are so certain rapid inflation at ~10^-30s occurred -- it is not opinion. I believe you maybe conflating scientific theory with just general intuition, perhaps?
Again, purely pedantic. Theism differs -- so slightly -- from Deism insofar that they believe that the creator intervenes in the universe. Craig might believe that the amalgamation of "uncaused, timeless, supreme etc. being" represents a theistic interpreation, even though the properties don't directly imply that -- this part is purely up to personal opinion.
How does there exist a 'most' common definition? Christianity represents a mere 30% of the religious population -- Hinduism has a multiplicity of Gods which wouldn't match your definition. Allah and the Christian God might prima facie have the same definition yet posit different things about our universe which would render them as different interpretations -- if one were to choose one interpretation over the other they are burdened with the scripture that comes with it.
I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it; appending his additional premise of a personal cause. Please observe:
"Craig concludes that the cause of the existence of the universe is an "uncaused, personal Creator ... who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful"; remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
I am still very unsure why you find a personal cause of our universe to be an unsubstantial view of God. Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions. Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that. If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
But my argument wasn't just the KCA, i also provided that the cause was an agent of volition (i.e consciousness). If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being. That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
Thanks for instigating the debate. I enjoyed how the resolution was left ambiguous and required justification throughout. Good luck in the final round.
Sure it can -- when we say the universe is flat, we don't mean perfectly flat; it has been measured that the universe is flat with a percentage uncertainty of only 0.4% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe). Stating the universe is flat is essentially as accurate as stating that the pyramid of Giza is a pyramid.
I wouldn't mind debating the exact resolution, but since Ram accepted the debate, perhaps something along the lines of "is theism a sound position" or "is theism a likely position" or perhaps a specific argument, like "is the KCA a sound argument". I don't mind really.
If any of you have time over the next two days, could you spare some to vote on this debate? The vote it had was removed and I hate debates going ties! Thank you.
And my standard would be at the biological beginning of human life, that happens to be at the moment of conception. Would you be willing to debate on these terms or would you still rather it the other way?
I should clarify that it would be an unsuitable rebuttal for me to say "what about 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes?" I understand that your approximation of 24 weeks cannot be an *objective*, objective standard, if you know what I mean. For example, someone could say personhood should be attributed when they develop their own heartbeat, are viable outwith the womb etc. it doesn't have to be a specific time per se.
The intent of this debate was to try and find which standard is the best. For example, if I were to assert that the voting age should be 18, it would be unsubstantial that I only affirm why it is a more suitable voting age than 16 (because, why not 21, 25 etc.?)
And we would both be incumbent on proving why our selected standard *is the best* and our rebuttals would be to show why our opponent's are not the best. Do you see where I am coming from or am I misrepresenting your point?
" I think my actual burden of proof would be to show that attributing personhood at conception is a bad thing and would do active harm."
I disagree. I would consider this more of a rebuttal (since I am affirming personhood at conception). The purpose of the debate is to answer: if not at conception, then when? Isn't it essentially the same BoP if you were to affirm why personhood should be granted at 24 weeks and justify why that time is more suitable than ¬24 weeks?
Thanks for the advice!
You could have argued that in the last 4 rounds.
I didn't think it could possibly get more exciting yet it just did.
Thanks for taking the time to vote and your detailed anaylsis.
If any of you have time could you vote on this debate? Thank you.
I don't necessarily buy into it. It's an interesting position though. Solipsism has been philosophically obstinate -- it seems ridiculous but it's very difficult to disprove.
Pity a 2 month long
debate ended this way.
Good to see two new members debating.
Indeed.
The Big Bang theory is one of the most incontrovertible theories in all of theoretical physics. We are so certain rapid inflation at ~10^-30s occurred -- it is not opinion. I believe you maybe conflating scientific theory with just general intuition, perhaps?
Would you be interested in doing the debate in German?
No worries.
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
Hi, if any of you have time to spare over the next two days could you please vote on this debate?
No, I now must prey to my very specific, uncommon, incorrect, unfair definition of God -- thanks for the debate and good luck.
Again, purely pedantic. Theism differs -- so slightly -- from Deism insofar that they believe that the creator intervenes in the universe. Craig might believe that the amalgamation of "uncaused, timeless, supreme etc. being" represents a theistic interpreation, even though the properties don't directly imply that -- this part is purely up to personal opinion.
How does there exist a 'most' common definition? Christianity represents a mere 30% of the religious population -- Hinduism has a multiplicity of Gods which wouldn't match your definition. Allah and the Christian God might prima facie have the same definition yet posit different things about our universe which would render them as different interpretations -- if one were to choose one interpretation over the other they are burdened with the scripture that comes with it.
I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it; appending his additional premise of a personal cause. Please observe:
"Craig concludes that the cause of the existence of the universe is an "uncaused, personal Creator ... who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful"; remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
I am still very unsure why you find a personal cause of our universe to be an unsubstantial view of God. Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions. Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that. If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
But my argument wasn't just the KCA, i also provided that the cause was an agent of volition (i.e consciousness). If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being. That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
By the way, I forgot to ask why you think that Deism is a truism?
There is a small typo in my second round, it should read "A2. The Incoherence of Impersonal Causes"
Thanks for instigating the debate. I enjoyed how the resolution was left ambiguous and required justification throughout. Good luck in the final round.
Sure it can -- when we say the universe is flat, we don't mean perfectly flat; it has been measured that the universe is flat with a percentage uncertainty of only 0.4% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe). Stating the universe is flat is essentially as accurate as stating that the pyramid of Giza is a pyramid.
He is actually correct. The euclidean geometry of the universe is spatially flat.
If the BoP is shared then why did you waive?
Great. I'll draw up a debate tomorrow.
I wouldn't mind debating the exact resolution, but since Ram accepted the debate, perhaps something along the lines of "is theism a sound position" or "is theism a likely position" or perhaps a specific argument, like "is the KCA a sound argument". I don't mind really.
I'm defining God as like an efficient cause of the universe -- I will formally define it in my round.
I'd be interested in this debate or a resolution similar if you're interested.
I might take this if no-one else does.
I aim to make a vote on this at some stage in the near future. Well argued both of you.
Possible kritik that Max is already ranked higher, since he is champion.
Yes! I have been reading it.
There is a small typo in my opening case.
What is read: "Viz. “For all x, where x is a person and where x is conscious, means x is a person”"
Should be read as: Viz. “For all x, where x is a *biological human* and where x is conscious, means x is a person”
A discussion would be great! I understand that view completely and I think you are right.
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
If any of you have time over the next two days, could you spare some to vote on this debate? The vote it had was removed and I hate debates going ties! Thank you.
Thank you!
That is true.
Absolutely brilliant kritik.
Thank you for taking the time to vote. The intent of that comment was to ensure that I wouldn't win automatically by virtue of him forfeiting.
And my standard would be at the biological beginning of human life, that happens to be at the moment of conception. Would you be willing to debate on these terms or would you still rather it the other way?
I understand your concern. To avoid this you could say that your standard is when sentience and pain sensation begins, rather than "exactly" 24 weeks.
I should clarify that it would be an unsuitable rebuttal for me to say "what about 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes?" I understand that your approximation of 24 weeks cannot be an *objective*, objective standard, if you know what I mean. For example, someone could say personhood should be attributed when they develop their own heartbeat, are viable outwith the womb etc. it doesn't have to be a specific time per se.
The intent of this debate was to try and find which standard is the best. For example, if I were to assert that the voting age should be 18, it would be unsubstantial that I only affirm why it is a more suitable voting age than 16 (because, why not 21, 25 etc.?)
And we would both be incumbent on proving why our selected standard *is the best* and our rebuttals would be to show why our opponent's are not the best. Do you see where I am coming from or am I misrepresenting your point?
" I think my actual burden of proof would be to show that attributing personhood at conception is a bad thing and would do active harm."
I disagree. I would consider this more of a rebuttal (since I am affirming personhood at conception). The purpose of the debate is to answer: if not at conception, then when? Isn't it essentially the same BoP if you were to affirm why personhood should be granted at 24 weeks and justify why that time is more suitable than ¬24 weeks?
In fact let me change the format first.
Feel free to accept, Tej.
I still wouldn't accept that a zygote is cancer; it is not a disease and it is not unnatural.
I would accept that format. What stage of development would you like to affirm?