Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist? » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/22/09 - 08:31 AM:	#51
aletheist wrote: I believe that we have been down this road before. If there were really no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural, or for the existence of God, then no reasonable person would believe in such things. Many reasonable people do hold and have held such beliefs. Therefore, there must be at least some evidence supporting such a conclusion--unless you are claiming that every theist is unreasonable, which is something that I think you would need to argue, rather than just assert. You refute this yourself in your last post to me. I asserted that if two reasonable people thought that something was evidence two contradictory conclusions, then only one of them could be right, and if they both were reasonable, the other person could convince the mistaken party. You then corrected me, and said that in fact both could be wrong, and it wasn't evidence for either conclusion -- so unless you are going to go back on this now, and say that it is impossible for a reasonable person to be wrong, then I think that you have defeated your own point. Then, if God did that, we would have no free will to disbelieve. This was the whole point of my very first post in this thread--perhaps our free will is more important to God than our believing that he exists. But I rejected your premise that we have free will to believe or disbelieve anything, and argued against it. In fact, if we could freely chose to believe or disbelieve things, then proof would not be compelling in the first place. By denying me the ability to chose to believe that my cat is lying beside me, how is that any less of a violating of my free will? Why is free will only important in this context? Rather ad hoc don't you think? That seems like a pretty low bar. Do you really think that all theists are irrational to this extent? "Everyday circumstances" routinely involve trusting other people in areas where we do not have direct experience or adequate expertise. "Everyday life" includes court proceedings where human testimony is accepted as perfectly valid evidence, especially when it is provided by multiple corroborating witnesses. Neither is true if the testimony conveys things that either violate laws of nature, or involve entities and things that we don't have first hand experience with, or physical evidence for. The average person does not accept the testimony of ghosts, alien abduction, or big foot, and the latter two don't even violate the laws of nature -- let along could the existence of such things be established in court of law. Also, both the courts, and individuals first attempt to establish the reliability of the people forwarding the claims, before their truth value is estimated, where this cannot be done of ancient writers, many of which were anonymous, and their credibility cannot be established any better than contradictory religious revelations and witnesses. So, yes, I do think they are that irrational with regard to this. No more so than the argument to which I was responding. If God exists, is eternal and unchangeable, and created everything else that exists, then his nature is the only possible standard for what is good; what alternative could there be? Irrelevant -- the argument does not assert that god can't be the standard, it demonstrates that if one is, then morality is arbitrary. No one has answered this question yet. It seems to me--and maybe I am missing something; it would not by any means be the first time--that you can only deny the conclusion by denying one or more of the premises; but then you would no longer be talking about the same concept of God as the typical theist. Well, I think that morality is based on human nature, personal evaluations, reason and evidence -- whether a god exists or not. It certainly isn't derived from the bible, and I don't see god delivering moral truths to people any other way, and I personally certainly do not have access to god's nature, so I would have to be either completely amoral, or morality has to be derived from things I have access to. Yes, it would--if you were the eternal and unchanging creator of everything else that exists, and the standard is grounded in your essential nature. The fundamental mistake here is equating morality or goodness with an "opinion" of God, which is not at all what I am suggesting. By this logic, then god is the ultimate source of contradictory things, god's nature is the standard of good, as well as evil, beauty, as well as ugliness, virtue, as well as villainy. How is it meaningless? How is it arbitrary? If God exists, then what other definition of "good" makes any sense? What is good is built on personal evaluations of things as favourable, and beneficial. That is I think beyond clearly how people establish what is good, and that is why there is disagreement. You definition is meaningless because it doesn't offer a reason for why god's nature is good, and thus no matter what god's nature happens to be, it is good regardless. If God exists, what else could he be but good? Who would be in a position to challenge this? Who is in a position to challenge god's authority on the matter? If it were an objective, or logical truth, then all thinking entities should be in a position to challenge it, and then have it demonstrated. If however it is merely an authoritative dictate, then surely I do not possess the position in the universe to challenge its tyrant, no more than can a peasant challenge the authority of the king, but then its dictates are not fact, or logical, but arbitrary proclamations. Calm down. I agree with your characterization of what is supposed to happen in this forum, and I welcome sincere and thoughtful criticism of anything that I post here. I hope that this sentiment goes both ways. I am sad that you bothered to respond to my post without offering any of those things. Edited by Wosret on 04/22/09 - 03:50 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/22/09 - 12:35 PM:	#52
Wosret wrote: so unless you are going to go back on this now, and say that it is impossible for a reasonable person to be wrong, then I think that you have defeated your own point. I do not see how. Reasonable people can be wrong, but still (by definition) base their beliefs on evidence. If reasonable people believe that God exists, it is because they have encountered some evidence of this, which they find convincing. Other reasonable people may look at the same evidence and not be convinced by it, presumably because of other evidence to which they assign greater weight. Wosret wrote: Why is free will only important in this context? Rather ad hoc don't you think? No, because I am not saying that "free will is only important in this context;" my view is that, in the absence of absolute proof, we do have free will to believe or disbelieve something. That is why judgment, weighing the evidence, is necessary. Wosret wrote: So, yes, I do think they are that irrational with regard to this. It seems to me that you simply assign different weights to the various kinds of evidence. If there were only one rational way to do this, then all reasonable people would agree on everything, which obviously is not the case. Wosret wrote: Irrelevant -- the argument does not assert that god can't be the standard, it demonstrates that if one is, then morality is arbitrary. It does not demonstrate this. I posted some more comments in the other thread. Wosret wrote: Well, I think that morality is based on human nature, personal evaluations, reason and evidence -- whether a god exists or not. I would agree with this, to an extent. If God does not exist, then the standard of goodness and ethics is an open question. If God does exist, then he is the standard of goodness and ethics, but we still have to figure out how to gain access to that standard so that we can live accordingly. However, that is not the matter at issue in this thread. Wosret wrote: By this logic, then god is the ultimate source of contradictory things, god's nature is the standard of good, as well as evil, beauty, as well as ugliness, virtue, as well as villainy. Of course--in the sense that evil is whatever is not good, ugliness is whatever is not beautiful, and villainy is whatever is not virtuous. Defining one necessarily also defines its contradictory. Wosret wrote: What is good is built on personal evaluations of things as favourable, and beneficial. That is I think beyond clearly how people establish what is good, and that is why there is disagreement. Sure, that is how people try to determine what is good. Those who believe in an absolute standard seek to conform to it, and those who do not seek to construct an ethical system that works for them. Wosret wrote: You definition is meaningless because it doesn't offer a reason for why god's nature is good, and thus no matter what god's nature happens to be, it is good regardless. Again, see the other thread. Wosret wrote: If it were an objective, or logical truth, then all thinking entities should be in a position to challenge it, and then have it demonstrated. It sounds like you insist on having the right to challenge God's ethics, if it turns out that he exists. Wosret wrote: If however it is merely an authoritative dictate, then surely I do not possess the position in the universe to challenge its tyrant, no more than can a peasant challenge the authority of the king, but then its dictates are not fact, or logical, but arbitrary proclamations. Sure, but if God exists, I do not believe that this is an accurate description of the situation. Wosret wrote: I am sad that you bothered to respond to my post without offering any of those things. Well, I am surprised that you did not detect any "arguments, reason, justifications, discourse, [or] logical syllogisms" in my response. I am pretty sure that they are all there; for example, I included a syllogism in the very first paragraph! In any case, I am glad that you took the time to post again, despite your disappointment with what I said last time. Again, I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue; I learn and grow from these exchanges, even if my fundamental position does not end up changing much. I respect your point of view, even though I disagree with it.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/22/09 - 03:23 PM:	#53
aletheist wrote: I do not see how. Reasonable people can be wrong, but still (by definition) base their beliefs on evidence. If reasonable people believe that God exists, it is because they have encountered some evidence of this, which they find convincing. Other reasonable people may look at the same evidence and not be convinced by it, presumably because of other evidence to which they assign greater weight. You asserted that there must be evidence because reasonable people think that there is, and said that I must then think them all unreasonable. I don't, I think they're wrong that there is any evidence. No, because I am not saying that "free will is only important in this context;" my view is that, in the absence of absolute proof, we do have free will to believe or disbelieve something. That is why judgment, weighing the evidence, is necessary. Then why doesn't god offer the same level of evidence for its existence that I have for my cat? Why isn't the evidence unambiguous, and clear to all reasonable people? It seems to me that you simply assign different weights to the various kinds of evidence. If there were only one rational way to do this, then all reasonable people would agree on everything, which obviously is not the case. This is false, as reasonable people can still make mistakes in reasoning, and have numerous cognitive biases that stand in the way of evaluating things optimally. I think that the intelligencia, and academia tend to agree largely on the matter of what constitutes evidence, and what does not. In fact I think that you would agree with me about what kind of things constitute evidence in which situations, the problem would come from you thinking that more things in more contexts constitute evidence than I do. Of course--in the sense that evil is whatever is not good, ugliness is whatever is not beautiful, and villainy is whatever is not virtuous. Defining one necessarily also defines its contradictory. Who differentiates the two, and by what standard!!!!!!! I'm becoming extremely annoyed by your going no where circularity. We repeatedly come back to the exact same problem, but you completely refuse to address it. It sounds like you insist on having the right to challenge God's ethics, if it turns out that he exists. Of course I do. I thought that god was a loving parent, not an oppressive tyrant. Well, I am surprised that you did not detect any "arguments, reason, justifications, discourse, [or] logical syllogisms" in my response. I am pretty sure that they are all there; for example, I included a syllogism in the very first paragraph! Yeah, but it was a non sequitur. In any case, I am glad that you took the time to post again, despite your disappointment with what I said last time. Again, I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue; I learn and grow from these exchanges, even if my fundamental position does not end up changing much. I respect your point of view, even though I disagree with it. How Christian of you.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 905

Posted 04/22/09 - 04:14 PM:	#54
I'm really picking on SnoopDoug now, but it seems that his argument for S5 is question-begging, too. SnoopDoug wrote: Its contrapositive is this: "~□p --> ~◊□p." [. . .] Given the equivalence of "~□p --> ~◊□p" with "◊□p --> □p," and the obvious truth of the former, it follows logically and inescapably that the latter is also true. This seems no better than arguing, "Some doubt that P. But I can't imagine anyone so benighted as to doubt that ~~P. Given their equivalence and the obvious truth of the latter, it follows that P."

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/22/09 - 07:28 PM:	#55
Wosret wrote: You asserted that there must be evidence because reasonable people think that there is, and said that I must then think them all unreasonable. I don't, I think they're wrong that there is any evidence. How is this effectively different? If you think that they are wrong about there being any evidence, then you think that they believe in something without any (real) evidence--which would be unreasonable, would it not? Wosret wrote: Then why doesn't god offer the same level of evidence for its existence that I have for my cat? Why isn't the evidence unambiguous, and clear to all reasonable people? This is a tough one, and I do no presume that I can provide an answer that will satisfy you. All I can suggest is that if God exists, then apparently human free will and some amount of faith are important to him. Also, if God exists, who gets to decide what counts as sufficient evidence for his existence--God himself, or someone whom he has created? Wosret wrote: This is false, as reasonable people can still make mistakes in reasoning, and have numerous cognitive biases that stand in the way of evaluating things optimally. Fair enough, I stand corrected. Wosret wrote: In fact I think that you would agree with me about what kind of things constitute evidence in which situations, the problem would come from you thinking that more things in more contexts constitute evidence than I do. Maybe so, but that would seem to suggest that I take more potential sources into account than you do--in a sense, that I am more open-minded. How could we reasonably resolve which of us (if either) has the right evidential criteria? Wosret wrote: Who differentiates the two, and by what standard!!!!!!! I'm becoming extremely annoyed by your going no where circularity. We repeatedly come back to the exact same problem, but you completely refuse to address it. I do not mean to annoy you, but you are still presupposing that someone has to choose what is good vs. evil, and so on. My contention is that if God exists, then his eternal and immutable nature is the absolute standard, because there could be no other. If this is so, then the task for us as humans would be to learn about God's nature and structure our ethics accordingly. What more can I say to address this issue? Wosret wrote: Of course I do. I thought that god was a loving parent, not an oppressive tyrant. On what basis? What is your source of information about the nature of God? Of course, in accordance with my argument, if God is an oppressive tyrant--just to be clear, I am not granting your implication that he would be if I am right--then being an oppressive tyrant is intrinsically good. If you find this absurd or intolerable, it is only because you have established your own arbitrary standard for what is good vs. evil. Does it make any sense to try to impose this on your creator, if such a being exists?
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/22/09 - 09:03 PM:	#56
aletheist wrote: How is this effectively different? If you think that they are wrong about there being any evidence, then you think that they believe in something without any (real) evidence--which would be unreasonable, would it not? It would only be unreasonable if they were aware that it was not real evidence. People can be reasonable and wrong you do realize. This is a tough one, and I do no presume that I can provide an answer that will satisfy you. All I can suggest is that if God exists, then apparently human free will and some amount of faith are important to him. Also, if God exists, who gets to decide what counts as sufficient evidence for his existence--God himself, or someone whom he has created? Presumably the average standard of evidence would do, but if he wanted to give evidence, then clearly it would be unambiguous, and evidence to everyone, we are talking about god after all, I don't find it plausible that god would not be able to succeed in providing me evidence if it wanted to provide me with evidence. So you take the very fact that there is not sufficient evidence to prove god as evidence for things about god? Really? Because there is not sufficient evidence, you conclude that god must want you to believe without sufficient evidence!! Of course!! Maybe so, but that would seem to suggest that I take more potential sources into account than you do--in a sense, that I am more open-minded. How could we reasonably resolve which of us (if either) has the right evidential criteria? By which of us has the least amount of controversial beliefs, and who's standard is inductively least reliable, as well as the inductively determined reliability of these extra sources of evidence. Also, open-minded means that you are open to consider new ideas and opinions, it doesn't mean that you have to accept them. That is just gullibility. I do not mean to annoy you, but you are still presupposing that someone has to choose what is good vs. evil, and so on. But of course, how else can you tell the difference? I do not mean to annoy you, but you are still presupposing that someone has to choose what is good vs. evil, and so on. My contention is that if God exists. If this is so, then the task for us as humans would be to learn about God's nature and structure our ethics accordingly. What more can I say to address this issue? You are just repeating yourself. No god cannot serve as such a standard for the reasons given, that you continually refuse to address, but rather just dismiss, and reject because they deny your preferred conclusion. On what basis? What is your source of information about the nature of God? Theists. I'm an atheist, I think that "god" is 100% the invention of whomever it is that is forwarding the concept to me. Of course, in accordance with my argument, if God is an oppressive tyrant--just to be clear, I am not granting your implication that he would be if I am right--then being an oppressive tyrant is intrinsically good. If you find this absurd or intolerable, it is only because you have established your own arbitrary standard for what is good vs. evil. Does it make any sense to try to impose this on your creator, if such a being exists? No, but I don't claim my standard to be objective, and my standard is at least best on goals, and values, and is open to negotiation, evidence, and reason. If god exists, and is the standard of what is moral, then I simply wouldn't care what it thinks is and isn't moral. I'm not s sycophant, so I will not be complying to gain favour. I'm a bit of a coward though, so I may comply out of fear -- but given the option to go with what I thought, or adhere to what I saw to be tyrannical evil dictates, then I would of course opt to do what I thought, wouldn't you? If it was the case that because of the way god's nature was, it was moral to marry nine year olds, and torture small animals, would you do this just because the creator of the universe thinks it's a good thing?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/23/09 - 03:31 AM:	#57
Paul wrote: Do you realize what you're saying? A 99.999% rational argument which rests one choice to not care about truth (as you are making, declaring that pragmatism is more important than truth) is not any more likely to be true than a 1% rational argument. An argument is either entirely rational or it's worthless. In symbolic logic, if you assume P & ~P you can conclude anything in the universe you want with perfectly logical steps from the premise. 'The only truth is that there is no truth' is something I like to remind myself of when I'm considering other forum members positions. When I I first joined the forum argued with Gassendi1 for days whether what he consider to be facts where actually truths. He thought so, I didn't. Although he could be rude at times I did respect his tenacity for arguing a position. If anyone feels like reading up on it the old thread it is right here. What you consider to be rational and real is not the same thing as what I or other people consider it to be. Our experiences and concepts are different enough that it makes me see reality one way and you another. For example, J. Random Hacker said that he would believe in God if he experienced a 'miracle'. I have already said several times that there are people that have had religious experiences (which is more or less the same thing as a miracle) that makes them believe in God. Without a religious experience, J. Random Hacker and others are non-believers however if they did experience one they perhaps could become believers. Paul wrote: If the majority of adherents have a twisted concept of morality which holds back progress and attempts to suppress human freedom -- as I would say is certainly true of religion -- then that does make it wrong. In virtually every society, religion is the force of convervativism fighting to prevent people from being allowed to make their own choices -- whether that be fighting homosexuals and abortions today, or women not long ago, or people of other religions in much of the world. Although people that believe in God are not perfect, it is difficult to calm they are more immoral or 'evil' then non-believers. One reason isthere is no non-biased metric that can be used. If you use Christians metric they are better than the atheists, if you use athiests metrics then they are more 'evil'. Every culture or ideology uses their own metrics which of course proves to it's believers that they are the most moral people on earth. Paul wrote: If you can't even describe how you think he exists, your assertion is senseless. You seem to be trying the classic externalist leap of getting some external party to know stuff for you so you can claim to get it by slight of hand. If I start describing God to you and other members of the forum then I would become preachy and it wouldn't help that much in understanding. I have already said that one doesn't have to believe in God the way Christians do in order to know God, but most likely you have find a way to find a reason as to why things outside of yourself are much more important than you value your on existence. I could describe what a religious experience is and why is changes someone, but I can not make words on a piece of paper to cause you to experience what someone that goes through one experiences.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/23/09 - 06:46 AM:	#58
Wosret wrote: It would only be unreasonable if they were aware that it was not real evidence. So they are reasonable, but ignorant? Wosret wrote: People can be reasonable and wrong you do realize. Of course, it even happens to me from time to time. Wosret wrote: Presumably the average standard of evidence would do The average human standard? Why would God, if he exists, be bound to that? Wosret wrote: but if he wanted to give evidence, then clearly it would be unambiguous, and evidence to everyone, we are talking about god after all, I don't find it plausible that god would not be able to succeed in providing me evidence if it wanted to provide me with evidence. If God exists, he would certainly be able to provide evidence; for example, he would be able to appear in front of you right now and perform several undeniable miracles. The question is not whether God would be able to give unambiguous evidence; it is whether he would be obligated. Wosret wrote: So you take the very fact that there is not sufficient evidence to prove god as evidence for things about god? Really? Sure. If God exists, the fact that his existence cannot be absolutely, irrefutably proven may tell us something important about him. Wosret wrote: Because there is not sufficient evidence, you conclude that god must want you to believe without sufficient evidence!! No, I reject the argument that because someone does not believe that God exists, or does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove God's existence, that therefore God must not exist. For this to work, you would have to demonstrate that there is no possible reason for God, if he exists, to limit the amount and/or types of evidence that he provides for his own existence. I do not think that you can do this. Wosret wrote: By which of us has the least amount of controversial beliefs Controversial beliefs are usually the most important ones, and the fact that they are controversial means that equally reasonable people take different positions on them. For example, if you classify theism as a controversial belief (I would not disagree), then atheism is also a controversial belief (do you disagree?). Wosret wrote: and who's standard is inductively least reliable, as well as the inductively determined reliability of these extra sources of evidence. No doubt you are aware of the problem of induction, so although I agree that it is useful--indispensable, really--it is never definitive, in the ultimate sense. Besides, it seems to me that two equally reasonable people can disagree on "the inductively determined reliability" of a particular source of evidence. Wosret wrote: Also, open-minded means that you are open to consider new ideas and opinions, it doesn't mean that you have to accept them. That is just gullibility. Yes, but when reasonable people take additional types of evidence into account, it is because they find them to be credible; they do not embrace them uncritically. Wosret wrote: But of course, how else can you tell the difference? We have to choose what we believe is good vs. evil, etc. This does not mean that someone has to choose what is good vs. evil, etc. If ethics is completely subjective, as you claim, then you are correct that everyone gets to make their own choices in this area. My claim is that if God exists, then ethics is only subjective to the extent that we have to discern God's eternal and immutable nature in order to make choices that are consistent with that absolute standard. Wosret wrote: No god cannot serve as such a standard for the reasons given, that you continually refuse to address, but rather just dismiss, and reject because they deny your preferred conclusion. What reasons? Where is the killer argument that the eternal and immutable nature of God, if he exists, not only may not be the absolute standard of goodness, but actually cannot be such a standard? Wosret wrote: No, but I don't claim my standard to be objective, and my standard is at least best on goals, and values, and is open to negotiation, evidence, and reason. If your standard is not objective, then it is not binding on anyone, except perhaps yourself--but then, you would always have the option of changing it if circumstances warranted it, right? I am not sure that "standard" is the right word for something like this. Wosret wrote: If god exists, and is the standard of what is moral, then I simply wouldn't care what it thinks is and isn't moral. Really? Even if you somehow became convinced that God exists, you would still refuse to acknowledge him, and would go on living by your own "standard"? How is that reasonable? Wosret wrote: I'm not s sycophant, so I will not be complying to gain favour. I'm a bit of a coward though, so I may comply out of fear -- but given the option to go with what I thought, or adhere to what I saw to be tyrannical evil dictates, then I would of course opt to do what I thought, wouldn't you? I thought that you said that reasonable people can be wrong. If you found out that you were wrong about the existence of God, and wrong about the standard for goodness and moral living, would you really continue to cling to your mistaken views, or would you admit your error and embrace the truth? Which is the more reasonable decision? Wosret wrote: If it was the case that because of the way god's nature was, it was moral to marry nine year olds, and torture small animals, would you do this just because the creator of the universe thinks it's a good thing? One more time: If God exists, it is not about what he thinks; it is about what he is.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/23/09 - 08:43 AM:	#59
aletheist wrote: The average human standard? Why would God, if he exists, be bound to that? Strawman, read my post again. If God exists, he would certainly be able to provide evidence; for example, he would be able to appear in front of you right now and perform several undeniable miracles. The question is not whether God would be able to give unambiguous evidence; it is whether he would be obligated. Strawman, read my post again. No, I reject the argument that because someone does not believe that God exists, or does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove God's existence, that therefore God must not exist. For this to work, you would have to demonstrate that there is no possible reason for God, if he exists, to limit the amount and/or types of evidence that he provides for his own existence. I do not think that you can do this. Strawman, read my post again. Controversial beliefs are usually the most important ones, and the fact that they are controversial means that equally reasonable people take different positions on them. For example, if you classify theism as a controversial belief (I would not disagree), then atheism is also a controversial belief (do you disagree?). Atheism is a disbelief, not a belief. It is a rejection of theism, not a claim in and of itself, or else all rejections of things would be equal, and everyone would have the same amount of beliefs. We are talking about beliefs in the truth of propositions. No doubt you are aware of the problem of induction, so although I agree that it is useful--indispensable, really--it is never definitive, in the ultimate sense. Besides, it seems to me that two equally reasonable people can disagree on "the inductively determined reliability" of a particular source of evidence. They certainly can not. No more can I someone disagree on a probabilistic analysis, unless they dispute the accuracy of the recording of the results, then they cannot dispute the enumeration of the reiteration of specific results. Though, if you want to reject induction, then go right ahead. Yes, but when reasonable people take additional types of evidence into account, it is because they find them to be credible; they do not embrace them uncritically. I think that they clearly do, as you have with your opinions about god's nature which you can give absolutely no reason to suppose beyond intuition, and because you defined it that way. I think that is about as uncritical as it gets. If ethics is completely subjective... I never once claimed that, I said that it has subjective and arbitrary factors, but is no more or less subjective or arbitrary as a language. ...as you claim then you are correct that everyone gets to make their own choices in this area. Never said this either. Please address what I've actually said. So far the majority of this reply is responding to positions I don't hold, and points I never made. My claim is that if God exists, then ethics is only subjective to the extent that we have to discern God's eternal and immutable nature in order to make choices that are consistent with that absolute standard. Then ethics are subjective and arbitrary. What reasons? Where is the killer argument that the eternal and immutable nature of God, if he exists, not only may not be the absolute standard of goodness, but actually cannot be such a standard? I don't need to provide such an argument, this is a negative proof fallacy. You need to actually support your assertions, not just assert them and demand that I disprove them to your personal satisfaction. If your standard is not objective, then it is not binding on anyone, except perhaps yourself--but then, you would always have the option of changing it if circumstances warranted it, right? I am not sure that "standard" is the right word for something like this. My standard is binding on many, and is binding because of shared goals, values, reason, and evidence, as well as because it is open to negotiation. It isn't binding on everyone, but it is on everyone that allows it to be. It is about as binding as a language. Also, it doesn't follow that what is objective is "binding". If something is objective, it is true, but I am only bound by the truth by an act of disposition. There are no categorical imperatives that I'm aware of. Really? Even if you somehow became convinced that God exists, you would still refuse to acknowledge him, and would go on living by your own "standard"? How is that reasonable? Because I would need a reason to think that it's values were superior to mine, and correct, while where I disagreed with it I was wrong. I don't agree that there can be an authority on a matter that is not based on the state of affairs of the world, facts, or evidence. So I see no reason to comply where I disagree, and of course I find that reasonable. I am open to reason and evidence, and being shown wrong, but if it is merely a class on a matter where no one is right, and no one is wrong, then it would not be unreasonable to use my own discretion out of preference. I thought that you said that reasonable people can be wrong. If you found out that you were wrong about the existence of God, and wrong about the standard for goodness and moral living, would you really continue to cling to your mistaken views, or would you admit your error and embrace the truth? Which is the more reasonable decision? I wouldn't deny that god exists, but if there is no reason that god's nature is the way it is, or no reason why I should adhere to it, then I can't be mistaken about not doing so. Why would I be wrong if I disagreed? In what sense? This is something I always find strange in the theist mindset, they seem to figure that it just simply follows that if a god exists we ought to prostrate ourselves before it, and adhere to its every command, it's just obvious!! One more time: If God exists, it is not about what he thinks; it is about what he is. No, it is about what it thinks, you already agreed that god is both all-good, and all-evil, unless we personally always get to differentiate the two, then I can't possibly be wrong, if however god differentiates the two, then it can tell me that I'm wrong, but beyond just takings it's word for it, I don't see how I would be.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/23/09 - 10:17 AM:	#60
Wosret wrote: Strawman, read my post again. If you are not going to respond directly to something that I said, then there is no need to quote it or say anything about it. I read your post (several times) and gave you my comments on it. If you think that I am misrepresenting you, by all means correct me, but please be specific. Wosret wrote: Atheism is a disbelief, not a belief. It is a rejection of theism, not a claim in and of itself, or else all rejections of things would be equal, and everyone would have the same amount of beliefs. We are talking about beliefs in the truth of propositions. This is nonsense. Atheism is a belief in the truth of the proposition that God does not exist. Rejecting a belief system is just as much a claim as advocating it. Everyone has a worldview of some kind. Wosret wrote: They certainly can not. No more can I someone disagree on a probabilistic analysis, unless they dispute the accuracy of the recording of the results, then they cannot dispute the enumeration of the reiteration of specific results. Well, you just gave one exception right there. They can also dispute the basis or interpretation of the raw data. People lie with statistics all the time. You said yourself that "reasonable people can still make mistakes in reasoning, and have numerous cognitive biases that stand in the way of evaluating things optimally." That applies to reliability assessments, probabilistic analyses, and any other rational activities. Wosret wrote: Though, if you want to reject induction, then go right ahead. aletheist wrote: I agree that it is useful--indispensable, really Wosret wrote: I think that they clearly do, as you have with your opinions about god's nature which you can give absolutely no reason to suppose beyond intuition, and because you defined it that way. I think that is about as uncritical as it gets. You complain repeatedly about my definition, but you said that you get all of your information about God from theists. Based on that input, if God exists, is he eternal? immutable? immaterial? omniscient? omnipotent? good? If you say "no" to any of these attributes, then we are no longer talking about the typical concept of God that is held by theists, and you are the one attacking a straw man (actually, a straw God). The dilemma that was posed, which I characterized as a false one, stated that, if God exists, then goodness must be either arbitrary on God's part or independent of God altogether. My contention all along has been that there is at least one other option--namely, that goodness is whatever God's nature is, period. Technically, I do not have to prove that this is necessary in order to dissolve the dilemma; I only have to show that it is possible. I think that I have done this, you obviously disagree, and everyone else reading along can make up their own minds. Wosret wrote: I never once claimed that, I said that it has subjective and arbitrary factors, but is no more or less subjective or arbitrary as a language. Okay, my mistake. Which aspects of ethics do you think are objective and non-arbitrary? On what absolute standard are those aspects based? Wosret wrote: I don't need to provide such an argument, this is a negative proof fallacy. True, you do not need to provide such an argument--unless you want to convince me that I am wrong. Wosret wrote: You need to actually support your assertions, not just assert them and demand that I disprove them to your personal satisfaction. It seems to me that all of us have to deal with this tension in every rational argument. Both sides must give reasons to support their positions, and both sides demand that the other disprove them to their personal satisfaction. A theist would have to prove to your personal satisfaction that God exists in order for you to change your mind about that, right? Wosret wrote: My standard is binding on many, and is binding because of shared goals, values, reason, and evidence, as well as because it is open to negotiation. It isn't binding on everyone, but it is on everyone that allows it to be. It is about as binding as a language. Then it is not really a binding standard at all, it is simply a shared convention. Wosret wrote: Also, it doesn't follow that what is objective is "binding". If something is objective, it is true, but I am only bound by the truth by an act of disposition. I agree, in the sense that no one is "bound" to believe the truth and/or act in accordance with it. However, truth is "binding" in the sense that we cannot ultimately escape its consequences. I can believe that ultraviolet radiation is not harmful to my skin, but I will still get sunburned if I stay outside too long on a clear summer day. Wosret wrote: Because I would need a reason to think that it's values were superior to mine, and correct, while where I disagreed with it I was wrong. If God exists, and the typical theistic conception of him is accurate, would that not be reason enough to think that his values are superior to yours and correct? What reason could there possibly be for thinking otherwise? Wosret wrote: I wouldn't deny that god exists, but if there is no reason that god's nature is the way it is, or no reason why I should adhere to it, then I can't be mistaken about not doing so. Why would I be wrong if I disagreed? In what sense? Presumably, if God exists, and the typical theistic conception of him is accurate, then there is no viable reason not to adhere to his standard. Wosret wrote: This is something I always find strange in the theist mindset, they seem to figure that it just simply follows that if a god exists we ought to prostrate ourselves before it, and adhere to its every command, it's just obvious!! Theists do not believe any of this, if just any god exists. They believe this if God exists and has all of the attributes that they typically ascribe to him. This is not defining God into existence, it is recognizing the implications of a particular conception of God, should it be true.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.