Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being » Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being

Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being

Page: 1 2 3 4

Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being

Ryu
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2004
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 86

Posted 04/22/04 - 04:32 AM:	#51
spamspamspamandham wrote: Belief that the Bible is absurd has nothing to do with belief that the concept of god is unreasonable. If our only option were the god of the Bible, then we could conclude with certainty such a contradictory being does not exist. Please elaborate as to how it is a contradictory being in the bible. I have heard that from many people, it is always due to poor inturpretation of out of context passages of the bible.

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 2034

Posted 04/22/04 - 07:43 AM:	#52
FtheNaysayers wrote: It appears, to me at least, that Bluster isn't arguing for the exist[e]nce of a deity but rather that one can not disprove a deity. . I'd have to disagree. It seems to me as though the exact opposite is happening. Bluster made the first post in the thread and created his argument. Whether these reasons were sufficient is another whole reason, but he did at least make an argument. Unfortunately, what I haven't seen from Distortion () yet is any argument for his position. But simply, rebuttals of Bluster's argument. That is not necessarily arguing in the negative (which is what he should be arguing). Bluster arguing in the affirmative - that the Supreme Being exists, and Distortion arguing in the negative - that the Supreme Being does not exist. Matters of "weak" atheism, seem, at least here, to be irrelevant. But hey, I'm sure that it will pick up.
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 04/22/04 - 11:00 AM:	#53
Ryu wrote: Please elaborate as to how it is a contradictory being in the bible. I have heard that from many people, it is always due to poor inturpretation of out of context passages of the bible. It's been discussed ad infinitum in the religion forum. Just resurrect one of those threads if you want to get into it.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

LordHenryWotton

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
Location: Under the rug.
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 49

Posted 04/23/04 - 05:49 AM:	#54
I think that depends on the nature of the evidence you're looking for. For example, a lack of evidence for heaven isn't evidence for the absence of God because we aren't supposed to find any evidence for heaven. Heaven probably is in the seventh dimension, or in some other place that we can't get to from here by any normal means. However, lack of evidence for the Great Flood or the discreteness of earth's creatures is evidence for the absence of God because, as reasonable beings we know that such evidence is supposed to be there if there is any truth to the stories. Lack of evidence of the great flood discredits the theory of the great flood and the great flood alone. This is like saying that because there is no evidence of a lego block being in my kitchen, there is no such thing as lego...it doesn't follow. Well, it's all a matter of implication and assumption. Paul's argument implies as much as it assumes, which is always a dangerous thing.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. ~Galileo Galilei The Antithesis

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11659

Posted 04/23/04 - 09:52 AM:	#55
dreamweaver wrote: I'd have to disagree. Bluster makes his arguments about first cause and the anthropic principle, which is good, but then declares them unimportant later as though he thinks they're wrong. Brief digression: his first cause argument which is his main focus so far is nonsense for the simple reason that he hasn't explained how an uncaused god is any different from an uncaused universe. It's actually much easier to imagine that a simple primordial state (some subatomic particle) came into being uncaused, than to imagine that an incredibly complex supreme thinking creature came into being out of nothing. Sure the uncaused particle seems absurd, but you can't solve an absurdity by replacing it with something which is infinitely more absurd in the same manner... Bluster has not given any reasonable explanation of how such a complex thing comes from nothing, so his arguments are self-defeating. If he says god is out of time and uses that as the explanation then it's again putting a much more complex matter outside of time than a mere little particle... and it would also force him to stop saying that god can think, since thought is process over time. The anthropic argument is wrong simply because of the anthropic principle itself... if we were 8 legged 5 headed creates, well of course the univere would be set up to create 8 legged 5 headed creatures becaue if it weren't we wouldn't be there to notice. There is no possiblility of thinking that life can't exist because the only places there are thinking is where there is life. Wherever you go, there you are. We don't happen to think about all the types of structures which can't exist in our universe and could in others, because we aren't them. Purely a matter of human ego. As well, even in this universe life is likely such a tiny part of the universes' matter as to be incaluculably insignificant. The portion of that life which is intelligent and has personality is even more infintesmal. To say that the first moment of the universe must have a personality and thought because an incalulably tiny bit of the present universe has those qualities is nonsensical. Even if intelligent life were everywhere it wouldn't imply that it always was... the fact that there is water on the Earth does not mean there was water in all the causes (the sun, the previous supernovas in the area, space dust, etc). Back to the matter of how he treats his own arguments as unimporant and seems to believe that they aren't really convincing: Bluster wrote: I can only substantiate God´s existence through my experience which is the direct opposite of yours. Is it what it boils down to: my word against yours? [...] I doubt that the question of the existence of pink elephants have sufficient importance to be addressed by science. My point is that science can´t prove nor disprove the existence of God. [...] There are more people who´ve experienced the Love of God and his existence then those who haven´t. I can´t convince you if you do not wish to be convinced. It is actually not my goal. I can no more convince you that God exists that you can convince me that he doesn´t. He's falling back on the easy but useless position of saying that he doesn't need to argue for God at all, because it's up to the individual to have faith. That position, while valid enough in the realm of religion, makes debate useless.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/23/04 - 10:18 AM:	#56
Or perhaps Bluster's intention is that since science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, the only way anyone can actually have knowledge of God's existence is on the personal, spiritual level. Nevertheless he offers arguments which, as he envisions them, offer evidence, and thus reason to believe. Distortion seems to want to do the same thing, for he believes that god can't be disproven or proven. Yet he plans to offer evidence for disbelief, or lack of belief, whichever he ascribes to.

DarkCloud
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Total Topics: 156
Total Posts: 2695

Posted 04/24/04 - 04:07 PM:	#57
select However, lack of evidence for the Great Flood or the discreteness of earth's creatures is evidence for the absence of God because, as reasonable beings we know that such evidence is supposed to be there if there is any truth to the stories. That's presupposing several things. 1.) The God is a Christian God. 2.) The Bible is completely historically accurate. 3.) Humans can discover this evidence. Paul Originally Posted by DarkCloud I asked you to provide me with an example taht would show HOW a blind person could prove the existence of light, and you failed to do so. ----PAUL Failed? I very clearly told you, exactly the same way as we know of the infrared spectrum when we can't see it. And exactly the same way deaf people can become experts in sound (and even composers or the like sometimes). Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? If you refuse to admit the obvious, there's nothing I can do. I suppose I still remain ignorant here. I do not see how a blind person can detect the presence of light or even of the actions of light upon anything else. I do not even see how a blind person can comprehend that such a thing exists in the first place. Any suppostion on his/her part would be mere conjecture. Your mention of the infared spectrum however, is a seemingly good refutation of my principle- however the infared spectrum's waves are measured by data that can be seen and interpreted in terms of their actions upon light and objects... I do not see, however, how light itself can be 'seen' and 'interpreted' independently of the power of sight... and if everyone is blind- I still do not see how the existence of light could be assumed by anything other than faith. (much like the existence of god)

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11659

Posted 04/25/04 - 04:32 AM:	#58
You seriously do not understand how machines could print out data as braile or audio just as easily as written data? I suppose blind astronomers would be out of the question? Well, my only suggestion is that you have your eyes removed so you can cease worshiping sight to such a rediculous extent. The bat sonar-sense would probably be more effective for representing scientific data than sight, I'd think, since it could lack the background noise. Light is not some mystical magical thing. It affects everything it comes in contact with. It obviously requires no faith.

Distortion
Oh yeah?

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1755

Posted 04/25/04 - 08:17 AM:	#59
Life out of the way,... overly late reply on the way.
Make your own rules.

DarkCloud
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Total Topics: 156
Total Posts: 2695

Posted 04/25/04 - 09:32 AM:	#60
You seriously do not understand how machines could print out data as braile or audio just as easily as written data? I suppose blind astronomers would be out of the question? Well, my only suggestion is that you have your eyes removed so you can cease worshiping sight to such a rediculous extent. That's only because people told them that light existed. if no one had ever said that light existed- they would never even start trying to test for the existence of light in the first place... (but that's another argument) As for 'proving' the existence of light- I still don't see how even a wavelength sonogram detector would 'prove' light- they would probably merely think that this 'light' had something to do with radio waves and would never even be able to start comprehending that 'colors' existed, etc. since it would be beyond their realm of knowledge and comprehension. Yes, they could 'detect' light if they knew what they were doing... but what would they think it was? Do you honestly think that they could (without faith) be able to prove that wavelength A or wavelength B represented images and colors? Perhaps they would be able to determing that images existed, but how could they determine which wavelengths were sound and which were for visible light? They simply wouldn't have enough experiential data to prove anything and thus would have to have faith that they were not incorrect... And this is assuming that they didn't believe that everything is only differentiated by sound... since that is the only experiential data that they would have- they would be insane not to think that sound and feel creates differences in how people 'look' For example- they might think that the entire world exists without light- that everything is blackness and that things are only differentiated by sonar and feelings. What reason would they have to even start thinking about the existence of light in the first place when sound and feel represent differetniations- I would assume that to a blind person that Person A 'looks' different from Person B because of different sounds and feelings... and the same would hold true with objects.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/25/04 - 10:05 AM:	#61
What reason would they have to even start thinking about the existence of light in the first place when sound and feel represent differetniations- Have you ever walked down a long hallway with windows at intervals, and when you walked past them, the sunlight streaming in felt warm on your skin, but when you passed them, you were cooler again? That'd be my first clue about radiation at least. I'm not sure that it would ever be feasible to know that there is such a thing as visible light, or that colors exist--but then, I'm not that versed in quantifiying such things.

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 04/26/04 - 08:19 PM:	#62
Interesting beginning to the debate. Distortion's 'Big Band Theory' typo was v. amusing, conjuring up all sorts of images of fat men wearing red striped suits and straw hats playing jazz as the universe began. Very hitchhikers..! I perceive Blunder's greatest error so far to be his refusal to understand the validity of D's 'pink elephants' argument. The idea that we could postulate a vast number of different theories as to the form of a supernatural force that created the universe, with none of them being more or less likely than each other is a difficult question to overcome. By refusing to answer it perhaps the game is already up for B. If he cannot convince us that his version of God is more likely to have created the universe than a herd of pink elephants then he is in a bit of trouble methinks. What happened to the daily post rule, anyway? The other debate seems to have slowed down to a snail's pace, too. f
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/26/04 - 09:36 PM:	#63
So far we're 0 for 2. For whatever reason, Distortion was unable to keep to the debate schedule. As he did not contact me to request an extension, the debate is over.

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 04/26/04 - 09:53 PM:	#64
Well as of May 11th I am freed from certain commitments (a week long road trip into the wilds ) and would be happy to take part in a debate. I cannot post at weekends, though. So, if anyone dares challenge the man filter to a debate, now is the time to do it! Gambarumba! I suggest "Conservation as cultural colonialism" and am happy to argue either side (although I imagine this title will be snorted at by some as not proper philosophy!). If anyone is up for it, let me (or even better Interlocutor) know. ok folks, keep it clean f
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

Curt Monash
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: Boston area
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1268

Posted 04/30/04 - 12:35 AM:	#65
I read quickly through the debate and it seemed to founder on a very fundamental disagreement as to topic. Each side was saying "My position MIGHT be true; you can't prove that your position MUST be true; so you lose." Obviously, the critieria for victory were not agreed upon.
www.monash.com

DarkCloud
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 12, 2002
Total Topics: 156
Total Posts: 2695

Posted 05/05/04 - 09:53 AM:	#66
Good point to make there, Curt.

The Confused Philosopher
Village Idiot

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 24, 2004
Location: Lost In a Sea of Senseless Gibberish
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 75

Posted 06/11/04 - 07:18 AM:	#67
LordHenryWotton wrote: If a tree falls in the forest and nobodies there to hear it, does it make a sound? If God exists but doesn't do anything in our universe, does this deity leave a mark? Truth does not depend on human perseption. Things can exist without human beings experiencing them. What if you had an person who could only hear, and had no other way of experiencing the universe. And someone who could see saw a cliff that produced an echo. If no one was experiencing the cliff, and the guy who could only hear yelled. Wouldn't the sound still echo even though no one was experiencing the cliff?
"Brian! Theres a message in my Alphabets, its says Oooooo" "Peter....You're eating Cheerios..." Watch Great Machinima at Groovy Mule Productions

AntonToo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
Location: Staten Island, NY
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 07/05/04 - 05:39 PM:	#68
Is it just me or that was the WORST attempt at "is there god" debate??? The first post went on about how something will be shown without ever showing anything at all, and they ended up just talking about what it is that will be shown, all foreplay and no sex In my opinion a debate must only incampus an already accepted reasoning as to why God exists, a good place to start would be the "Watch in the desert" aka "Inteligence must be made by inteligence" aka "Teleological" argument. Now that would be interesting, with less chance of far out deviation
The specialized we are.

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 07/05/04 - 05:56 PM:	#69
The point of a debate such as this one is not so much about winning or losing, as the topic is defined in a way that makes that impossible. Rather, the point is to present your case in as compelling a way as possible.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

Distortion
Oh yeah?

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1755

Posted 07/05/04 - 06:36 PM:	#70
I disagree Spam, the point is to brutalize each others position with as much logic and evidence and reason and substantiation as both sides can muster until one of the other wins out. In the case of this debate, I just unfortunately didn't have time to make the post when it needed to be made (24 hour time limit, but I coudln't even make it in a 3 day period), but it's ancient history now! I wish I could do it again but I'm hardly going to try to do it again in lieu of the spectatular mess this one has become. Unfortunately philosophyforums isn't the most important thing in my life, and I never know what's going to come up. I suppose if Bluster was still around, I'd make my post now and 'continue' the debate - but I don't know if he is still up for it
Make your own rules.

AntonToo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
Location: Staten Island, NY
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 07/05/04 - 06:42 PM:	#71
Distortion wrote: I suppose if Bluster was still around, I'd make my post now and 'continue' the debate - but I don't know if he is still up for it Were did you get the pink elephant? thats what I alwais use
The specialized we are.

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 07/06/04 - 05:15 AM:	#72
Distortion wrote: I disagree Spam, the point is to brutalize each others position with as much logic and evidence and reason and substantiation as both sides can muster until one of the other wins out. Then it's pointless. Neither side can win a debate about a topic for which no significant evidence can be presented one way or the other due to how the premise is defined.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

Distortion
Oh yeah?

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1755

Posted 07/07/04 - 03:02 AM:	#73
spamspamspamandham wrote: Then it's pointless. Neither side can win a debate about a topic for which no significant evidence can be presented one way or the other due to how the premise is defined. Not every topic can be reduced to a 'win' or a 'loss' as not everything comes down to two convientiently black and white sides where one is correct and the other is not. One can however hope that a best possible useful and productive conclusion can always be reached, whether the best possible conclusion is 'it is impossible to know' or not. If there is no evidence either way, then presumably you are arguing in terms of basis for belief and logic, from which you can also come to a fruitful, 'best possible' conclusion.
Make your own rules.

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 07/07/04 - 05:16 AM:	#74
Distortion wrote: If there is no evidence either way, then presumably you are arguing in terms of basis for belief and logic, from which you can also come to a fruitful, 'best possible' conclusion. I didn't agree with your initial statement that the point was to 'win'. If the point is to win, then there is no point. We seem to agree on that.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

Posted 08/04/04 - 04:21 PM:	#75
Paul wrote: If there isn't any, then that would simply make the argument conclusive against the existence of a God. If you can't find any evidence for object X, then you should become increasingly skeptical of object X existing. Absense of proof isn't proof of absence, but absence of evidence after a complete study has been done is indeed evidence of absense. If we are talking about a superior being than how more powerful are we talking? If God is indeed pretty darn smart than can't He, like a smart theif(refering to the court of law part) not leave fingerprint's? Also who is saying that an argument is complete, i've yet to see a complete argument. P.S. I'm new,young an I'll admit ignorant, so go easy, please?
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.