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

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:17 PM:	#1
Our first god debate... Hope it goes well. Enjoy!

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:26 PM:	#2
Interlocutor wrote: Hope it goes well. Enjoy! I am sceptical of this debate. I hope it goes well and is fruitful, but I think it shall end in a labyrinth.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:33 PM:	#3
I think it begins in a labyrinth on top of a peak shrouded in roiling thunderheads. These two are smart chaps. I'm hopeful that one of them will be able to lead us to the fair pastures below.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:43 PM:	#4
Interlocutor wrote: I think it begins in a labyrinth on top of a peak shrouded in roiling thunderheads. These two are smart chaps. I'm hopeful that one of them will be able to lead us to the fair pastures below. I am not disputing that the people debating are brave, intelligent and honourable - they are indeed far braver than myself - but I believe that no logical argument can secure a proof of the existence of anything. Words have no direct warrant on existence, and so only a conceptual, or metaphysical, supreme being can be argued; only a theoretical being can be discussed and so the real question is: can a theoretical supreme being exist? I am an agnostic, which I agree is a matter of belief, but I feel no temptation to change my viewpoint. I do wish them all the best though and I do hope for a productive debate; I am only sceptical of the outcome - and partly of the question.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:00 PM:	#5
but I believe that no logical argument can secure a proof of the existence of anything. So you can't logically proove that you exist? Or do you mean that since our concepts perhaps don't represent to us any necessary understanding of things that all we can ever really prove is that a particular conceptual object exists, and not the real object itself?

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:17 PM:	#6
Interlocutor wrote: So you can't logically proove that you exist? Or do you mean that since our concepts perhaps don't represent to us any necessary understanding of things that all we can ever really prove is that a particular conceptual object exists, and not the real object itself? I believe that logic links things together and is a good way of producing new truths from already known truths; it is foolish to use logic though, in a way to produce new truths from nothing. I can logically prove that I exist because there are certain things which are self evident to me, namely that I am a thinking thing and a type of induction is needed in which to procure a strata in which to base deduction on - I am a thinking thing and I am yet to find myself to be anything other than a thinking thing. By the very nature of the self evident truth, that I am a thinking thing, I can say I exist, not only in theory, but in actual fact because it requires a being's existence. The characteristics of a supreme being - i.e. that he is infinite and perfect - do not warrant his existence and only strengthen one's convinction that it can only be a theoretical discussion.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

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

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:21 PM:	#7
I'm not sure that "infinite" and "perfect" are necessary attributes of a supreme being. Would you agree with Kant then, that speculative reason is simply incabable of proving or disproving God's existence?

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:27 PM:	#8
Interlocutor wrote: Would you agree with Kant then, that speculative reason is simply incabable of proving or disproving God's existence? I have read nothing of Kant and so I would be unsure of whether I agree or disagree with him, but I do agree that most reasoning is futile in it's attempts to prove the existence of a supreme being. I will not deny that there perhaps is some way to prove the existence of a supreme being, because I agree with Bacon that lack of conviction should not mean that we do not at least make an attempt.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11676

Posted 04/17/04 - 08:09 PM:	#9
sensabile wrote: I believe that no logical argument can secure a proof of the existence of anything Certainly true (proving the self is not logical argument, but simple stipulation/definition), but that obviously doesn't make it impossible to argue for anything. I can't prove that there aren't pink elephants flying around overhead, but that does not imply that I can't convince a reasonable person that there aren't. All meaningful truths cannot be derived by logical proof, since if they were derived that way they would lack content. As 180 Proof would say, there is but one tautology and Wittgenstein is its prophet. If you make god into a logical proof then you've eliminated god by taking away all his content and thus the atheist wins. If you don't reduce him to tautology, then you can debate the evidence.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/18/04 - 02:38 AM:	#10
Paul wrote: If you don't reduce him to tautology, then you can debate the evidence. But what evidence is there that doesn't require faith?
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11676

Posted 04/18/04 - 03:20 AM:	#11
sensabile wrote: But what evidence is there that doesn't require faith? 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. Works in a court of law as well. When you have no evidence that the defendant commited the crime, that is good reason to conclude that they are innocent -- regardless of the ever present possibility that you could be wrong. But anyhow, religious people would disagree with you about the lack of evidence. The cosmological argument for god is not a tautological one, it just attempts to assert that there is massive evidence (not proof) for a creator. So the discussion naturally becomes one of showing why the supposed evidence is not valid evidence.

PsiPhi
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 08, 2003
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 251

Posted 04/18/04 - 03:37 AM:	#12
sensabile wrote: I have read nothing of Kant ban PsiPhi who has recently started studying Kant thereby entitled to all ensuing pretensions

Distortion
Oh yeah?

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

Posted 04/18/04 - 04:15 AM:	#13
Sure taking his time on the opening post, ain't he? Perhaps one of you guys should play devil's advocate instead, you seem more eager to have at it
Make your own rules.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11676

Posted 04/18/04 - 05:35 AM:	#14
Give him the rest of the day at least. After arguing for the innerancy of the Q'uran, aruging for a generalized theism should be a piece of cake... so if Bluster doesn't show and no theists feel up to it, I'd be willing to try it.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/18/04 - 06:40 AM:	#15
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[...]is massive evidence (not proof) for a creator. So the discussion naturally becomes one of showing why the supposed evidence is not valid evidence. Thereby centring the argument on burden of proof. The theist argues for this and that as evidence and hence the atheist dismissing it; seems a bit trivial to me.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/18/04 - 06:43 AM:	#16
PsiPhi wrote: ban I intend to read Kant, but not for the moment...I have too much work; damn the education system!
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 456
Total Posts: 11676

Posted 04/18/04 - 01:38 PM:	#17
sensabile wrote: Thereby centring the argument on burden of proof. The theist argues for this and that as evidence and hence the atheist dismissing it; seems a bit trivial to me. It has nothing to do with "burden of proof". It has to do with presenting evidence for a case. That is the way truth is determinied... if you wish to consider truth trivial, well, fine.

select
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 1183

Posted 04/18/04 - 03:00 PM:	#18
Paul wrote: Absense of proof isn't proof of absence, but absence of evidence after a complete study has been done is indeed evidence of absense. I disagree here. Absence of evidence only has meaning if there ought to be evidence in the first place. With a universe-creating God, His fingerprints should be all over the place so absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, with some other form of diety, no matter how complete your study is, if there is no reason the evidence ought to be there in the first place, then the absence of evidence doesn't mean anything.
"To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add sheep was a tautology." Mark Twain

DarkCloud
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 04/18/04 - 06:52 PM:	#19
Absence of evidence only has meaning if there ought to be evidence in the first place. With a universe-creating God, His fingerprints should be all over the place so absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I deny this. For example. If everyone was blind, then there would be no evidence that light existed. That does not mean that light does not exist. Merely that you cannot PROVE that light exists

select
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 1183

Posted 04/18/04 - 07:45 PM:	#20
If everyone was blind, ought there be evidence that light existed? No. So you couldn't say either way. Your example fits the pattern.
"To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add sheep was a tautology." Mark Twain

LordHenryWotton

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

Posted 04/18/04 - 08:14 PM:	#21
So, what you're saying, select is that Paul's "absence of evidence after a complete study has been done is indeed evidence of absence" relies on this deity being the creator, which makes perfect sense. If our God=deity is not the creator, an absence of evidence holds no bearing. Very true (and obvious). I think that DarkCloud is merely stating that a complete study is required and that we may not be capable of a complete study, due to sensory restrictions (e.g. found "God's fingerprints" on the 7th spacial dimension lately?). On a different note: Is it really an issue? Shall we just have one debator cite Wittegenstein and we'll be done with it.
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: 11676

Posted 04/18/04 - 10:49 PM:	#22
select wrote: I disagree here. Absence of evidence only has meaning if there ought to be evidence in the first place. I hereby speculate that there is a giant squid floating around somewhere in the crab nebulae. There is no reason to suggest that you ought to be able to see evidence of this, since we cannot see squids from that distance -- not to mention, due to the speed of light we can't see what the crab nebula looks like "now", only in the distant past. Therefore, the lack of evidence for my squid is no reason to discount it. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should object when I state my belief in the holy squid of the crab nebula. Do not critcize my space-squid religion, you have no reason to think it's wrong. DarkCloud wrote: If everyone was blind, then there would be no evidence that light existed. That is blatantly false. Light has physical effects which could be detected without seeing it. You needn't look any further than the fact that we are blind to the infrared spectrum and yet we have plenty of evidence that it exists. However, supposing for the sake of argument that you did not actually have contact with any of the things whatsoever which would provide evidence for it, you would indeed be irrational to assert the existence of it. Someone who's technically correct by sheer luck does not know what they claim to know. If you wish to use the standard tripartite definition of knowledge, it must be a justified true belief... being a true belief does not make it knowledge when it is not justified. LordHenryWotton wrote: Very true (and obvious). I don't see why. Can you clarify why the lack of evidence for the space squid should not be considered reason to dismiss it?

LordHenryWotton

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

Posted 04/19/04 - 02:58 AM:	#23
Paul wrote: I don't see why. Can you clarify why the lack of evidence for the space squid should not be considered reason to dismiss it? 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?
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

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/19/04 - 08:10 AM:	#24
Paul wrote: It has nothing to do with "burden of proof". It has to do with presenting evidence for a case. That is the way truth is determinied... if you wish to consider truth trivial, well, fine. Truth isn't trivial, it is has the most significance. What is trivial is the way in which this debate is going to be pursued; the theist offers his evidence loaded with faith and the atheist rejects the evidence due to his lack of faith. Evidence is never conclusive, otherwise it would be proof and not evidence, but evidence requires a small portion of faith to hold it together. The only way this debate could be satisfied would be if there were two neutral non-theists and non-atheists using the evidence. Evidence is an aid, to help a judgement; whereas proof provides a compulsion to accept something as true. There may be a lot evidence, but faith will always be the stronger force in the final judgement.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Ryu
Student

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

Posted 04/19/04 - 08:59 AM:	#25
There is no conclusive evidence for eather side. If there was conclusive evidence it wouldn't change the debate. If a christian could prove beyond a doubt that the entire bible is correct, there would still be questions. Same for the other side, if someone claimed they had proof of how we came to be, faith of religon would question it. This debate will go in circles. Neither side can prove they are correct. Some of the bible is history, and some evolutionary theorys show trends of evolution that seem to be proof. Though alternate theorys of creation doesn't disprove there is a god, there is still no way to prove a side true or false.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.