Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 341
  1. #201
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    But if the idea of God is from a faulty source to begin with then you can't then say that such a being can also exist. It's like saying fairies exist because you read it some books of known fiction.

    If you can't rely on him or her or it, or them having created or not created the universe, and any other property then there is nothing for you to call God!
    Something unreliable can still occasionally say something accurate. You might not trust what a known liar says but it doesn't mean that you know that every word that comes out of his mouth is not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Yes but if EVERYTHING is imagined so there is nothing for you to say CAN exist!
    That's only true if God is ONLY imaginary. If God exists, then there is something there regardless of what people imagine or don't imagine.

    As you have not supported that God is only imaginary, you cannot say for a fact that there is nothing there.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Of course it does, it presupposes that this realm also contains souls as well as God or gods! Also, the lack of evidence of these realms that we already know to be fiction emphasizes it is a human creation.
    Lack of evidence that they exist is not evidence that they do not exist.

    And if you want to say that the existence of God necessitates another realm for God to exist within, I won't challenge that (I could but I won't bother right now). But that does not necessitate any specific realm from theology, like Heaven or any other "fictional" realms that people refer to. So the fiction argument is not valid.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Not if those religions also claim that God created souls. The point stands.
    Since we agree that religions are not credible, any religious claim beyond "God exists" can be discarded. Only the things that are necessary for God to exist are up for debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    It is an additional reason to disbelieve. If the weight of evidence points to a human creation, lack of scientific evidence and an unreliable source then the proper conclusion is to disbelieve the claims.
    I don't agree that the weight of evidence points to human creation.

    And lack of evidence is lack of evidence, not evidence of the opposite conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Only if it is consistent with science; postulating turtles to support an unsupported claim is not science.
    Non-supported arguments are nothing to science (not evidence for or against anything). But a claim is not inconsistent with science unless it contradicts known science.

    So if something is imagined and its hypothetical existence does not contradict known science, then it can exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    I reject the distinction. I take God as believe and described by actual theists not some fictional dictionary definition. The theistic claims are extremely important because their cultural specificity points to a human source for all the ideas.
    So in other words, it's important to use a definition that backs up your argument that God has a human source. So you want a definition that will help you win your argument as opposed to a neutral definition that does not favor either position.

    I'm not going to even bother trying to argue definitions with you if I can help it. So basically, I'm going to ignore this point. If you want to forward a reasonable definition, I will consider using it. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore all definition-based arguments as best I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    No, it doesn't but it supports the idea that the God was created by humans. The evolution of the idea of God, something we have yet to discuss, and how the claims change as we understand the universe more demonstrates factors other than facts at work.
    The only relevant theistic claim is "God exists" and I don't see how that has changed over time.

    And again, something can be imagined and also exist so the evolution of an imaginary God does not mean that a real God doesn't exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    That is just your unilateral restriction that I reject. My OP and all my discussions are about every God and every religion and every claim from every culture. This isn't your OP to restrict - it is mine to define and yours to rebut.
    Well, I'm only going to debate whether God exists or not. So if you want to debate something else, don't expect me to respond.

  2. #202

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Something unreliable can still occasionally say something accurate. You might not trust what a known liar says but it doesn't mean that you know that every word that comes out of his mouth is not true.
    True but your scope of truth telling is getting narrower and narrower; and tends towards exceptions to the rule of falsehoods. That's hardly in keeping with a discipline thousands of years old.

    That's only true if God is ONLY imaginary. If God exists, then there is something there regardless of what people imagine or don't imagine.

    As you have not supported that God is only imaginary, you cannot say for a fact that there is nothing there.
    There is no "if God exists" if we already accept that all claims are imaginary or created by humans. The support for that has been done already - the weight of the mutual disbelief, claims against the universe and turtles supports that God is imaginary much in the same way politics or countries are imaginary. This is the best conclusion to draw based on evidence.

    Lack of evidence that they exist is not evidence that they do not exist.

    And if you want to say that the existence of God necessitates another realm for God to exist within, I won't challenge that (I could but I won't bother right now). But that does not necessitate any specific realm from theology, like Heaven or any other "fictional" realms that people refer to. So the fiction argument is not valid.
    Then you are creating your own God - all religions make claims of a realm whether it is heaven, hell or purgatory or whatever. These only like exist in texts that we have already agreed are fictional (due to mutual disbelief, turtles and science).

    Since we agree that religions are not credible, any religious claim beyond "God exists" can be discarded. Only the things that are necessary for God to exist are up for debate.
    That appears to be a self-serving and arbitrary line to draw. I would say none of it is credible - there is no reason to choose that God is more credible that all the other contingent claims.

    I don't agree that the weight of evidence points to human creation.
    Support that.

    And lack of evidence is lack of evidence, not evidence of the opposite conclusion.
    The lack of evidence is actually evidence against: either from arguments from other disbelieving religions Or science.

    Non-supported arguments are nothing to science (not evidence for or against anything). But a claim is not inconsistent with science unless it contradicts known science.
    No, it is inconsistent with science because there is no reason to suppose such a realm exists or that it is the best alternative.

    So if something is imagined and its hypothetical existence does not contradict known science, then it can exist.
    Sure but that's a huge number of claims that you're holding in check until such a time actual evidence supports it. A better explanation, given the fantastical nature of all these claims, as well as their mutual contradiction is the human imagination wholly.

    So in other words, it's important to use a definition that backs up your argument that God has a human source. So you want a definition that will help you win your argument as opposed to a neutral definition that does not favor either position.
    A neutral position is not what we're discussing though. We are discussing actual claims of a God made by actual believers - otherwise, you're just talking about a hypothetical being based on another set of hypothetical beings! It's a whole new level of turtle since it can't even rely on existing beliefs and arguments.

    I'm not going to even bother trying to argue definitions with you if I can help it. So basically, I'm going to ignore this point. If you want to forward a reasonable definition, I will consider using it. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore all definition-based arguments as best I can.
    Good because I already reject definitions - we must discuss the universe as we see it.

    The only relevant theistic claim is "God exists" and I don't see how that has changed over time.
    It's not up to you to choose what is relevant and what isn't. If people's perception of God from actively interfering and breeding with humans at one point in time to being mysteriously absent and conveniently non-detectable, then these are facts that have to be factored into the credibility of the entire enterprise. These changes again point to a wholly human origin.

    And again, something can be imagined and also exist so the evolution of an imaginary God does not mean that a real God doesn't exist.
    I don't even know what a "real God" is but as I pointed out it's a turtle-squared.

    Well, I'm only going to debate whether God exists or not. So if you want to debate something else, don't expect me to respond.
    Then I accept your resignation from the thread, which is about all the claims in all the religions. This is made clear and is central to the argument in the OP; to arbitrarily narrow the argument is just creating a straw man and you should start your own very specific narrow and unrelated to reality OP!



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  3. #203
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    It would be an exercise in mutual frustration but I know I can play the role of a cheese-theist and use all the same tricks and turtles to support the idea no matter what you say.
    Okay, what's your argument that cheese is the best way to help people?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #204

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Okay, what's your argument that cheese is the best way to help people?
    It is said by the Great Cheese God, who is the greatest Cheese God that can be conceived, the first uncaused Cheese that cheese is the tastiest and most versatile food of all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #205
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    True but your scope of truth telling is getting narrower and narrower; and tends towards exceptions to the rule of falsehoods. That's hardly in keeping with a discipline thousands of years old.
    But then I'm not arguing that religious sources are credible. Discounting religious sources for information leads us to "No support for God" but "No support for God" does not lead us to "Support that God does not exist" - to way otherwise is to forward the argument from ignorance fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    There is no "if God exists" if we already accept that all claims are imaginary or created by humans.
    No. If we reject all religious claims we get "No support for God", not "Support that God does not exist".


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    The support for that has been done already - the weight of the mutual disbelief, claims against the universe and turtles supports that God is imaginary much in the same way politics or countries are imaginary. This is the best conclusion to draw based on evidence.
    No. When you reject all evidence for God for whatever reason, all you get "No support for God".


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Then you are creating your own God - all religions make claims of a realm whether it is heaven, hell or purgatory or whatever. These only like exist in texts that we have already agreed are fictional (due to mutual disbelief, turtles and science).
    I think you must have misunderstood what I said. I said it does not necessitate a SPECIFIC realm, like Heaven. So if you want to argue that the existence of God necessitates a "home" (other realm of some kind), I won't challenge that (I might later but for now I'm not). But since religions disagree on the specificity of the realm, it can't be said that a particular realm in necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    That appears to be a self-serving and arbitrary line to draw. I would say none of it is credible - there is no reason to choose that God is more credible that all the other contingent claims.
    It is not arbitrary at all. The OP's conclusion, as you directly stated, is that God does not exist (and does not challenge any other specific religious claim as far as I can see). Atheism argues that God does not exist and I'm challenging that particular claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Support that.
    I said I disagree. I think all my posts on this thread is support that I disagree with you.

    I did not make any factual claim beyond that.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    The lack of evidence is actually evidence against: either from arguments from other disbelieving religions Or science.
    Lack of evidence is not evidence for anything at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    No, it is inconsistent with science because there is no reason to suppose such a realm exists or that it is the best alternative.
    "Inconsistent with science" means it contradicts known science. If one has no evidence either way, then science neither confirms or denies its existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Sure but that's a huge number of claims that you're holding in check until such a time actual evidence supports it. A better explanation, given the fantastical nature of all these claims, as well as their mutual contradiction is the human imagination wholly.
    Support that, please.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    A neutral position is not what we're discussing though. We are discussing actual claims of a God made by actual believers - otherwise, you're just talking about a hypothetical being based on another set of hypothetical beings! It's a whole new level of turtle since it can't even rely on existing beliefs and arguments.
    And if we don't rely on others beliefs or arguments for God, we are left with "No support for God" which is not the same as "support against God".


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    It's not up to you to choose what is relevant and what isn't. If people's perception of God from actively interfering and breeding with humans at one point in time to being mysteriously absent and conveniently non-detectable, then these are facts that have to be factored into the credibility of the entire enterprise. These changes again point to a wholly human origin.
    And I reject their credibility and therefore agree that there is "No support of God". But that is not "Support against God" so basically neither side of the debate has support.

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Then I accept your resignation from the thread, which is about all the claims in all the religions. This is made clear and is central to the argument in the OP; to arbitrarily narrow the argument is just creating a straw man and you should start your own very specific narrow and unrelated to reality OP!
    The only religious claim directly challenged in the OP is the claim that God exists.

    Here is your "in short"

    "1. God doesn't exist until he is proven to.
    2. I distrust all the knowledge of the ancients, our only source of information for any of these beliefs.
    3. I distrust all current claims of knowledge because they are either outright frauds/lies/mistakes/guesses or they are entirely unproven/repeatable/verifiable.
    4. Most claims appear to be leaning towards being spectacular rather than grounded in current knowledge."


    The other religious claims, although more directly referred to in the not-short part, are all used as support for the OP's central claim - which is that God does not exist.

    You can bring other religious claims into the discussion of course but the debate is centered around whether God exists or not.

    And as far as other religious claims go, the OP says that they are uniformly unconvincing. Since I am not challenging that assertion, there is no need to debate the veracity of other religious claims in the OP. We agree that they all lack support. So what's to debate regarding these religious claims? Nothing.

    We accept that they fail as support. We also agree that there is no other valid support for God so there's no need to debate that issue either.

    So I completely concede that there is no support for God's existence. And as I've said repeatedly, no support for God's existence is not support for God's non-existence. So I think you can predict all of my future responses to the claim that religious claims are not credible and to move the debate forward, you need to address this response of mine. To just keep arguing that religious claims are not credible is to have me repeat that this means that it means they are not support for God's existence but that does not mean that they are support for God not existing.

    -----------------------------------

    A couple of questions.

    If, hypothetically, one of the religions were able to prove that they are basically true, especially the part that an intelligent being created the universe and mankind, would you concede that God exists?

    What it a religion was able to prove that the are correct that a being that fits their description of God made the universe, but could not prove many of its other religious claims were true? For example, what if Christians could not prove that God made the universe but could not prove that Adam and Eve ever existed? Would you still concede that God exists?
    Last edited by mican333; June 10th, 2016 at 06:31 AM.

  6. #206

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I'm not arguing that religious sources are credible. Discounting religious sources for information leads us to "No support for God" but "No support for God" does not lead us to "Support that God does not exist" - to way otherwise is to forward the argument from ignorance fallacy.
    If religions sources are not credible and they are the only source for a God then exactly what are you arguing exists? How are you assuming this being, and his specific properties (assuming it even is a He) are legitimate? What evidence do you have to even suppose such a being is even possible, never mind actually worth debating!

    R1: I reject your God because you have not stated any reason why such a being exists.

    No. If we reject all religious claims we get "No support for God", not "Support that God does not exist".

    And I reject their credibility and therefore agree that there is "No support of God". But that is not "Support against God" so basically neither side of the debate has support.
    No, if you reject all religious claims then you have to start from zero - i.e. From a clean empty space, equipped only with the knowledge of the world, the universe and the people along with their specific religions and propensity to make things up, demonstrate that your God is worthy of discussion and not a total fiction.

    I don't believe that you have provided support for such a being. Not to mention that your being, that you're CALLING "God", may not even be a legitimate deity at all.

    R2: I reject your God because he appears to be a fiction conceived for the sake of argument.

    No. When you reject all evidence for God for whatever reason, all you get "No support for God".

    ...

    And if we don't rely on others beliefs or arguments for God, we are left with "No support for God" which is not the same as "support against God".
    Not if you also reject his definition!

    R3: Not only do you have no support for God's potential to exist, you also have no support for why he has the properties you claim he has, and for the properties you do claim, they are also unsupported. There are three levels of information, none of which is supported or verified. There is no reason to discuss such a poorly supported creature that you so happen to call "God" in order to co-opt a discussion about the Gods of the existing human religions.


    I think you must have misunderstood what I said. I said it does not necessitate a SPECIFIC realm, like Heaven. So if you want to argue that the existence of God necessitates a "home" (other realm of some kind), I won't challenge that (I might later but for now I'm not). But since religions disagree on the specificity of the realm, it can't be said that a particular realm in necessary.
    Yet you have no evidence or support for this realm at all. So your creation needs another creation to support it. That's a turtle-squared argument. Not only do I have to withhold a judgement on your turtle-God, I also have to withhold judgement on this turtle-realm. And this is just the start because I also have to withhold judgement as to how this turtle-God found the turtle-material for this actual-Universe and the turtle-technology he used to do it. I believe that's at least four levels of nested turtles to even support this turtle-realm we agree (for now) your turtle-God needs.

    It is not arbitrary at all. The OP's conclusion, as you directly stated, is that God does not exist (and does not challenge any other specific religious claim as far as I can see). Atheism argues that God does not exist and I'm challenging that particular claim.
    But I am saying God doesn't exist for reasons based on the reality of belief in the existing religions; and the reality that the claims are culturally specific and scientifically in keeping with the knowledge of the culture, as it changes.

    I see no reason to limit myself to what you want atheism to be - my positive disbelief is regarding the entity (or entities) and all the contingent claims made and believed by living (and non-living) humans.

    I get why you (and others) want to limit the debate but that avenue of thought is practically a waste of time and provably inconclusive. If you limit your discussions to purely theoretical things then that is a wholly another approach (a worthless one). I like to use reality.


    I said I disagree. I think all my posts on this thread is support that I disagree with you.

    I did not make any factual claim beyond that.
    Of course you disagree - that's why we're debating. That you make no factual claim, and indeed invent a straw man to support your point, is why you're not getting anywhere. I like to stick to facts and the reality that we both share; you're choosing to attack my position with non-facts (no evidence) about non-reality (an invented God) using additional turtles for support!

    You literally have nothing solid at all whereas I have the entire world and its history and all the worlds knowledge at my disposal. I also note, that you too agree with my facts, because you haven't disagreed or challenged them: you appear to be attacking the 'argument' but in doing so using a multi-dimensional turtle-argument, you are merely being practically a theist.

    Lack of evidence is not evidence for anything at all.
    Lack of evidence removes the ability to say a claim is supported. An unsupported claim cannot be said to be true - the point is that you are using an enormous stack of unsupported claims and arguments, as do theists, to support the claim that such a thing exists.


    "Inconsistent with science" means it contradicts known science. If one has no evidence either way, then science neither confirms or denies its existence.
    Inconsistent also means non-contiguity; to suppose a realm that we know nothing about, using powers we know nothing about, to perform acts we do know about, that are clearly scientifically impossible (raising the dead, the flood, flying horses, human-animal-deity hybrids, breeding with humans).

    Support that, please.
    What? The idea that you are supporting your arguments with turtles?




    The only religious claim directly challenged in the OP is the claim that God exists.



    Here is your "in short"

    "1. God doesn't exist until he is proven to.
    2. I distrust all the knowledge of the ancients, our only source of information for any of these beliefs.
    3. I distrust all current claims of knowledge because they are either outright frauds/lies/mistakes/guesses or they are entirely unproven/repeatable/verifiable.
    4. Most claims appear to be leaning towards being spectacular rather than grounded in current knowledge."


    The other religious claims, although more directly referred to in the not-short part, are all used as support for the OP's central claim - which is that God does not exist.

    You can bring other religious claims into the discussion of course but the debate is centered around whether God exists or not.

    And as far as other religious claims go, the OP says that they are uniformly unconvincing. Since I am not challenging that assertion, there is no need to debate the veracity of other religious claims in the OP. We agree that they all lack support. So what's to debate regarding these religious claims? Nothing.

    We accept that they fail as support. We also agree that there is no other valid support for God so there's no need to debate that issue either.

    So I completely concede that there is no support for God's existence. And as I've said repeatedly, no support for God's existence is not support for God's non-existence. So I think you can predict all of my future responses to the claim that religious claims are not credible and to move the debate forward, you need to address this response of mine. To just keep arguing that religious claims are not credible is to have me repeat that this means that it means they are not support for God's existence but that does not mean that they are support for God not existing.
    I believe this is answered above. If you remove all religions from the mix, then you also remove the warrant to suppose that there even is a deity. In doing so, you have to start from scratch, and create a new thing that you wish to call God. The problem with this approach is multi-fold:

    1. You are now talking about a different thing - something that you made you that gives the appearance of being similar to the thing under discussion (actual Gods). Confusingly you give it the same name. If you mean to discuss a different thing, you should give it a different name so that I won't get confused that you too reject religious claims. Let's call it turtle-God, since you haven't supported anything about it.

    2. Your turtle-God also fails immediately since it requires additional turtles to support him, even though they are outside your definition.

    3. Your turtle-God is clearly a philosophical construction with no relation to reality and your attempts to divert MY OP to also not discuss reality is ludicrous and frankly a waste of time for both of us: we are discussing entirely different things!

    I will leave it up to you to:

    A) either support that your turtle-God is worth discussing
    B) support how it relates to reality
    C) concede that your turtle-God needs even more turtles to support it

    Once we have clearly established what you are talking about (since you agree that you are not basing your God on reality), we can move on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  7. #207
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    It is said by the Great Cheese God, who is the greatest Cheese God that can be conceived, the first uncaused Cheese that cheese is the tastiest and most versatile food of all.
    How do you know that there's a greatest Cheese God that can be conceived? [It seems like you're driving at Gaunilo's counterargument, which Anselm himself responded to.]
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  8. #208

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    How do you know that there's a greatest Cheese God that can be conceived?
    There has to be one from reason alone that there has to be a greatest something.


    [It seems like you're driving at Gaunilo's counterargument, which Anselm himself responded to.]
    I'm playing a theist, which is really a terrible thing for an atheist to be doing because I don't really possess the faith nor do I believe this to be a good argument to begin with. I would just be repeating stuff back that other theists have been saying - my point of this side dialogue is to demonstrate that generating more turtles is really not very difficult - you must surely agree that this is true.

    I recall the island counter argument from somewhere but I don't know where. I appreciate the reference though ultimately they appear to be arguing against different things similar to many of the fruitless discussions here - the theoretical thought experiments vs reality: of course we're not really talking about "real" islands!

    Here we are seeing similar rejoinders: says the theist "Of course, we're not talking about a real god, one that actually exists in our actual physical reality: that makes no sense because God is outside of our universe atemporal and aphysical- it makes no sense to suggest that God has interacted with this universe - all religions are clearly wrong in all their claims!" The agnostic goes further by inventing his own turtle-God to dispute my OP.

    We learn now:

    1. Theists can keep generating turtles - I trust that this is not under dispute.
    2. Theists also avoid reality as much as possible in all their arguments - including the reality that their claims are based on turtles.

    So by what warrant other than personal faith does a theist have for his beliefs. And more importantly, how does an agnostic remain so, knowing that he's just arguing against turtles!

    It appears from the general approach from atheists and theists that my OP stands: that the universe doesn't support the existence of God. Agree?
    Last edited by SadElephant; June 10th, 2016 at 09:44 AM.

  9. #209
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    If religions sources are not credible and they are the only source for a God then exactly what are you arguing exists?
    Claiming that religions are the only source for God is begging the question. If religions are the source of God then God could not have existed before religions existed. Since you have not supported that God did not exist before religion, the premise that religion is the source for God is rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    R1: I reject your God because you have not stated any reason why such a being exists.
    So you are using my lack of support for God existing as a reason to reject God. Argument from ignorance fallacy.,


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    No, if you reject all religious claims then you have to start from zero - i.e. From a clean empty space, equipped only with the knowledge of the world, the universe and the people along with their specific religions and propensity to make things up, demonstrate that your God is worthy of discussion and not a total fiction.

    I don't believe that you have provided support for such a being. Not to mention that your being, that you're CALLING "God", may not even be a legitimate deity at all.

    R2: I reject your God because he appears to be a fiction conceived for the sake of argument.
    And "appears to be" is subjective and therefore not support that God does not exist.

    Not if you also reject his definition!


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    R3: Not only do you have no support for God's potential to exist, you also have no support for why he has the properties you claim he has, and for the properties you do claim, they are also unsupported. There are three levels of information, none of which is supported or verified. There is no reason to discuss such a poorly supported creature that you so happen to call "God" in order to co-opt a discussion about the Gods of the existing human religions.
    If you choose not to discuss it, then you cannot make the argument that it does not exist. Likewise you cannot use lack of support of it's existence as an argument for its non-existence.




    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Yet you have no evidence or support for this realm at all. So your creation needs another creation to support it. That's a turtle-squared argument. Not only do I have to withhold a judgement on your turtle-God, I also have to withhold judgement on this turtle-realm. And this is just the start because I also have to withhold judgement as to how this turtle-God found the turtle-material for this actual-Universe and the turtle-technology he used to do it. I believe that's at least four levels of nested turtles to even support this turtle-realm we agree (for now) your turtle-God needs.
    But unless you can show that any of these turtles do not exist (assuming they are required for God to exist, which is questionable), you cannot use them to support the position that God does not exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    But I am saying God doesn't exist for reasons based on the reality of belief in the existing religions; and the reality that the claims are culturally specific and scientifically in keeping with the knowledge of the culture, as it changes.
    But that's only support for the position that the religious claims are faulty.

    Unless you are going to forward the argument that God cannot exist without religion (and if you do, I ask that you support or retract that claim), then God can exist regardless of how flawed religious claims are.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    I get why you (and others) want to limit the debate but that avenue of thought is practically a waste of time and provably inconclusive. If you limit your discussions to purely theoretical things then that is a wholly another approach (a worthless one). I like to use reality.
    It is not an accepted premise that God is purely theoretical.




    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Of course you disagree - that's why we're debating. That you make no factual claim, and indeed invent a straw man to support your point, is why you're not getting anywhere. I like to stick to facts and the reality that we both share; you're choosing to attack my position with non-facts (no evidence) about non-reality (an invented God) using additional turtles for support!

    You literally have nothing solid at all whereas I have the entire world and its history and all the worlds knowledge at my disposal. I also note, that you too agree with my facts, because you haven't disagreed or challenged them: you appear to be attacking the 'argument' but in doing so using a multi-dimensional turtle-argument, you are merely being practically a theist.
    I don't challenge many of your facts. I'm just pointing out that these facts don't support your conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Lack of evidence removes the ability to say a claim is supported. An unsupported claim cannot be said to be true - the point is that you are using an enormous stack of unsupported claims and arguments, as do theists, to support the claim that such a thing exists.
    Right. Theists have failed to support that God exists. And that in no way supports the position that God does not exist. Have I not made it clear yet that I concede that there is no support for God existing? How many times shall I repeat it before it becomes completely unnecessary for you to point this out?




    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Inconsistent also means non-contiguity; to suppose a realm that we know nothing about, using powers we know nothing about, to perform acts we do know about, that are clearly scientifically impossible (raising the dead, the flood, flying horses, human-animal-deity hybrids, breeding with humans).
    Then something being inconsistent with science does not show that it doesn't exist. If it's contradictory to science, then one can say that science supports that it doesn't exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    What? The idea that you are supporting your arguments with turtles?
    No, support the argument that it's wholly imaginary is a better explanation.






    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    I believe this is answered above. If you remove all religions from the mix, then you also remove the warrant to suppose that there even is a deity.
    I am not removing religion from the mix as in holding that every single claim of theirs is untrue. "Unsupported" does not mean "Not true".

    I'm just ignoring their claims until someone can show evidence that their claims have support.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    2. Your turtle-God also fails immediately since it requires additional turtles to support him, even though they are outside your definition.
    MY turtle-God? I'm not arguing for God's existence nor do I forward the turtle concept.

  10. #210

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Claiming that religions are the only source for God is begging the question. If religions are the source of God then God could not have existed before religions existed. Since you have not supported that God did not exist before religion, the premise that religion is the source for God is rejected.
    No it's not: it's verifiable fact! How can we talk about this entity called god if not informed from religion? It's the only evidence we have to base on!

    If you believe another source for us knowing about God then you need to support it. My argument is only based on verified facts. You can speculate about turtle-gods all you like but I'm keeping track of your inventions.

    So you are using my lack of support for God existing as a reason to reject God. Argument from ignorance fallacy.,
    Nope: if you start with a blank slate, which you are doing, since you reject all religious statements about a deity, then you have to provide support this entity is even worth debating. We're not even debating existence at this point - we are evaluating whether you have warrant to say your turtle-God exists. If you claim he doesn't we are done, if you claim you don't know then you still have to support why you don't know. If all you're doing is putting random words together then there is literally no debate to be had.

    And "appears to be" is subjective and therefore not support that God does not exist.

    Not if you also reject his definition!
    I didn't reject the definition, I am saying it is supported by turtles.

    If you choose not to discuss it, then you cannot make the argument that it does not exist. Likewise you cannot use lack of support of it's existence as an argument for its non-existence.
    But I currently see nothing to discuss that matches my OP. Only your turtle-God is in play and that depends on more turtles for support. At that point, it's just a random word game that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

    Also, if you choose to argue a straw man then that is your prerogative but in your own thread. You have automatically excluded yourself from this thread when you rejected religions since that is what my OP is based on.

    But unless you can show that any of these turtles do not exist (assuming they are required for God to exist, which is questionable), you cannot use them to support the position that God does not exist.
    I don't need to. If it's turtles all the way down then it is a waste of time to discuss existence - there is literally nothing to discuss!

    But that's only support for the position that the religious claims are faulty.

    Unless you are going to forward the argument that God cannot exist without religion (and if you do, I ask that you support or retract that claim), then God can exist regardless of how flawed religious claims are.
    Sure but I am talking about religious claims. You're talking about turtle-gods which is something else entirely and not within the scope of what I am discussing.


    It is not an accepted premise that God is purely theoretical.
    So you believe that your turtle-God could actually exist?
    Not does exist but could, right? If so then support your reasons why, ideally not using more turtles.


    I don't challenge many of your facts. I'm just pointing out that these facts don't support your conclusion.
    By appealing to a turtle-God, i.e. More human creations! That's why you're failing.


    Right. Theists have failed to support that God exists. And that in no way supports the position that God does not exist. Have I not made it clear yet that I concede that there is no support for God existing? How many times shall I repeat it before it becomes completely unnecessary for you to point this out?
    Then the only thing we are discussing is a turtle-God of your own making. Which is out of scope and unsupported by arguments that are not turtle based. You've practically repeated the same problem that Religionists have and indeed you have failed to support your turtle-God could exist!



    Then something being inconsistent with science does not show that it doesn't exist. If it's contradictory to science, then one can say that science supports that it doesn't exist.
    Yes, but turtle-science, the additional theories regarding all the turtle-claims, isn't science either.

    No, support the argument that it's wholly imaginary is a better explanation.
    Comports with how other imaginary things such as politics and countries work.


    I am not removing religion from the mix as in holding that every single claim of theirs is untrue. "Unsupported" does not mean "Not true".

    I'm just ignoring their claims until someone can show evidence that their claims have support.
    Right and once you've ignored everything then what's left? Nothing.


    MY turtle-God? I'm not arguing for God's existence nor do I forward the turtle concept.
    You have because your definition is not based on any existing religion, whose precepts you have already rejected. Therefore, it is a god of your own making, and it needs to be supported. You have both failed to provide support or warrant that your God has the potential to exist but you also acknowledge that the related claims (realms, etc) are also unsupported. Therefore, the object of your argument is a turtle-God.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #211
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    No it's not: it's verifiable fact! How can we talk about this entity called god if not informed from religion? It's the only evidence we have to base on!

    If you believe another source for us knowing about God then you need to support it. My argument is only based on verified facts. You can speculate about turtle-gods all you like but I'm keeping track of your inventions.
    It is not a verifiable fact that religion is the ONLY source for a belief in God. You have CHOSEN to define God that way which is a subjective choice on your part, not an objective fact.

    And if I personally do create a God, your rejection of my definition of God (whatever it is) is likewise a choice on your part. I'm not going to bother to argue with you on the definition of God but let's not pretend that you are currently using an absolutely correct definition. You are using the definition that you choose to use and I'm going along for the time being because I can hold up my end of the debate while going along with you.

    But let me throw this out there - I'm aware of a book called "The Starseed Transmissions" which is a new age "channeled" book which is, if one believes what is contained in the pages, is written by God. So if someone took that book seriously enough to believe that it was indeed written by God, then wouldn't the "God" who wrote that book qualify as God? I mean the religious claims from the major religions is based on the notion that God actually communicated with people and it was written in a book. So basically the difference between the bible and The Starseed Transmissions is how recently "God" supposedly communicated with people. So going by that, there is at least one more source of "God" - the book I am referring to. So assuming you reject the "Starseed" God as a valid definition of God, what pertinent difference does it have with the Christian God that disqualifies it?


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Nope: if you start with a blank slate, which you are doing, since you reject all religious statements about a deity, then you have to provide support this entity is even worth debating.
    Nope. I'm not rejecting all religious statements. Saying that something is not supported is not the same as rejecting it. Some religious statements I do reject as they contradict known reality (like the notion that God started the human race by hand-creating two people) and other statements I accept as possibly true. But since they are not supported, I conclude that they are without support. And the claim that God exists is a statement that is not supported, but I don't reject it as false.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    I didn't reject the definition, I am saying it is supported by turtles.
    And I'm saying it's not supported also.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    But I currently see nothing to discuss that matches my OP. Only your turtle-God is in play and that depends on more turtles for support. At that point, it's just a random word game that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

    Also, if you choose to argue a straw man then that is your prerogative but in your own thread. You have automatically excluded yourself from this thread when you rejected religions since that is what my OP is based on.
    I'd say your comment is a straw-man. I am not arguing for any particular God nor am I rejecting any particular definition of God which means that I do not reject God as you define it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    I don't need to. If it's turtles all the way down then it is a waste of time to discuss existence - there is literally nothing to discuss!
    Saying it's a waste of time to discuss God is not support that God does not exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Sure but I am talking about religious claims. You're talking about turtle-gods which is something else entirely and not within the scope of what I am discussing.
    I don't even know what your talking about. I wish you would stick to trying to make arguments instead of complaining about the debate. So I will ignore this comment as non-productive to the debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    So you believe that your turtle-God could actually exist?
    Not does exist but could, right? If so then support your reasons why, ideally not using more turtles.
    Until someone supports that something does not exist, logic dictates that it might exist.

    Since you have not supported that turtle-gods (or any God) do not exist, logic dictates that they might exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    By appealing to a turtle-God, i.e. More human creations! That's why you're failing.
    Since I'm not arguing that any gods exist, I am not appealing to turtle-God.

    And to be clear, "turtles" are necessary claims that go along with God existing, right? So IF God exists, God needs a home so that requires the "turtle" claim that there is a home. So basically, God having a home is a "turtle God". I just want to clarify what you mean by "turtle".



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Then the only thing we are discussing is a turtle-God of your own making. Which is out of scope and unsupported by arguments that are not turtle based. You've practically repeated the same problem that Religionists have and indeed you have failed to support your turtle-God could exist!
    Which might be a problem if it was my burden to support that God exists. But that's not my position.

    And I'm currently not forwarding any particular definition of God (I'm not trying to get you to use the dictionary definition) so there is no "my" God. Again, the definition is up to you as long as its reasonable.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Yes, but turtle-science, the additional theories regarding all the turtle-claims, isn't science either.
    But you have not supported that it contradicts science.


    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Comports with how other imaginary things such as politics and countries work.
    That's not even a complete sentence, let alone valid support.

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Right and once you've ignored everything then what's left? Nothing.
    I meant ignore them in terms of being support.

    In other words, if a religion says "God exists" then I am aware that the religion is saying that God exists. But if the religion does not support that God exists, then I do not consider it evidence of God's existence.



    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    You have because your definition is not based on any existing religion, whose precepts you have already rejected. Therefore, it is a god of your own making, and it needs to be supported. You have both failed to provide support or warrant that your God has the potential to exist but you also acknowledge that the related claims (realms, etc) are also unsupported. Therefore, the object of your argument is a turtle-God.
    In case you haven't noticed, I dropped the definition debate. I forward no particular definition of God.

    And you have not supported that God, going by any reasonable definition of God, does not exist.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

  12. #212

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It is not a verifiable fact that religion is the ONLY source for a belief in God. You have CHOSEN to define God that way which is a subjective choice on your part, not an objective fact.
    I didn't say religion is the only source - it happens to be the one I have chosen to discuss in my OP. If there is another source then you are welcome to discuss its inclusion but you cannot do so unilaterally. It's my OP.

    Until you bring in another source with a non-turtle based support for doing so then the OP stands.

    It isn't arbitrary nor subjective to use religion as a primary source for determining whether God exists. Indeed there is nothing wrong at all to just study God from only the perspective of religions : I'm not interested in discussing whether gods in novels (eg American Gods) or philosophical treatments that have no bearing on reality.


    And if I personally do create a God, your rejection of my definition of God (whatever it is) is likewise a choice on your part. I'm not going to bother to argue with you on the definition of God but let's not pretend that you are currently using an absolutely correct definition. You are using the definition that you choose to use and I'm going along for the time being because I can hold up my end of the debate while going along with you.
    Sure, I agree it's a choice. However, since we already know you rely on turtles to support your God, I see no benefits in including it since we already have to deal with turtles already. Your turtle-God has the add disadvantage that only you believe it is a valid God - you haven't supported anyone else thinks your turtle-God exists.

    But let me throw this out there - I'm aware of a book called "The Starseed Transmissions" which is a new age "channeled" book which is, if one believes what is contained in the pages, is written by God. So if someone took that book seriously enough to believe that it was indeed written by God, then wouldn't the "God" who wrote that book qualify as God? I mean the religious claims from the major religions is based on the notion that God actually communicated with people and it was written in a book. So basically the difference between the bible and The Starseed Transmissions is how recently "God" supposedly communicated with people. So going by that, there is at least one more source of "God" - the book I am referring to. So assuming you reject the "Starseed" God as a valid definition of God, what pertinent difference does it have with the Christian God that disqualifies it?
    I don't need to take it seriously because your immediate first sentience appeals to the turtle of "channeling". Indeed you already recognize its turtle nature because you already put quotes around it.

    I'm not rejecting it as a valid "definition" of God - I don't believe there even is an invalid definition given that there is no framework to prove or disprove any truth claims about God anyway. I made up cheese-God myself: it's a wholly meaningless enterprise.

    What I am rejecting are claims that are unsupported or otherwise supported by turtles. Of which, in your example, you have multiple - how does channeling work? Into the brain as thoughts? If so how? A specific language? Why that one? Why even have a human rather than a USB drive or even directly to every human's minds? There are just too many turtles to take the claims seriously. Therefore, I have warrant to dismiss it in total. It is a waste of time and effort to ask for additional support.


    Nope. I'm not rejecting all religious statements. Saying that something is not supported is not the same as rejecting it. Some religious statements I do reject as they contradict known reality (like the notion that God started the human race by hand-creating two people) and other statements I accept as possibly true. But since they are not supported, I conclude that they are without support. And the claim that God exists is a statement that is not supported, but I don't reject it as false.
    Firstly, there is no reason why Adam and Eve started the human race - we are beginning to do this stuff ourselves - it's not that hard to mess with DNA. What's unbelievable is the dust and ribs. You have to isolate the turtle beds accurately otherwise you could reject stuff that could have happened.


    I'd say your comment is a straw-man. I am not arguing for any particular God nor am I rejecting any particular definition of God which means that I do not reject God as you define it.
    I don't define God at all. I never have in order to support my claims; indeed my OP says it is impossible to define God at all. However, your DDG, assuming that this is the God you are talking about is a turtle-God.

    Saying it's a waste of time to discuss God is not support that God does not exist.
    But it is support that the universe does not support the existence of God. Which is all I have been saying.



    Until someone supports that something does not exist, logic dictates that it might exist.
    Sure but we are not solely in the world of logic where anything goes. I have deliberately restricted the universe of discourse to this physical universe and our current knowledge of it.


    Since you have not supported that turtle-gods (or any God) do not exist, logic dictates that they might exist.
    Well the point of turtle gods is that the turtles never end! Unless the turtles eventually hit the reality of the known universe, they fall outside of the scope of my OP.
    You can philosophize as much you want in another thread but in this one, we are talking about physically probable things.

    Since I'm not arguing that any gods exist, I am not appealing to turtle-God.

    And to be clear, "turtles" are necessary claims that go along with God existing, right? So IF God exists, God needs a home so that requires the "turtle" claim that there is a home. So basically, God having a home is a "turtle God". I just want to clarify what you mean by "turtle".
    I'm not saying you argue they exist but for you to hold an agnostic position you have to believe that God could exist - ie it is possible for God to exist. Correct?
    Turtle are arguments to support god that are also unsupported. They tend to invoke even more turtles thus, we have turtles all the way down, infinitely since people invent things all the time.



    Which might be a problem if it was my burden to support that God exists. But that's not my position.
    You have the burden to show why you thing God could exist.


    And I'm currently not forwarding any particular definition of God (I'm not trying to get you to use the dictionary definition) so there is no "my" God. Again, the definition is up to you as long as its reasonable.
    The. What are you talking about when you use the word God!







    I meant ignore them in terms of being support.

    In other words, if a religion says "God exists" then I am aware that the religion is saying that God exists. But if the religion does not support that God exists, then I do not consider it evidence of God's existence.
    Then what remains? If there is something you believe supports gods existence (even though you may not know it to be true) you are obligated to say what that is.



    In case you haven't noticed, I dropped the definition debate. I forward no particular definition of God.
    Finally! Then what is your purpose in this debate!

    And you have not supported that God, going by any reasonable definition of God, does not exist.
    I have supported that the known universe doesn't allow God to exist. See OP


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #213
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    [quote/]I continue to reject the claim of commonality as valid.
    Denial is an option. However, that doesn’t change the fact the world major religions through their sacred text claim God’s existence. Nor does it change the consensus these major religions share on the existence of God / One Reality.

    I continue to reject your claim that there is a single entity under different aspects.
    It’s not a claim. This is not a scientific debate, SD. My response to your question is what I consider to be a reasonable point of view (an opinion), which you are free not to accept.

    I have to reject your new turtle and request that you withdraw your statement.
    You asked a question about how does God work through man and I gave you a possible analogy – not a claim. Again, you are free not to consider it.

    By testing it. This far the truth of my OP has withstood the onslaught of hundreds of turtles to no avail!
    You might want to consider how your turtle (i.e. your consciousness) tests truth and what human turtle filters you are using to consider the results. Human slow-moving turtle filters generally produce human slow-moving turtle results.
    Last edited by eye4magic; June 11th, 2016 at 01:36 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  14. #214
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    I don't define God at all. I never have in order to support my claims; indeed my OP says it is impossible to define God at all. However, your DDG, assuming that this is the God you are talking about is a turtle-God.
    If you don't define God, then you cannot possibly make a coherent argument that God does not exist.

    But the fact is people, not you I guess, but other people HAVE defined God. I've seen many atheists argue that God does not exist and they define God (or assume that everyone knows the definition of God) and use the known aspects of God to mount an argument against God's existence.

    So you can define God or you can accept a dictionary definition of God. If you don't define or accept a definition, it's because you choose to not use a definition. And again, you can't argue that God does not exist until you define God.

    So your position that God does not exist fails for failing to define that which supposedly does not exist.

    Since this seems to settle the debate, I won't bother responding to the rest of the post for the time being. I might revisit it later.

  15. #215

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Denial is an option. However, that doesn’t change the fact the world major religions through their sacred text claim God’s existence. Nor does it change the consensus these major religions share on the existence of God / One Reality.
    Yet between them, these religions still make incompatible claims on God's actual interactions with our planet (assuming they even happened) and his various demands of us.


    It’s not a claim. This is not a scientific debate, SD. My response to your question is what I consider to be a reasonable point of view (an opinion), which you are free not to accept.
    But if the opinion is unwarranted, given that we share the same world and the same knowledge, why is your opinion different from mine? How do different facts produce different opinions?

    You asked a question about how does God works through man and I gave you a possible analogy – not a claim. Again, you are free not to consider it.
    Hmm. I would prefer that you say you don't know.

    You might want to consider how your turtle (i.e. your consciousness) tests truth and what human turtle filters you are using to consider the results. Human slow-moving turtle filters generally produce human slow-moving turtle results.
    Agreed but my measure of plausibility only allows a small number of stacked turtles. Unfortunately, religious claims tend to be turtles all the way down. Perhaps God is at the bottom.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #216
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you don't define God, then you cannot possibly make a coherent argument that God does not exist.
    A few years ago ODN had a thread going where a working definition of God was put forth by an atheist and it was accepted as a working definition by others and a meaningful and interesting debate followed. I can’t remember the thread but this thread reminds me of how important this point is in order to keep a debate moving forward, hopefully constructively.

    That being said and to be perfectly honest, I think rather then a definition, which we humans like to work with because we are linear thinkers, for something that is theoretically timeless divine intelligence, it’s probably more plausible for someone who wanted to debate God’s existence to put forth a description of God rather then a definition. How can we define something that we can’t conceive of in our mind?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  17. #217

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you don't define God, then you cannot possibly make a coherent argument that God does not exist.
    Correct but that is not my claim. My claim is that the different religious claims shows that the known universe cannot support any of the Gods or turtles required to support God.

    Where you keep missing my point is that there is no one definition for God; there are many. We should always be talking in those terms.

    But the fact is people, not you I guess, but other people HAVE defined God. I've seen many atheists argue that God does not exist and they define God (or assume that everyone knows the definition of God) and use the known aspects of God to mount an argument against God's existence.
    Sure and all of those claims are mutually disbelieved. I've seen how other atheists debate too - they hide the assumption that the God of their primary cultural is being debated; that all the others have already been dismissed. They also tend to buy the supernatural as a given and tend not to point out the stacks of turtles. They also fall for all the logically sound, but ultimately flawed, arguments of the apologists and not reject them outright. So I don't believe that some atheists are very convincing either. The mistake is to leave reality behind.

    It's always a mistake to define "God" because we all know there actually isn't a single God. To go down that route is a arguing a straw man and the turtles required to support the straw man are not better and take us no closer to answering the question of existence.

    So you can define God or you can accept a dictionary definition of God. If you don't define or accept a definition, it's because you choose to not use a definition. And again, you can't argue that God does not exist until you define God.
    And to repeat, I am arguing against all definitions together and not just a single one. I have consistently told you that I offer no definition and I accept no single definition: I have to it's in my OP!

    So your position that God does not exist fails for failing to define that which supposedly does not exist.
    Again, my claim is not "that God does not exist". My claim is that the known universe of mutually exclusive claims made by a species known to make things up all the time, and the fact religions appear more like politics than science, based more on personal preference, does not allow God to exist. Every single statement I make to support my position has been based on fact - not a turtle in sight.

    Since this seems to settle the debate, I won't bother responding to the rest of the post for the time being. I might revisit it later.
    As I have been saying forever, your approach of attack has largely failed because:

    1. You refuse to accept my OPs target, which are all the worlds religions and their gods.
    2. You spent a lot of time insisting that I accept your personal definition; which, not only isn't within my OP's scope, but didn't resolve the stack of turtles problem, which is a primary reason why religious gods are so implausible in the first place. Indeed, I believe you ended up having to accept that your definition required a lot of turtles and hence you dropped it when I attacked you with it earlier.
    Your second attempt in R2, which seems abandoned, to force the creation as a reason for God is yet another failed attempt to force the debate into your own OP. It failed because again, you do not argue from our shared reality. When you were forced to, you disappeared.
    3. The approach of suggesting that I am arguing from ignorance also didn't pass muster. Largely because you insisted on your own definition and getting me to challenge it but ignoring that if you too took the same knowledge we have you are compelled to draw the same conclusions: there's really nothing but empty definitions and turtles to support them.

    All in all, I think it was a worthwhile debate and I appreciate your challenges. Perhaps now you can consider atheism since it appears you are agnostic against something that does not pass muster.

    My OP stands defended.
    Last edited by SadElephant; June 10th, 2016 at 03:37 PM.

  18. #218
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Yet between them, these religions still make incompatible claims on God's actual interactions with our planet (assuming they even happened) and his various demands of us.
    I will not argue that there are not differences. However, I can argue that there are also significant and relevant areas of common ground. I suppose it depends on what a person wants to focus on. I tend to embrace the philosophical view that a brilliant scientist expressed during his era decades ago: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

    why is your opinion different from mine?
    Well SD, I will remind you that this is a debate board and the fact the people have different opinions about debate subjects is part of the process of a healthy and meaningful debate. If people didn’t have different opinions, there would be little to discuss and share. N'est pas? I also might point out the old axiom of Aristotle that “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” It’s OK to have different opinions about this or that. The bigger issue I think is keeping the mind open enough to take it all in and learn from the experience.

    How do different facts produce different opinions?
    Perspective and different states of awareness. People have different perspectives looking and observing the same things and facts all the time. In addition, sometimes people’s perspectives change from one firm view to completely another down the road of life and new experiences. And this doesn't always happen because the facts changed, but it happens because a person's awareness and perspective changed.

    Hmm. I would prefer that you say you don't know.
    Again, this is a debate forum and people are free to share in their views and opinions. And you are free to consider or reject those views/opinions or further the conversation. When a clear claim is stated then, yes, that needs to be supported.

    Agreed but my measure of plausibility only allows a small number of stacked turtles.
    You might consider expanding your narrow turtle den if you ever feel adventurous. You never know,you might get some doves and eagles to shake things up a bit.
    Last edited by eye4magic; June 10th, 2016 at 07:26 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  19. #219

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I will not argue that there are not differences. However, I can argue that there are also significant and relevant areas of common ground. I suppose it depends on what a person wants to focus on. I tend to embrace the philosophical view that a brilliant scientist expressed during his era decades ago: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Albert Einstein
    Philosophical views are certainly interesting ways to pass the time and we all know that Albert Einstein rejected the Abrahamic Gods in your list as naive and child-like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...lbert_Einstein). However, those are really topics for another debate: I do not intend to debunk philosophy, at best a mental exercise.

    Here we are discussing what exists in our shared physical reality to determine if those Gods, the ones Einstein calls naive and child-like: clearly he is an atheist (although he hates that term) towards those Gods and is probably best described as a deist - believing in something that he, as you point out, doesn't know anything about other than to say the universe exists and someone must have made it. I would say, that too is as child-like and naive as the anthropomorphic Gods he despises. All made without evidence, a product of pure speculation and turtles, and wholly based on the absorbing the awe in the vast workings of the universe:

    The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, the individual feels "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole."
    Which is pretty much a big load of appeal to ignorance, much despised here it seems. So much for Einstein.

    Well SD, I will remind you that this is a debate board and the fact the people have different opinions about debate subjects is part of the process of a healthy and meaningful debate. If people didn’t have different opinions, there would be little to discuss and share. N'est pas? I also might point out the old axiom of Aristotle that “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” It’s OK to have different opinions about this or that. The bigger issue I think is keeping the mind open enough to take it all in and learn from the experience.
    True but one remarkable discovery I have made is the use of turtles in such a blatant manner; literally choosing to invent more things to question rather than examining the facts that we already have in front of us. Still, it has been interesting.


    Perspective and different states of awareness. People have different perspectives looking and observing the same things and facts all the time. In addition, sometimes people’s perspectives change from one firm view to completely another down the road of life and new experiences. And this doesn't always happen because the facts changed, but it happens because a person's awareness and perspective changed.
    I agree - it's why we discuss a 'belief' in God as opposed to the factual existence of God. You're right - it's purely about personal perspectives that can change: hence people can switch religions and go from theism to atheism or the reverse. I wholeheartedly agree the imaginary and wholly intellectual exercise - little wonder debaters have not relied on facts to support their case against me!

    Again, this is a debate forum and people are free to share in their views and opinions. And you are free to consider or reject those views/opinions or further the conversation. When a clear claim is stated then, yes, that needs to be supported.
    But rarely retracted I noticed; just silently dropped. I must say it appears people find it hard to admit they're wrong: even on the forge of reason. So I would say it's a bit much to call this a debate forum.

    You might consider expanding your narrow turtle den if you ever feel adventurous. You never know,you might get some doves and eagles to shake things up a bit.
    It's not my turtle den otherwise, it would have been in the OP.

    It occurred to me during the debate that I realized that people were avoiding the reality of facts to support their position. Not only that but they would assert new things that also required support that I quickly saw, if I chose to probe would introduce even more things that need support. The turtle den isn't mine - it is the debaters!

    Perhaps being here for so long with the same debaters it is not me that needs to expand my den - it is you. I just got here!

  20. #220
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RELIGION 1: Does the known universe allow God to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    But rarely retracted I noticed; just silently dropped. I must say it appears people find it hard to admit they're wrong: even on the forge of reason. So I would say it's a bit much to call this a debate forum.
    Again, you're not going to like this, but numerous times throughout this debate after your claims have been successfully rebutted, you have either silently dropped them (not responded to the rebuttal), replied with "true, but", or replied with questions which don't actually address the rebuttal. And again, my favourite example is from the very beginning when you KingDavid's rebuttal to your statement that we know god doesn't exist because there's no evidence went silently ignored and he realised there was no point in continuing with you.
    Also, your comment makes especially little sense considering it's your OP, and the replies to it have almost all been to point why you are wrong, and you've been the one finding it hard to admit it.
    And I know you'll just say that this is just another gotcha or weird interjection, but you really have to try and accept the fact that your style thus far has not been very well received.
    Perhaps being here for so long with the same debaters it is not me that needs to expand my den - it is you. I just got here!
    Perhaps, but please know that there are many debaters here who have spent a lot of time debating together, and also those who only periodically join some debates, and you have received criticism from both groups. So it appears the common element here is the flawed defense of the flawed OP.
    Also, one could make the same type of comment and say that it is your experience with debating on Reddit that has caused you to develop this quick-n-dirty style that seems to be failing you here. Perhaps.

    But anyway, those don't really address the topic of the debate. After catching up on the many posts since my last response and re-reading those which came after my first, I'd like to ask you if you think your OP (whichever version of it you now claim to put forward) still stands?
    Or can we just agree that skepticism is the proper way to go about disbelieving in theistic claims because the theistic position is ill-defined, and trying to go any further than that leads to arguments from ignorance? I tried to put this to you before, but you seemed to entirely miss the point and strangely called it a straw-man.

 

 
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 132
    Last Post: March 24th, 2014, 05:14 AM
  2. And then the universe 'began' to exist . . .
    By Rodriguez in forum Religion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: September 24th, 2011, 09:26 AM
  3. Atheists, Why Does The Universe Bother To Exist?
    By KingOfTheEast in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: January 26th, 2011, 10:45 AM
  4. Dark Energy May Not Exist - Milky Way at Centre of Universe?
    By disinterested in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 14th, 2009, 06:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •