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 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 19 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 655
  1. #561
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think that that is a fantastic point. What I think matters here is whether the remaining pieces of that puzzle are related to the point we are trying to feel confident about. You were rightly skeptical of S&R because the part of the truth you were missing was what was going on behind that curtain or sheet or whatever (whatever was happening while you were misdirected).
    I’m not sure the same can be said of our scenario.
    Again, I still see your position as there are only a piece or two missing from our puzzle. My position at the moment is there seem to be more...

    ---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And GR is incredibly well tested experimentally. That is why, generally, scientists don’t find the observations of visible matter as particularly persuasive that GR is wrong. It is far more likely that the observations aren’t exhaustive of matter.
    I don't believe I was questioning whether GR was wrong per se. Just that in only applies in certain circumstances (like Newtonian physics for instance).
    IOW, more than a piece or two missing from the puzzle...[COLOR="Silver"]

    [/quote=squatch347;562643)
    ---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    The specific quote I was referring too was:
    However, if the earth was "made" for us to live on, you would think we be able to live on more than such a small % of it ??
    Even if we expand it to the entire universe, I don’t see how that changes my question much.
    1) Why would we use that particular metric?
    2) Why would we use our current technological development? Wouldn’t it be relevant what we can do in a thousand years? Why is right now the appropriate measuring time for God?
    3) Why does the fact that we currently don’t live on most of the planet (and on a shrinking portion of it) have anything to do with inferring God’s plans? Especially since there are a lot of purposes those areas can and do provide that would suit things more in line with what Genesis is telling us.
    1. if it was "made for us" to live there, what metric is better than can we live there?
    2. Why do you keep saying this? I have made no such remark regarding our current time frame/technology. If one believes in the BB, then from the beginning of time till as far as we can predict in the future, almost 100% of the universe is deadly to our kind of life. Like 99.9 and a lot more than 29 nines (there is that sense of humor again
    3. It has nothing to do with "don't". We "can't".
    3a. What is Genesis telling us?

    ---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I did. By definition everything that is not impossible is possible.
    You are a slippery, hairy, little guy

    True, but evasive, and about as useful as, well, it's just not useful is it?

    All kinds of wild possibilities exist as possibilities, yes?

    Perhaps you could show a likelihood that would be compelling?
    Last edited by Belthazor; December 19th, 2018 at 08:37 AM. Reason: tag fix

  2. #562
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I did. By definition everything that is not impossible is possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    True, but evasive, and about as useful as, well, it's just not useful is it?
    All kinds of wild possibilities exist as possibilities, yes?
    Perhaps you could show a likelihood that would be compelling?
    Just to clear up the apparent confusion regarding this portion of your exchange, impossible and possible are two separate claims which must be supported individually. If someone claims that something is possible, showing that it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible is not support for that claim. It's the same as the Jelly-Bean Jar scenario. If someone claims the number is even, saying that we don't have reason to think it's odd isn't support that it's even.

  3. #563
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Just to clear up the apparent confusion regarding this portion of your exchange, impossible and possible are two separate claims which must be supported individually. If someone claims that something is possible, showing that it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible is not support for that claim. It's the same as the Jelly-Bean Jar scenario. If someone claims the number is even, saying that we don't have reason to think it's odd isn't support that it's even.
    This isn't correct. Possible and Impossible form the entire set of possibility. 7 and odd do not conform to that structure. Even and Odd do, 7 and x<7
    Possible and impossible are, definitionally, the same as a and ~a (not a). I'm curious, if something is not possible and is not impossible, what word do you ascribe to it?

    [Note: this is not a response to Bel's point, which may be fair, I haven't had time to address it yet.]
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #564
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This isn't correct. Possible and Impossible form the entire set of possibility. 7 and odd do not conform to that structure. Even and Odd do, 7 and x<7 Possible and impossible are, definitionally, the same as a and ~a (not a). I'm curious, if something is not possible and is not impossible, what word do you ascribe to it?
    [Note: this is not a response to Bel's point, which may be fair, I haven't had time to address it yet.]
    This in no way addresses my point. Here it is again:
    Impossible and possible are two separate claims which must be supported individually. If someone claims that something is possible, showing that it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible is not support for that claim. It's the same as the Jelly-Bean Jar scenario. If someone claims the number is even, saying that we don't have reason to think it's odd isn't support that it's even.
    Whether possible and impossible are a true dichotomy is irrelevant. If someone is claiming that something is possible, pointing to it not being demonstrated as impossible isn't support for it being actually possible.

    Another example is a courtroom, where the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or not-guilty. If the defendant is found not-guilty, this doesn't mean that the defendant is found innocent.

    So, for claims regarding possibility and impossibility, each claim is separate and has a separate burden of proof. Therefore, as with the courtroom analogy, the dichotomy for claims regarding possibility is "Possible or Not-Possible".

    ---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    By definition everything that is not impossible is possible.
    Did you actually demonstrate that it is not impossible?

  5. #565
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Impossible and possible are two separate claims which must be supported individually. If someone claims that something is possible, showing that it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible is not support for that claim.
    Two different concepts are conflated here; one correct, one incorrect.

    First the correct one. Saying that noone has shown it to be impossible is not valid support for possibility. That would be shifting the burden of proof. (However, showing a concept to be logically coherent would be support).

    Now the incorrect one. Possible and Impossible are not two separate claims. They are, in fact, two phrasings of the same claim. X is possible is logically equivilant to X is not impossible (formally x=a is the same as x=~(~a)).

    Therefore, showing that something is not impossible shows that it is possible via the law of the exluded middle.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    It's the same as the Jelly-Bean Jar scenario. If someone claims the number is even, saying that we don't have reason to think it's odd isn't support that it's even.
    Let's run with this analogy. Would you agree that someone has shown that the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd if they showed it wasn't even?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #566
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now the incorrect one. Possible and Impossible are not two separate claims. They are, in fact, two phrasings of the same claim.
    No. Someone saying something is possible is making a positive claim, and someone saying something is impossible is another, separate, positive claim. Each claim has its own, separate, burden of proof. You're conflating the concepts of claims of whether something is possible or impossible, with the fact of whether something is possible or impossible.

    If someone claims that x is possible, and we reject that claim, this has absolutely no bearing on the claim that x is impossible, and no connection to the fact of whether x is possible.
    And, likewise, if someone claims that x is impossible, and we reject that claim, this has absolutely no bearing on the claim that x is possible, and no connection to the fact of whether x is possible.

    Please confirm you understand this before we move forward.

  7. #567
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's run with this analogy. Would you agree that someone has shown that the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd if they showed it wasn't even?
    Outstanding attack on the analogy!
    However, showing an eternal being "isn't impossible" (did you actually show this, I'm not so sure?...) does not mean it needs to exist, nor does it speak to the likelihood of said being existing.

  8. #568
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let's run with this analogy. Would you agree that someone has shown that the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd if they showed it wasn't even?
    Sure, why not. But in order to unpack this, you need to be specific. How did they show "it wasn't even"?

  9. #569
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Again, I still see your position as there are only a piece or two missing from our puzzle. My position at the moment is there seem to be more...
    I think we are on the same page, the only question we have is whether the missing piece is relevant to what we are discussing. IE is it part of santa’s belt or part of the sleigh. Even if there is a whole other area with Mrs. Klaus, that could be a lot of missing information, but I don’t see how it is relevant to Santa’s belt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I don't believe I was questioning whether GR was wrong per se. Just that in only applies in certain circumstances (like Newtonian physics for instance).
    IOW, more than a piece or two missing from the puzzle...
    This is one of our really old discussions. I don’t think I remember you ever questioning GR or what the original point was (something about dark matter), but I don’t remember the details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. if it was "made for us" to live there, what metric is better than can we live there?
    2. Why do you keep saying this? I have made no such remark regarding our current time frame/technology. If one believes in the BB, then from the beginning of time till as far as we can predict in the future, almost 100% of the universe is deadly to our kind of life. Like 99.9 and a lot more than 29 zeros (there is that sense of humor again 3. It has nothing to do with "don't". We "can't".
    3a. What is Genesis telling us?
    1) If we assume that God’s only motive is for us to survive, sure. But it seems clear (because there is more to the Bible than Genesis 1 &2) that He intends a bit more than that. But if God’s motives are for something that does not just include survival then there are going to be limiting factors to accomplish those goals in addition to survival.

    If our goal was for California Condors simply to survive, we’d have to ask why we waste so much on ensuring they have space. Rather, we would capture them, force breed them, and genetically clone them. But we have a larger set of goals for them that include their existence in a natural habitat doing what their instinct guides. Those additional goals put limits on our freedom of action in how we achieve all of them together such that the optimal solution might have imperfections in it when seen from any one perspective.

    2) I’m not sure why we would assume the universe is deadly to our life going forward. That presumes a lot about our technological state in a thousand or a million years. Who knows how we’ll see the universe when we reach a type III civilization status. It certainly isn’t so clear to me that the fact that it happens to be deadly now is particularly relevant. The earth too used to be far more hostile to our life than it is now. If we approached this question at that period your question would seem valid (say the little ice age or its big brother). If we approached it during the Holocene Optimum then this question would make less sense.

    3) I think the idea that we “can’t” is completely unsupported. Humans couldn’t live in the arctic until we could. We couldn’t live off of the savana until we figured out how to. We couldn’t live under water for more than 3 minutes until we figured out how to. Why would we put such a limit on our ability to continue to develop?

    3a) Lots of things. Kasuto (rabinnical scholar) wrote more than 100,000 words for the first 18 chapters in Genesis about lessons and implications. Specifically, to this argument I think Genesis is telling us (and this is, of course a dramatic simplification) that God’s desire for us to “go forth and multiply” is also tempered with His desire for us to come and know Him and the need for us to pursue things in life rather than them just being given to us. Genesis has a lot to say about the benefits and worth of products of our work, but not (and this is the first example of this in human history that we know of) at the exclusion of taking time to rest and its benefits. It tells us that God desires us to have free will, to seek wisdom and righteousness, and that other humans are our brothers. I remember a preacher once saying that most of the Bible is an answer to Cain’s question to God “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and the answer is “yes.” Genesis is also the first document that really posits an objective good and evil in the universe rather than subjective good and evil. And that our actions have consequences based on those objective truths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You are a slippery, hairy, little guy True, but evasive, and about as useful as, well, it's just not useful is it?

    All kinds of wild possibilities exist as possibilities, yes?

    Perhaps you could show a likelihood that would be compelling?
    Your description of me is not wrong. I was a swimmer in highschool which is where I got the name since there was a state competition I was an alternate for so I didn’t shave pre-event. Definitely not so little any more though. ;-)

    On this topic though, first let me point out that the reason I brought up possibility, rather than probability was because this was (pages and pages ago) a response to an objection that the idea of a creator, as described by the fine tuning and cosmological argument, was impossible, so it should be ruled out a priori.

    Showing that it is, in fact, logically coherent over comes that objection and brings us back to that original argument, which I think fits nicely with what you are asking for.

    If there is an observable phenomenon that could only be produced via one of three categories of things and we can rule out two of them, that makes it a pretty high likelihood that the remaining category is the cause and therefore exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Outstanding attack on the analogy!
    However, showing an eternal being "isn't impossible" (did you actually show this, I'm not so sure?...) does not mean it needs to exist, nor does it speak to the likelihood of said being existing.
    Thank you! You are correct. Showing that something is possible is absolutely not the same thing as showing it is necessary or, in fact, exists. If I remember correctly, this specific defense was brought up because it was implied that the idea of a creator as described by the Cosmological Argument was internally incoherent (ie impossible).

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Someone saying something is possible is making a positive claim, and someone saying something is impossible is another, separate, positive claim.
    They are separate claims in so much as they are holding two different statements to be true. They are not separate as in logically unrelated.

    Let me ask this, are the two following statements logically equivocal?

    1) X is impossible.
    2) X is not possible.

    If not, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Future
    If someone claims that x is possible, and we reject that claim, this has absolutely no bearing on the claim that x is impossible, and no connection to the fact of whether x is possible.

    And, likewise, if someone claims that x is impossible, and we reject that claim, this has absolutely no bearing on the claim that x is possible, and no connection to the fact of whether x is possible.
    I've underlined the relevant text in this statement. When you say "we reject that claim" do you mean:

    a) We do not agree with the support offered for the claim?
    or
    b) The claim is false?

    The former has nothing to do with the logical structure of the argument (which is what we are discussing), it just means you don't accept the reasoning.

    The latter makes your statement incorrect. If we hold that the claim "x is possible" is false, we are holding the claim "x is impossible" as true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Future
    Sure, why not. But in order to unpack this, you need to be specific. How did they show "it wasn't even"?
    This wasn't about you thinking my evidence was "wrong" it was about you saying that if I showed X, I it didn't also support ~(~x) with the same support. If you agree now that showing x also means having showed ~(~x) then we can discuss the nature of the support, but it would seem warranted to get basic logical precepts agreed to before going any deeper.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #570
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If I remember correctly, this specific defense was brought up because it was implied that the idea of a creator as described by the Cosmological Argument was internally incoherent (ie impossible).
    In what way does KCA describe a creator?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The former has nothing to do with the logical structure of the argument (which is what we are discussing), it just means you don't accept the reasoning.
    What we're discussing is your claim that it's possible for something to forever. You have tried to show that it's possible by arguing that since the concepts "live forever" and "be alive" are not mutually exclusive, it's not impossible. Further, your use of the concepts "live forever" and "be alive" is flawed since one is, by definition, a subset of the other, so they are necessarily not mutually exclusive. It would be like saying that, since the concepts "be a pink gazorpazorp" and "be a gazorpazorp" are not mutually exclusive, it's possible to be a pink gazorpazorp.

    In order to support your claim that it's possible to live forever, you'd first have to define how you're using the terms, since the common definitions don't necessarily support that it's possible for something to live forever.

  11. #571
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In what way does KCA describe a creator?
    Through the logical deductions necessary from the argument. IE as part of the conclusion. If you are ready to discuss the conclusion we can refer back to my original post about the KCA which links the explanation of the attributes that are logically necessary arising from the KCA.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    You have tried to show that it's possible by arguing that since the concepts "live forever" and "be alive" are not mutually exclusive, it's not impossible... It would be like saying that, since the concepts "be a pink gazorpazorp" and "be a gazorpazorp" are not mutually exclusive, it's possible to be a pink gazorpazorp.
    First, we should remember the burden of proof here. That the concept was incoherent was not brought up by me (obviously), it was an objection to my premise. Thus it would probably be wise for the person using those terms as part of their objection to define them (that would be you I believe).

    Second, your first quoted sentence is correct, if the concepts within a claim are not logically incoherent (better than mutually exclusive) they are not impossible. Only concepts that are non-sequitors are impossible.

    Third, your second sentence is correct. Why would adding the descriptor of 'pink' make 'gazorpazorps' incomprehensible?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Someone saying something is possible is making a positive claim, and someone saying something is impossible is another, separate, positive claim.
    They are separate claims in so much as they are holding two different statements to be true. They are not separate as in logically unrelated.

    Let me ask this, are the two following statements logically equivocal?

    1) X is impossible.
    2) X is not possible.

    If not, why not?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #572
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Through the logical deductions necessary from the argument. IE as part of the conclusion.
    Please provide the full version of the KCA (which concludes with the Xtian deity) that you are attempting to offer as rational justification for belief in said deity. So far, the only KCA presented here has concluded in a cause for the creation of the universe, which in no way supports any being, let alone a specific deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, we should remember the burden of proof here. That the concept was incoherent was not brought up by me (obviously), it was an objection to my premise. Thus it would probably be wise for the person using those terms as part of their objection to define them (that would be you I believe).
    In post #496, Belthazor asked you to support that it is possible for something to live forever, to which you responded with: "That it is possible for something to both 'live forever' and be 'alive?' The two aren’t mutually exclusive so it is, by definition, possible"

    For something to live forever, it would by definition also have to be alive. Live forever is a subset of live/be alive. Saying that a concept is by definition a subset of another and therefore not mutually exclusive to it is not support that the concept is actually possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Third, your second sentence is correct. Why would adding the descriptor of 'pink' make 'gazorpazorps' incomprehensible?
    Because saying that the concepts "be a pink gazorpazorp" and "be a gazorpazorp" are not mutually exclusive (duh, one is a subset of the other) does not constitute support that it's possible to be a pink gazorpazorp. It might actually be impossible for any number of unknown reasons.

    Again, since your statement includes a concept which is a subset of the other, saying that those concepts are not mutually exclusive is not support that it's possible.

  13. #573
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think we are on the same page, the only question we have is whether the missing piece is relevant to what we are discussing. IE is it part of santa’s belt or part of the sleigh. Even if there is a whole other area with Mrs. Klaus, that could be a lot of missing information, but I don’t see how it is relevant to Santa’s belt.
    I think we are fairly close in concept here. I guess we are disagreeing on what constitutes "Santa's belt". I see a lot of the "suit" missing and you just need the "belt" buckled to complete the "suit".
    Yes?

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is one of our really old discussions. I don’t think I remember you ever questioning GR or what the original point was (something about dark matter), but I don’t remember the details.
    We have been tossing this around a while. You will see it my way one of these days soon though, since I did tell you this was the thread I was gonna get you on
    After all, even Mican and I agreed TWICE in the "boys have periods" thread!!!
    So, at this point, you really have little choice but to "tap".

    Kidding aside, I believe I said nearly all of the universe was "missing" according to GR (using current observations) so our knowledge is lacking somewhere.

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) If we assume that God’s only motive is for us to survive, sure. But it seems clear (because there is more to the Bible than Genesis 1 &2) that He intends a bit more than that. But if God’s motives are for something that does not just include survival then there are going to be limiting factors to accomplish those goals in addition to survival.
    I think you don't really address my concern, but you could be correct overall.
    My point is, it's quite odd that only such a minute portion is available.
    In and of itself such a point means little probably.
    A lot of strange oddities can add up to growing doubt though.

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) I’m not sure why we would assume the universe is deadly to our life going forward. That presumes a lot about our technological state in a thousand or a million years. Who knows how we’ll see the universe when we reach a type III civilization status. It certainly isn’t so clear to me that the fact that it happens to be deadly now is particularly relevant. The earth too used to be far more hostile to our life than it is now. If we approached this question at that period your question would seem valid (say the little ice age or its big brother). If we approached it during the Holocene Optimum then this question would make less sense.
    That we may be able to artificially overcome, temporarily, the nature of our universe (manifold thingy) makes it no less deadly to our kind of life.
    IOW technology doesn't make the universe suddenly allow us to survive. It is still deadly to our kind of life.
    Almost 100% of the universe will remain hostile to our form of life or the universe will have to change.

    Yes?

    ---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3) I think the idea that we “can’t” is completely unsupported.
    Here we are not talking about quite the same thing.
    Yes, we can make "bubbles" in the universe away from earth that can support human life for a time. However, the universe will remain hostile to our form of life.

    ---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If there is an observable phenomenon that could only be produced via one of three categories of things and we can rule out two of them, that makes it a pretty high likelihood that the remaining category is the cause and therefore exists.
    This just does not at ALL show a (as in one) life form can live eternally does it?

    Let us say I grant your premise. A life form (God) created the universe.
    We have no way of knowing if that is the only life form capable of this.
    We have no way of knowing if another took over after creation.
    We have no way of knowing if it was only one life form that created the universe or a collaboration.
    We have no way of knowing if tis life form still exists.

    And back to my original concern, can you support a life form can exists eternally?

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are correct. Showing that something is possible is absolutely not the same thing as showing it is necessary or, in fact, exists. If I remember correctly, this specific defense was brought up because it was implied that the idea of a creator as described by the Cosmological Argument was internally incoherent (ie impossible).
    Hmmm. Did you show it was possible? I'm thinking not.
    You attempted to show that it was not impossible. Just because you have not proved it is impossible does not make it possible nor likely. After all, it could still be impossible.

    Can you support a single life form can be eternal?

  14. #574
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please provide the full version of the KCA (which concludes with the Xtian deity) that you are attempting to offer as rational justification for belief in said deity.
    Breezing right past the strawman that the KCA is supposed to support Christ (if you want to argue that I've made that claim, please provide the quote), we can point out that I already linked the KCA argument. We can find it again here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...gical-Argument

    We can find my initial review of why it requires an aphysical, atemporal, powerful intentful cause here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post486297

    To whit:

    The first cause described above must by definition be [intentful], if it were a simple mechanical cause we cannot have a situation where the universe (the effect) does not exist while the cause does. The statement is If A then B for a mechanical cause/effect. You cannot by definition have A and not B.

    This Cause must obviously be transcendent beyond space and time since it creates those dimensions.

    This leaves the personal part of the conclusion. This logical necessity arises from the observation of effects within the universe that are, by logical necessity, not present within the First Cause. Only a sentient cause can produce an effect in a dimension it does not inhabit. IE a pencil that can only move on the X axis is not going to create a line along the Y axis.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    In post #496, Belthazor asked you to support that it is possible for something to live forever, to which you responded with: "That it is possible for something to both 'live forever' and be 'alive?' The two aren’t mutually exclusive so it is, by definition, possible"
    IE exactly what I described in my last post: "That the concept was incoherent was not brought up by me (obviously), it was an objection to my premise."

    I don't necessarily disagree with you that in order for something to live forever it must be alive. That is why the concept isn't incoherent. Thus the objection doesn't hold. If you have a new objection or a different objection I'd be interested to hear it.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Because saying that the concepts "be a pink gazorpazorp" and "be a gazorpazorp" are not mutually exclusive (duh, one is a subset of the other) does not constitute support that it's possible to be a pink gazorpazorp. It might actually be impossible for any number of unknown reasons.
    There are certainly other arguments that could be made towards the idea of a pink gazorpazorp being incoherent (and thus impossible). But if the objection to a pink gazorpazorp is that the idea of it being pink isn't coherent, pointing out that there is no issue there is certainly a valid rebuttal right?

    And you still haven't answered the most important question here:

    Are the two following statements logically equivocal?

    1) X is impossible.
    2) X is not possible.

    If not, why not?



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I think we are fairly close in concept here. I guess we are disagreeing on what constitutes "Santa's belt". I see a lot of the "suit" missing and you just need the "belt" buckled to complete the "suit".
    Yes?
    I think that analogy works well. Yes, I think what we disagree on is scope (suit or belt). The nice thing is that I think this is a resolvable issue in theory. We should be able to look at the areas being described and see if they apply to early cosmology or if they are only relevant later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I think you don't really address my concern, but you could be correct overall.
    My point is, it's quite odd that only such a minute portion is available.
    In and of itself such a point means little probably.
    A lot of strange oddities can add up to growing doubt though.
    I see what you did there ;-)

    I agree with you it would seem on if we assume that it is superflous. IE that everything could be the same as it is now, but without all that "wasted" space (I'm also skeptical of it really being wasted given we have no idea where humanity will be in 1000 years). I don't see how we can hold that assumption given how emergent the universe is. If we were to change anything about the early universe (as we've discussed) the whole project kinda blows up. So I'm not quite sure how God is supposed to accomplish what He accomplished in a different way and I think that would be a hard argument to sustain.

    It's tempting to simply wave it away with "God is powerful, He can figure it out" but as we've discussed before that doesn't mean that God didn't have limitations in the sense of logical incoherence or based on His nature. God isn't going to create a universe full of married bachelors or a universe full of square circles, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    That we may be able to artificially overcome, temporarily, the nature of our universe (manifold thingy) makes it no less deadly to our kind of life.
    IOW technology doesn't make the universe suddenly allow us to survive. It is still deadly to our kind of life.
    Almost 100% of the universe will remain hostile to our form of life or the universe will have to change.
    Not necessarily. Without getting into crazy sci-fi there is no physical reason that we couldn't develop changes to ourselves that would make the universe not hostile. But this is now pretty far afield from what we've been talking about. Sufficed to say, the fact that we can overcome that obstacle via technology pretty dramatically lessons the impact of the objection I think. Afterall, there isn't any doctrine in Judeo-Christian theology that says this universe should be as easy for us to overcome as possible. Both hold the exact opposite expectation in Genesis 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    This just does not at ALL show a (as in one) life form can live eternally does it?
    But that wasn't what that part of the response was purporting to show. If we return to the premise in the CA and note that the possible causes (necessity, chance, design) are exhaustive and we rule out two, we are left with only one possible cause for the observed phenomenon. Again, all we are talking about is the observed phenomenon. We aren't trying to construct an exhaustive history of the universe from this argument, just a basic deduction on its root cause.

    We are simply trying to answer the question of what causes the universe's begginning to exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    And back to my original concern, can you support a life form can exists eternally?

    You attempted to show that it was not impossible. Just because you have not proved it is impossible does not make it possible nor likely. After all, it could still be impossible.
    I'll get to the specific support in a second, but first I need to address one point. When you say (if I'm reading you correctly) that by proving something not impossible, you don't prove it possible, I think you are incorrect. To ask the same question I asked future;

    Are the two following statements logically equivocal?

    1) X is impossible.
    2) X is not possible.

    If not, why not?


    My point here is that if something is proved to be not impossible it has to be, by definition, possible right?

    I'll get to offering you a bit broader support on how something can be a being related to the attributes defined in the CA, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page related to proving by negation.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #575
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Breezing right past the strawman that the KCA is supposed to support Christ (if you want to argue that I've made that claim, please provide the quote)
    As I've repeatedly explained, arguments which don't necessarily support the specific Xtian theism for which you are attempting to provide rational justification will be ignored. Again, if you want to claim that you have rational justification for your Xtian theism, then provide it. So far, you have not done so in the entirety of this thread and therefore, your specific Xtian theistic beliefs remain without rational justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is why the concept isn't incoherent.
    Again, saying that a concept is by definition a subset of another and therefore not mutually exclusive to it is not support that the concept is actually possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Thus the objection doesn't hold. If you have a new objection or a different objection I'd be interested to hear it.
    The objection was that we don't know whether it's possible for something to live forever. Fee free to support it. Belthazor made no statement regarding coherence, and you seem to think that whether a concept is actually possible depends solely on whether it is coherent. Again, there are many things which may seem coherent, but are actually impossible due to any number of unknown reasons. Claiming something is coherent is not the same as supporting that it's possible.

  16. #576
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I see what you did there ;-)
    Ok, you got my curiosity going.
    What did I do....?

    ---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I agree with you it would seem on if we assume that it is superflous. IE that everything could be the same as it is now, but without all that "wasted" space (I'm also skeptical of it really being wasted given we have no idea where humanity will be in 1000 years). I don't see how we can hold that assumption given how emergent the universe is.
    Exactly. If the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, humans may never have taken over. The next "one" could take humans out.

    Do you really see it as a given that humans will still dominate earth, let alone just exist as a species 1000yrs from now?

    ---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not necessarily. Without getting into crazy sci-fi there is no physical reason that we couldn't develop changes to ourselves that would make the universe not hostile. But this is now pretty far afield from what we've been talking about.
    Really?
    The universe is hazardous to DNA. We are not likely changing that, unless you see the coming melding of humans and machines (think cyborg kinda thing) as a way around this fact.

    ---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that wasn't what that part of the response was purporting to show.
    It was however the question I believe. I asked you to support a life form can be eternal if I remember correctly.

    ---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'll get to the specific support in a second, but first I need to address one point. When you say (if I'm reading you correctly) that by proving something not impossible, you don't prove it possible,...
    I will ask again, have you done this? You only showed no "incoherency" if I recall correctly.

    Indulge me please, but also I think I asked you to show that "it is possible a life form could live eternally". I did not ask, "can you show it is not impossible".
    I understand you feel they equate, but I asked one, not the other.

    ---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'll get to offering you a bit broader support on how something can be a being related to the attributes defined in the CA, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page related to proving by negation.

    I look forward to it.

    Your "negation" sounds fine, but you haven't show it yet, and I would still like to see the "positive" proof.
    (positive meaning showing it is possible as apposed to the negative, showing it is not impossible).

    Do you understand what (and perhaps why) I am asking?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 3rd, 2019 at 06:02 PM.

  17. #577
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As I've repeatedly explained, arguments which don't necessarily support the specific Xtian theism for which you are attempting to provide rational justification will be ignored.
    Who says I'm not? You are asking for me to present evidence to eliminate other forms of theism which seems like an entirely different argument, but one we can get to later. Since it is a build-on the argument we are currently discussing, we have to resolve that before moving on. Its similar to teaching physics, I have to get you to understand gravity and matter before I can introduce special and general relativity.
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ild#post561029

    Ok, but these arguments do support my theistic beliefs. Because they are not the totality of the argument set has no bearing on that fact. Demonstrating gravity through a physics experiment is support for the Standard Model of physics, even if, by itself, it isn’t a full defense. Starting with a principle before moving on to another is hardly bad form.
    ...
    Of course, you have no idea what the conclusion is because you won’t even engage the premises. You are like a man who argues that The Maltese Falcon isn’t a murder mystery because the falcon didn’t actually kill anyone. Because an argument aimed at someone specifically approaching it from a hostile position isn’t digestible into a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it isn’t an argument.

    There is no rational validation for the position you’ve taken here. If you think that some conclusion will be smuggled in later, you need to object at that point. But don’t object to a sound argument with defense of validity because you can’t see what implications its conclusion might entail.
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ild#post562023

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, saying that a concept is by definition a subset of another and therefore not mutually exclusive to it is not support that the concept is actually possible.
    As I stated, it is a rebuttal of a charge that it is incoherent based on the addition of the qualifier "pink." In that sense it does support that it is possible. If you have a different objection to the logical coherence of the concept laid out, please offer it.

    The idea of existing in relation to the CA is logically possible because none of the necessary criteria or attributes for existing differ from our description offered in my last post. IE, the conclusion of the CA is not contradictory to the definition of existence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, you got my curiosity going.
    What did I do....?
    :-) I thought you were referring to our discussion of cumulative probability and this was a subtle reference to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Exactly. If the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, humans may never have taken over. The next "one" could take humans out.

    Do you really see it as a given that humans will still dominate earth, let alone just exist as a species 1000yrs from now?
    Given that I'm a Christian whose read Revelations of course not. But I also don't take it as a given that we won't.

    This vaguely reminds me of a G.K. Chesteron allusion;

    In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
    https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/

    If we are going to object that large parts of the universe are superflous, we need to have a better explanation of what purpose they serve so that we can really consider what happens if we remove them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Really?
    The universe is hazardous to DNA. We are not likely changing that, unless you see the coming melding of humans and machines (think cyborg kinda thing) as a way around this fact.
    Well we really have no idea what we will or will not do, so it makes it somewhat odd to object based on an area where we lack so much info. More importantly, and I think more to the point, I'm not really sure you've made the case why it matters. Why should we care that the universe is hostile and difficult to overcome? Where are we, as Christians, claiming that it shouldn't be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It was however the question I believe. I asked you to support a life form can be eternal if I remember correctly.
    You did ask that (and I addressed it later), but that wasn't what this particular response was related to. This particular response was related to whether it was valid to accept the conclusion of design assuming we could rule out two of the three mece possible causes. To my knowledge, I think we are more or less in agreement on this point based on our discussion of the murderers analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Do you understand what (and perhaps why) I am asking?
    What, yes. Why, maybe not so much. There disproving a negation is logically identical to proving a positive. In fact, if we simply word things differently the proof ends up being a positive. By simply replacing words with antonyms the same concept is conveyed, but in a positive argument construct. X is not possible (negative form), X is impossible (positive form).

    In this argument my point that the concept is not incoherent can identically be written that it is coherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Indulge me please, but also I think I asked you to show that "it is possible a life form could live eternally". I did not ask, "can you show it is not impossible".
    I understand you feel they equate, but I asked one, not the other.
    Fair enough, I moved off of life form because it didn't seem quite germane to the CA in the sense that life forms are contingent beings, like us. Rather, I was responding to the more related argument that a being described by the CA was logically coherent. IE that the conclusion from the argument wasn't something that was self-defeating. As I linked to future above, the concept of being and existence aren't contradictory with the conclusions the CA draws. There just isn't an objection on that front.

    If, however, you are calling the conclusion of the CA a "life form" I think I have to object because that term has very specific biological connotations. "Living organisms are autopoietic systems: self-constructing, self-maintaining, energy-transducing autocatalytic entities” in which information needed to construct the next generation of organisms is stabilized in nucleic acids that replicate within the context of whole cells and work with other developmental resources during the life-cycles of organisms, but they are also “systems capable of evolving by variation and natural selection: self-reproducing entities, whose forms and functions are adapted to their environment and reflect the composition and history of an ecosystem." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/#7

    I could point out that nothing in the definition of a life form requires it to have an expiration date. That life, by definition, doesn't necessarily need to end. But I think an answer closer to what you are asking is related to whether the life form concept is coherent with the conclusion of the CA. Given the definition above that life forms are contingent beings, I would say it isn't. We aren't talking about a biological life form, which brings us back to my point above that the question isn't really about life forms, but about existence and being, which are perfectly compatible with an eternal existence.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #578
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Who says I'm not? You are asking for me to present evidence to eliminate other forms of theism which seems like an entirely different argument, but one we can get to later. Since it is a build-on the argument we are currently discussing, we have to resolve that before moving on. Its similar to teaching physics, I have to get you to understand gravity and matter before I can introduce special and general relativity.
    Ok, but these arguments do support my theistic beliefs. Because they are not the totality of the argument set has no bearing on that fact. Demonstrating gravity through a physics experiment is support for the Standard Model of physics, even if, by itself, it isn’t a full defense. Starting with a principle before moving on to another is hardly bad form.
    Of course, you have no idea what the conclusion is because you won’t even engage the premises. You are like a man who argues that The Maltese Falcon isn’t a murder mystery because the falcon didn’t actually kill anyone. Because an argument aimed at someone specifically approaching it from a hostile position isn’t digestible into a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it isn’t an argument.
    There is no rational validation for the position you’ve taken here. If you think that some conclusion will be smuggled in later, you need to object at that point. But don’t object to a sound argument with defense of validity because you can’t see what implications its conclusion might entail.
    You're entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't change the fact that the KCA alone as you have presented it does not rationally justify believing in the Xtian deity. Again, if you claim to have rational justification for your Xtian theism, then present it. Anything else will be ignored.

    ---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But don’t object to a sound argument with defense of validity because you can’t see what implications its conclusion might entail.
    I'll also point out that KCA has by no means been accepted as sound.

  19. #579
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Given that I'm a Christian whose read Revelations of course not. But I also don't take it as a given that we won't.
    Again, if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, humans may never have taken over the planet. This sounds a bunch more like evolution than divine planning.

    But to your point, ok, tell me how the almost 100% of the universe (manifold thingy) in question relates to human existence?

    ---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    Well we really have no idea what we will or will not do, so it makes it somewhat odd to object based on an area where we lack so much info.
    You mean like when 97% of the universe (manifold thingy) is missing?

    ---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    More importantly, and I think more to the point, I'm not really sure you've made the case why it matters. Why should we care that the universe is hostile and difficult to overcome? Where are we, as Christians, claiming that it shouldn't be?
    It may or may not matter. It is just another oddity, since this universe was made for humans to live in until we can (maybe) go to Heaven.

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    In this argument my point that the concept is not incoherent can identically be written that it is coherent.
    Yes, this is a quite compelling reason to believe God can exist eternally.
    I find your answer evasive.

    You have asked me to believe that God exists eternally. You have not shown that God (or anything) is eternal or even a likelihood that it is so.

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    If, however, you are calling the conclusion of the CA a "life form" I think I have to object because that term has very specific biological connotations.
    Here you have left the reservation unattended...

    Let us not get bogged down in terminology please. If it makes you feel better, use God instead of "life form" (instead of giving the goal posts of shove).

    However, God is alive is "He" not? This is one reason an eternal God/life/insert term of choice (TOC) is a tough sell. How can any living TOC be eternal.

    You keep telling me it is not "incoherent" but I don't find that very convincing.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    I could point out that nothing in the definition of a life form requires it to have an expiration date. That life, by definition, doesn't necessarily need to end. But I think an answer closer to what you are asking is related to whether the life form concept is coherent with the conclusion of the CA. Given the definition above that life forms are contingent beings, I would say it isn't. We aren't talking about a biological life form, which brings us back to my point above that the question isn't really about life forms, but about existence and being, which are perfectly compatible with an eternal existence.
    "Human definitions" only matter in conversations with humans (unless they truly reflect reality which is in question at the moment)....
    Does the KCA shows/supports/lend credibility to:

    1. Only one God/existence/a being, is responsible for the creation of the universe? (as apposed to a collaboration or some such teamwork).
    2. That God/existence/etc is eternal?
    3. That God/ " / " still exists after creating the universe (manifold thingy)?
    4. That any kind of life (or anything for that matter) can exist eternally?

    ---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    [indent]
    We aren't talking about a biological life form, which brings us back to my point above that the question isn't really about life forms, but about existence and being, which are perfectly compatible with an eternal existence.
    Actually, the question is/was is an eternal existence even possible?

    Aside, how/why could/would such a being/existence/whatever associate with human's? What could we "offer" such a being.
    Companionship? Please.
    Look at microorganisms under a microscope and tell me we could have fellowship with them. God would be so much farther advanced than that example it isn't even an example.

    A being capable of creating our universe would have intelligence beyond our ability to grasp. Communicating with humans would be mundane to the absolute extreme!
    Since God knows everyone's thoughts and how everything will turn out, what is left TO communicate anyway?
    You can pray that "X", but God already knows the outcome of "X" before you started to pray.
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 5th, 2019 at 05:07 PM.

  20. #580
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You're entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't change the fact that the KCA alone as you have presented it does not rationally justify believing in the Xtian deity. Again, if you claim to have rational justification for your Xtian theism, then present it. Anything else will be ignored.
    Who says I'm not? You are asking for me to present evidence to eliminate other forms of theism which seems like an entirely different argument, but one we can get to later. Since it is a build-on the argument we are currently discussing, we have to resolve that before moving on. Its similar to teaching physics, I have to get you to understand gravity and matter before I can introduce special and general relativity.
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ild#post561029

    Ok, but these arguments do support my theistic beliefs. Because they are not the totality of the argument set has no bearing on that fact. Demonstrating gravity through a physics experiment is support for the Standard Model of physics, even if, by itself, it isn’t a full defense. Starting with a principle before moving on to another is hardly bad form.
    ...
    Of course, you have no idea what the conclusion is because you won’t even engage the premises. You are like a man who argues that The Maltese Falcon isn’t a murder mystery because the falcon didn’t actually kill anyone. Because an argument aimed at someone specifically approaching it from a hostile position isn’t digestible into a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it isn’t an argument.

    There is no rational validation for the position you’ve taken here. If you think that some conclusion will be smuggled in later, you need to object at that point. But don’t object to a sound argument with defense of validity because you can’t see what implications its conclusion might entail.
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ild#post562023


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'll also point out that KCA has by no means been accepted as sound.
    Ok. Your state of acceptance, while interesting, isn't particluarly germane to the discussion. Do you have a specific objection to the logical structure of the argument or to one of the premises?



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again, if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, humans may never have taken over the planet. This sounds a bunch more like evolution than divine planning.
    I'm not sure this is exactly on topic for what generated this section of the conversation, but I'd point out that they weren't killed by evolution. They were killed by a giant asteroid that interfered with evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You mean like when 97% of the universe (manifold thingy) is missing?
    But 97% isn't missing. 50 percent or so hasn't been observed through EM radiation. That doesn't mean it is missing. It doesn't mean we can't talk about general physical rules and principles, right? That would be a naked argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that there is dark matter and dark energy is hardly a valid reason for saying there wasn't a big bang, or that time isn't a linear, iterative process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It may or may not matter. It is just another oddity, since this universe was made for humans to live in until we can (maybe) go to Heaven.
    But I'm not sure why it is an oddity. I think it would only be odd if we assume that livable space is the major concern God has. I don't think we can make that assumption. Rather, given that conflicting set of priorities that God has for us (relationship, development, freedom, etc) I'm not sure why this universe would be out of step with that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You keep telling me it is not "incoherent" but I don't find that very convincing.
    I'm not trying to convince you that it is probable with that argument, just that it is possible. To return to the detective analogy, I'm only trying to argue that He should be on the suspect list. The rest is on the shoulders of the main arguments (CA, FT, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    "Human definitions" only matter in conversations with humans (unless they truly reflect reality which is in question at the moment)....
    I'm not sure I quite agree with this sentence. Human definitions matter more than just convention between people in as much as they represent something objectively true or false. See all the language issues in the threads on transgender topics here for good examples of that. So to the extent that the word we are using represents something real, there isn't a reason for us to artificially attach constraints on the concept without good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Does the KCA shows/supports/lend credibility to:

    1. Only one God/existence/a being, is responsible for the creation of the universe? (as apposed to a collaboration or some such teamwork).
    2. That God/existence/etc is eternal?
    3. That God/ " / " still exists after creating the universe (manifold thingy)?
    4. That any kind of life (or anything for that matter) can exist eternally?
    1) Nothing in the CA would suggest that it one way or the other. I would rely on Occam's Razor here and say that the pantheon explanation is more complicated without any defended reason why it is necessary.

    2) Yes, this is a deductive requirement of the CA. The cause must be atemporal for two reasons. One, it creates temporal dimensions, it would be incoherent for it to be within its own creation. Two, if it is temporal, we run into the same problem of counting actual infinites in order to have a finite universe.

    3) The CA doesn't address this issue directly in a manner I can think of, but I would again invoke Occam's Razor to ask why we would think it went out of existence? We do have a different argument, the argument from contingency though that suggests that this could not have been the case. Given that the CA reveals the contingent nature of the universe (as opposed to necessary nature), the removal of the sustaining cause would be hard to square with the continued existence of the universe. To use an example. A scale is unbalanced if I put my finger on it. IE the unbalanced nature is contingent on my action. If I leave or stop existing, the unbalanced nature goes away.

    4) The CA doesn't address this issue specifically that I can think of. This relies (from a possibility point of view) on the fact that life doesn't seem to require temporal limitations for any reason I can see. It is perfectly coherent and plausible to have something be alive absent a temporal limitation. Now, whether that is what is real in actuality, that goes back to the argument itself. That it is probable is based on the fact that the argument is valid. And that the premises are more likely true than not. Things that begin to exist need an explanation of why they came into existence. All mainstream cosmology points to the universe beginning to exist. So given that it is hard to argue that it isn't probable that the universe had a cause. And we know by deductive requirements that that cause had to be aphysical (since it must exist by definition outside our physical dimensions), atemporal (ditto), powerful (since it causes the creation of a spacetime manifold), and intentful (since it creates dimensions that it does not, itself, exist in).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Aside, how/why could/would such a being/existence/whatever associate with human's? What could we "offer" such a being.
    Companionship? Please.
    Look at microorganisms under a microscope and tell me we could have fellowship with them. God would be so much farther advanced than that example it isn't even an example.
    But we have created microorganisms for our own purposes in the past. The question isn't about the relative scale of being, but whether the being fulfills the purposes that brought about their creation.

    Microorganisms aren't created in our image. Nor are they able to communicate. The comparison breaks down in just those areas that God would expect to interact with us. Nor does "companionship" really meet the Judeo-Christian (especially not the Christian given the Trinity) conception of God's purpose. Our ability to form a relationship is evident, despite our differences. So is our ability to do good. For that matter so is our ability to do a thousand things that God could have intended for us to do. The fact that we are not co-equal companions isn't particularly relevant to that fact either in God's plan or ours.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 19 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 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
  •