Proposal: Can Atheism refute Theism? Atheists to attack, Theists to rebut.

Propose a formal or informal debate or discussion in this forum. Declare a challenge/invitation or respond to one.
User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:06 am

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
Are you a theist who would like atheists to be less hostile? :)

Or are you an agnostic who would like atheists to be less hostile?

Or are you an atheist who would like both 'sides' to be less hostile to each other?[/quote]

I am a Theist who would like Atheists and Theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists - l think that covers most folk) to be less hostile to each other.

Atheists can be pretty disgusting in their attacks, due to political incorrectness, which is basically an ethics vacuum if you ask me.

As for Theists, well, we have mainly Christians (not much to say, they are basically all secularised), Jews (mostly secularised but a loud extreme bunny boiling minority kick up a daily shitstorm in places like Israel, think of the Kahane movement, Yigal Amir, and Price Tag), Muslims (Sunnis are a fallen people, main activities today are making babies and scaring old ladies in Western nations with their insane fashion sense, not really getting it that they shouldn't live in a "Kafir" country if they're so religious, or if they do they could at least dress like a sane person) (Shias are up to something with Russkies and China where all your stuff comes from, not good) (and ofc both sects have a terrorist minority that thrives on self-pity, using the exact same cliches as militant Atheists, KKK, Jewish Haredi extremists, etc.), Hindus are mostly harmless too (but an extreme minority would literally bash your skull in in front of your family, because you ate a beef burger. Which is animal cruelty.).

So, l personally would appeal to the moderates in each group and say: the extremists are all basically the same, so why don't the moderates realise their own commonalities - and this is my inclusive secularism.

(It's feels relevant today, what with the impending rise of the Planet of the Apes (Donald Trump's presidential bid), the refugee crises creating a religious clash, the crisis itself being caused by a religious clash, and a new Cold War looming.)

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:14 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
ruby sparks;623714 wrote: Are you a theist who would like atheists to be less hostile? :)

Or are you an agnostic who would like atheists to be less hostile?

Or are you an atheist who would like both 'sides' to be less hostile to each other?
I am a Theist who would like Atheists and Theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists - l think that covers most folk) to be less hostile to each other.

Atheists can be pretty disgusting in their attacks, due to political incorrectness, which is basically an ethics vacuum if you ask me.

As for Theists, well, we have mainly Christians (not much to say, they are basically all secularised), Jews (mostly secularised but a loud extreme bunny boiling minority kick up a daily shitstorm in places like Israel, think of the Kahane movement, Yigal Amir, and Price Tag), Muslims (Sunnis are a fallen people, main activities today are making babies and scaring old ladies in Western nations with their insane fashion sense, not really getting it that they shouldn't live in a "Kafir" country if they're so religious, or if they do they could at least dress like a sane person) (Shias are up to something with Russkies and China where all your stuff comes from, not good) (and ofc both sects have a terrorist minority that thrives on self-pity, using the exact same cliches as militant Atheists, KKK, Jewish Haredi extremists, etc.), Hindus are mostly harmless too (but an extreme minority would literally bash your skull in in front of your family, because you ate a beef burger. Which is animal cruelty.).

So, l personally would appeal to the moderates in each group and say: the extremists are all basically the same, so why don't the moderates realise their own commonalities - and this is my inclusive secularism.

(It's feels relevant today, what with the impending rise of the Planet of the Apes (Donald Trump's presidential bid), the refugee crises creating a religious clash, the crisis itself being caused by a religious clash, and a new Cold War looming.)[/QUOTE]

Not an unreasonable aim, in my opinion, and thanks for a straight answer.

In 'real life' I get on with people of all religions and none. It's not really something I judge a person by. Not entirely unlike the way it does not seem to matter whether the surgeon operating on me is PC or not. :)

There are good and bad and all other varieties in people of every persuasion.

I have found though, that Internet discussion forums can be places where the gloves are off and where strife is often the order of the day. I have even found myself 'descending' into that mode at times. I think it might have something to do with a crowd mentality and the impersonal, abstract, removed nature of Internet communication.

User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:20 am

[quote=""Copernicus""]
I find that definition to be too vague and to broad to be useful. Most of us think of a god as a spiritual being that commands some kind of absolute control over some aspect of reality. It can think and plan in much the same way that humans can, and it commands enough social respect to be worshiped, the point being that prayers and worship can affect its attitude in some way. There are other attributes that gods have, but that is in the general vicinity of a coherent definition.[/quote]

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
I have a similar response to Copernicus.

I could nearly make that the definition of 'the universe' or even 'a godless universe'. [/quote]

I dunno why you'd think l'd get angry at that, ur not accusing me of ****ing over a man being raped to death by a horse, whilst also telling me l made the whole thing up anyway (no names mentioned). I'm cool with just about anything else. Also, God if he exists can fight his own battles, right? I really don't like when ppl get touchy over religion, and l'm sure you don't either.

So anyway, back to Copernicus:

What you're describing l feel stems from infinite actual, that is to say, an infinite amount of light. Perhaps i need to differentiate between potential and actual energy, so l'd say inifnite light, as that is energy that moves (photons are dynamic).

From that infinite actual, you can get however much matter you want, via E = mc^2 or m = E/c^2

Matter itself would be an illusion in this model, being some kinda coiled energy.

So, everything that we know of, is just an illusion contingent upon infinite actual.

The illusion is matter and that coupled with it emerging from infinity, kinda indicates that it's finite (our existence i mean).

Thus, we are a finite illusion within infinite resource. God's absolute control over us, his being worth of worship, and his appreciation of our worship while he doesn't even need it, all stems from that model (we being a finite illusion within the infinite energy of God), because what do you give the one that has everything? Quality, not quantity, i.e. worship, love.

It is also implicit that there is nothing but God, before the universe and ever since the universe came about, so what is the purpose of it all? I don't know, maybe it's just a random thought of God to himself, perhaps self appreciation.

User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:04 am

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
In 'real life' I get on with people of all religions and none. It's not really something I judge a person by. Not entirely unlike the way it does not seem to matter whether the surgeon operating on me is PC or not. :) [/quote]

I just caught that part. Hmmm, l think my general scheme of things is this:

- Beliefs about God (his existence, his not existing) = beyond our material existence, hence, in our modern world, it doesn't matter so much.

Morality (i.e. the problem of good and evil) is tied to religion, l feel. And hence moraliy too is compromised today, it is beyond our material existence.

- Ethics still remain, we could at least strive for the best ethics. And decency to each other too (i.e. the Golden Rule, not necessarily being good or bad, but giving everyone their due manners before finally bitchslapping them). Humanity. All these things together = political correctness = correctness on a social / societal level.

- Hence l asked: what surgeon would you want, a politically correct one or a politically incorrect one? Hoped for answer: At least the politically correct one has regard for medical ethics, all other things being equal, at least he will give you your dues, unlike that awful guy you mentioned who removed a cadaver's todger and flashed it around in a nightclub toilet (l hope it wasn't really you lol!).

I hope that clarifies things.


Anyway, as l've not been contacted about the debate, and it seems R. Soul isn't really up to it anyway, l'll leave it there. Thanks guys, peace :D

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:38 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Copernicus;623716 wrote: I find that definition to be too vague and to broad to be useful. Most of us think of a god as a spiritual being that commands some kind of absolute control over some aspect of reality. It can think and plan in much the same way that humans can, and it commands enough social respect to be worshiped, the point being that prayers and worship can affect its attitude in some way. There are other attributes that gods have, but that is in the general vicinity of a coherent definition.
[quote=""ruby sparks""]
I have a similar response to Copernicus.

I could nearly make that the definition of 'the universe' or even 'a godless universe'. [/quote]

I dunno why you'd think l'd get angry at that, ur not accusing me of ****ing over a man being raped to death by a horse, whilst also telling me l made the whole thing up anyway (no names mentioned). I'm cool with just about anything else. Also, God if he exists can fight his own battles, right? I really don't like when ppl get touchy over religion, and l'm sure you don't either.

So anyway, back to Copernicus:

What you're describing l feel stems from infinite actual, that is to say, an infinite amount of light. Perhaps i need to differentiate between potential and actual energy, so l'd say inifnite light, as that is energy that moves (photons are dynamic).

From that infinite actual, you can get however much matter you want, via E = mc^2 or m = E/c^2

Matter itself would be an illusion in this model, being some kinda coiled energy.

So, everything that we know of, is just an illusion contingent upon infinite actual.

The illusion is matter and that coupled with it emerging from infinity, kinda indicates that it's finite (our existence i mean).

Thus, we are a finite illusion within infinite resource. God's absolute control over us, his being worth of worship, and his appreciation of our worship while he doesn't even need it, all stems from that model (we being a finite illusion within the infinite energy of God), because what do you give the one that has everything? Quality, not quantity, i.e. worship, love.

It is also implicit that there is nothing but God, before the universe and ever since the universe came about, so what is the purpose of it all? I don't know, maybe it's just a random thought of God to himself, perhaps self appreciation.[/QUOTE]
I can't say that I found your musings a lot more helpful, but I think that you give a better sense of how you conceive of God (as opposed to a garden variety god), when you tell us how you interact with him/her/it. The thing about theism is that it is not specific to any particular god, and atheists are those who reject belief in the general category of beings. So you need to be clear about what you think the parameters of that category are. Otherwise, a debate over the atheism/theism distinction is pretty meaningless.

User avatar
Aupmanyav
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:53 pm
Location: New Delhi

Post by Aupmanyav » Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:59 am

Hello, PC, a delayed welcome to the forum. Although I wanted to post in your threads but felt scholastically deficient to do so. You have adjusted to the forum nicely and I think we will have more interesting posts from you. This time I thought let me have a go. I do not see any reason why atheists should attack theism. We have to live together so why challenge? For example I am an atheist but whole of my family are theists. To each his/her own.
'Sarve khalu idam Brahma'
All things here are Brahman (physical energy).

User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:53 am

[quote=""Copernicus""]
I can't say that I found your musings a lot more helpful,[/quote]

I couldn't permit myself to just sit back and say "I don't like" without explaining.

Plus l've only just explained the universe and meaning of life (from the POV of theism), don't worry about it.


[quote=""Copernicus""] but I think that you give a better sense of how you conceive of God (as opposed to a garden variety god), when you tell us how you interact with him/her/it. The thing about theism is that it is not specific to any particular god[/quote]

God would be the utlimate object, this arises from my first principle that God = infinite potential + infinite actual.

As such, theism is not subjective. The ultimate object is independent of worship, worship involves a subject.


[quote=""Copernicus""]So you need to be clear about what you think the parameters of that category are. Otherwise, a debate over the atheism/theism distinction is pretty meaningless.[/quote]

See post #39 and #53, which you've already referenced.


[quote=""Aupmanyav""]Hello, PC, a delayed welcome to the forum. Although I wanted to post in your threads but felt scholastically deficient to do so. You have adjusted to the forum nicely and I think we will have more interesting posts from you. This time I thought let me have a go. I do not see any reason why atheists should attack theism. We have to live together so why challenge? For example I am an atheist but whole of my family are theists. To each his/her own.[/quote]

Hi Aupmanyav, thanks for your greeting. I'm guessing you agree that we should all work toward an inclusive secularism, taking everyone in, rather than just a secularism that doesn't allow theism / spirituality (l call that exclusive theism).

The future of humanity may depend on it, and l believe it's the only way we'll ever reach the stars, assuming we survive that long.


I'm going away for a while now anyway, but thanks for saying hi, dude. (p.s. l totally agree with your signature: all things are physical energy)

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:54 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]Uh okay, shall we call the debate off? I don't mind either way (honestly).

But if that's all, l'll be off to attend to real life (been taking a few days off). Nice forum (apart from a few hiccups lmao).

Btw, when l get outraged in a debate, be assured it's just a friend arguing with a friend over a textbook.

But anyway shall we call it off or proceed?[/quote]

I'm more than happy to continue.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:00 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Anyway, as l've not been contacted about the debate, and it seems R. Soul isn't really up to it anyway, l'll leave it there. Thanks guys, peace :D [/quote]

What logical fallacy through yonder window breaks? It is bullshit, and smells of a sewer.

Don't try and misrepresent my position matey. Fuckin bring it. I'm just waiting for all the focus groups and committees to conclude so we can start.

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:46 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Copernicus;623728 wrote: I can't say that I found your musings a lot more helpful,
I couldn't permit myself to just sit back and say "I don't like" without explaining.

Plus l've only just explained the universe and meaning of life (from the POV of theism), don't worry about it.[/quote]
Please do not jump to the conclusion that I was never a theist or that I don't understand theism. Your POV on this subject is of interest here, but you do not represent theism in general, just your own take on it.


[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Copernicus;623728 wrote: but I think that you give a better sense of how you conceive of God (as opposed to a garden variety god), when you tell us how you interact with him/her/it. The thing about theism is that it is not specific to any particular god
God would be the utlimate object, this arises from my first principle that God = infinite potential + infinite actual.

As such, theism is not subjective. The ultimate object is independent of worship, worship involves a subject.[/quote]
I don't really understand your response here. Your references to "infinite potential" and "infinite actual" mean nothing to me. Your opinion on the nature of God is, by definition, subjective. Do you, or do you not, worship God? If so, then that suggests to me that you think of God as a personal being of some sort and that worship of this being matters in some way to you. In what way does it matter? I don't worship DNA, dinosaurs, termite palaces, planets, stars, etc., but I find them profoundly interesting. What is it about God that merits worship?

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Copernicus;623728 wrote:So you need to be clear about what you think the parameters of that category are. Otherwise, a debate over the atheism/theism distinction is pretty meaningless.
See post #39 and #53, which you've already referenced.[/QUOTE]
True, but I've also expressed in those references my inability to make sense of them.

User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:31 am

[quote=""R. Soul""]
I'm more than happy to continue.[/quote]


[quote=""R. Soul""]
What logical fallacy through yonder window breaks? It is bullshit, and smells of a sewer.

Don't try and misrepresent my position matey. Fuckin bring it. I'm just waiting for all the focus groups and committees to conclude so we can start.[/quote]


Well bring it. I don't like these ups and downs, either you're going to debate or you're not. If you are, then start now if you want. Who are we waiting for?

User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:41 am

[quote=""Copernicus""]
Please do not jump to the conclusion that I was never a theist[/quote]

I am not talking about your beliefs. Nor even mine. I'm calculating what a God would be if he exists.

I would like him to be somebody that gives me infinite salty greasy fast food but l wouldn't work that into my arguments, my arguments are objective.


[quote=""Politically Correct""]
God would be the utlimate object, this arises from my first principle that God = infinite potential + infinite actual.

As such, theism is not subjective. The ultimate object is independent of worship, worship involves a subject.[/quote]


[quote=""Copernicus""]
I don't really understand your response here. Your references to "infinite potential" and "infinite actual" mean nothing to me.[/quote]

That was the answer to the question about my definition of God. Plus it was expanded upon in Post #53 (quoted further down).


[quote=""Copernicus""] Your opinion on the nature of God is, by definition, subjective.[/quote]

Not quite, it's an opinion about something which is the ultimate object, and there's a chance that it might coincide therefore with the objective absolute truth of all that exists. Sounds pretty objective in that case, if that opinion is correct.

Moreover, it's more of a calculation than a mere opinion. A worked calculation, so please refer to the working out if you take issue with it.


[quote=""Copernicus""]Do you, or do you not, worship God? [/quote]

Too personal. I wouldn't discuss religion on here, not why l tried this place.

Another thing, the way a person worships their God = religion. This debate is about Theism and Atheism. Therefore, it's off topic.


[quote=""Copernicus""] If so, then that suggests to me that you think of God as a personal being of some sort and that worship of this being matters in some way to you. In what way does it matter? I don't worship DNA, dinosaurs, termite palaces, planets, stars, etc., but I find them profoundly interesting. What is it about God that merits worship? [/quote]

That's an interesting Q, why don't you join the official debate? If it's going to happen l don't want to give away my answers in case that question is asked. I had said my farewells several times over but then R Soul bobs back up and starts queening at me again, so maybe the debate is still on? I don't know.

You're welcome to join on his side though. I wouldn't be able to wait forever though. I've got Skid Row's "18 and Life" in the back of my mind now.


[quote=""Copernicus""]So you need to be clear about what you think the parameters of that category are. Otherwise, a debate over the atheism/theism distinction is pretty meaningless.[/quote]

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
See post #39 and #53, which you've already referenced.[/quote]

[quote=""Copernicus""]
True, but I've also expressed in those references my inability to make sense of them.[/quote]

OK well what part don't you understand? All the direct response l got was:

[quote=""Copernicus""]
I find that definition to be too vague and to broad to be useful. Most of us think of a god as a spiritual being that commands some kind of absolute control over some aspect of reality. It can think and plan in much the same way that humans can, and it commands enough social respect to be worshiped, the point being that prayers and worship can affect its attitude in some way. There are other attributes that gods have, but that is in the general vicinity of a coherent definition.[/quote]

I answered this in Post #53 below:

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
What you're describing l feel stems from infinite actual, that is to say, an infinite amount of light. Perhaps i need to differentiate between potential and actual energy, so l'd say inifnite light, as that is energy that moves (photons are dynamic).

From that infinite actual, you can get however much matter you want, via E = mc^2 or m = E/c^2

Matter itself would be an illusion in this model, being some kinda coiled energy.

So, everything that we know of, is just an illusion contingent upon infinite actual.

The illusion is matter and that coupled with it emerging from infinity, kinda indicates that it's finite (our existence i mean).

Thus, we are a finite illusion within infinite resource. God's absolute control over us, his being worth of worship, and his appreciation of our worship while he doesn't even need it, all stems from that model (we being a finite illusion within the infinite energy of God), because what do you give the one that has everything? Quality, not quantity, i.e. worship, love.

It is also implicit that there is nothing but God, before the universe and ever since the universe came about, so what is the purpose of it all? I don't know, maybe it's just a random thought of God to himself, perhaps self appreciation.[/quote]


To which you replied:

[quote=""Copernicus""]I can't say that I found your musings a lot more helpful, but I think that you give a better sense of how you conceive of God (as opposed to a garden variety god), when you tell us how you interact with him/her/it.[/quote]

i.e. "that wasn't helpful, let's talk about religion, or whatever your personal way of worship is"

I get that you'd rather talk about an empirical (experiental?) God, but then the answer to all arguments would be "well that's just your experience". That's not the subjective contest l would get into.

You didn't explain why what l actually gave out in Post #53 (quoted above) wasn't helpful. As l said, it gives a calculated answer to the nature of God, and even stretches to answer your question why he is to be worshipped etc. So yeah, that's your answer. Unless you have any more questions?

Perhaps just join R. Soul in the debate, as this is all getting too meta for me now, unless it's actually the debate l requested in which case let's make it official.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:42 am

The mods need to set it up including the peanut gallery. There's nothing from stopping us from doing our own thing but blueprints are important around here, and in any case ass-kickings need to be enshrined for posterity.

User avatar
Politically Correct
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am

Post by Politically Correct » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:47 am

It'll be enshrined on your posterity for sure.

Image

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:50 am

That's the spirit! Stick with with me, kid, you'll learn stuff.

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:18 am

PC, a formal debate here exists between two people, so I'm not looking to join in this one. If you want to discuss these issues, there is ample opportunity under the Religion forum or at some other time. When you use expressions like "infinite actual", I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but we don't need to go into that here. If you are giving us your opinions, that is all well and good, but they are just as subjective as anyone else's. I look forward to your debate with R. Soul. He has a wicked sense of humor, which can derail serious discussion, but I have a lot of respect for his reasoning when he is being serious. We'll see which side of him you bring out.

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:44 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
ruby sparks;623718 wrote: I have a similar response to Copernicus.

I could nearly make that the definition of 'the universe' or even 'a godless universe'.
I dunno why you'd think l'd get angry at that, ur not accusing me of ****ing over a man being raped to death by a horse, whilst also telling me l made the whole thing up anyway (no names mentioned). I'm cool with just about anything else. Also, God if he exists can fight his own battles, right? I really don't like when ppl get touchy over religion, and l'm sure you don't either.
[/QUOTE]

Um, I didn't think you'd get angry about it.

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:48 am

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Copernicus;623745 wrote: Please do not jump to the conclusion that I was never a theist
I am not talking about your beliefs. Nor even mine. I'm calculating what a God would be if he exists.

I would like him to be somebody that gives me infinite salty greasy fast food but l wouldn't work that into my arguments, my arguments are objective. [/QUOTE]

I think that's as impossible a task as, say atheism refuting theism or the other way around. Refutation is not, imo, an available option. And nor is objectivity.

When you, personally, try to calculate what a god would be like if he exists, that's still subjective. There is no way out of the trap, any more than if I say I'm calculating what an elf would be like if it existed.

You can't, imo, destroy the idea of god using logic and you can't create an objective idea of god using logic either.

You may end up with a logically consistent god idea, but then I'd end up with a logically consistent elf idea, which I don't believe would amount to much.

ETA: thinking about it, your approach is not as flawed as I thought. Maybe you have a point. You want to define a perfect being, in a way. I suppose that may be analogous to wanting to define a perfect circle, which mathematicians have sought to do (and arguably succeeded). Hm. interesting.

I'm not sure a perfect circle exists, any more than a perfectly salty greasy fast food lunch, or a perfect peanut butter sandwich exists, but I can see why the word 'infinity' might be needed. As it is in mathematics. :)

I suppose that may be the $64,000 dollar question for your endeavour. What if what you manage to describe does not exist? Because that's independent of whether or not you can conceive of it, surely?
Last edited by ruby sparks on Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:10 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
DMB
Posts: 41484
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: Mostly Switzerland

Post by DMB » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:53 am

There is only one moderator for the debate and that's Jobar. I imagine he's asleep at the moment. He'll set up the debate thread and the peanut gallery. Whichever one of you is starting could send him your opening contribution by PM.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:07 am

Excellent. Somebody go wake John-boy up.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:15 pm

[quote=""Politically Correct""]
Koyaanisqatsi;623524 wrote:
Politically Correct;623486 wrote:8 logical fallacies permitted per participant before disqualification.
8? Why would any logical fallacies be permitted? They're fallacies. They should never be permitted by definition.
If you were concerned about logical fallacies l'd have thought you'd swoop down on them here http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=35696

But you didn't so l shan't assume you really are.[/quote]

The better assumption to make is that I don't sit waiting with baited breath to see what you're going to post and when so that I can do nothing but make comments in your threads. This is the first I've seen of you.
Btw, the allowance is a concession to my opponent not me, l don't plan on making any fallacies. Any that crop up are put down by merely naming them, as is the nature of a fallacy exposed.
Yeah, so, again, why allow any?
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Copernicus
Posts: 7510
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Copernicus » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:30 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
Politically Correct;623753 wrote:
Copernicus;623745 wrote: Please do not jump to the conclusion that I was never a theist
I am not talking about your beliefs. Nor even mine. I'm calculating what a God would be if he exists.

I would like him to be somebody that gives me infinite salty greasy fast food but l wouldn't work that into my arguments, my arguments are objective.
I think that's as impossible a task as, say atheism refuting theism or the other way around. Refutation is not, imo, an available option. And nor is objectivity.

When you, personally, try to calculate what a god would be like if he exists, that's still subjective. There is no way out of the trap, any more than if I say I'm calculating what an elf would be like if it existed.

You can't, imo, destroy the idea of god using logic and you can't create an objective idea of god using logic either.

You may end up with a logically consistent god idea, but then I'd end up with a logically consistent elf idea, which I don't believe would amount to much.

ETA: thinking about it, your approach is not as flawed as I thought. Maybe you have a point. You want to define a perfect being, in a way. I suppose that may be analogous to wanting to define a perfect circle, which mathematicians have sought to do (and arguably succeeded). Hm. interesting.

I'm not sure a perfect circle exists, any more than a perfectly salty greasy fast food lunch, or a perfect peanut butter sandwich exists, but I can see why the word 'infinity' might be needed. As it is in mathematics. :)

I suppose that may be the $64,000 dollar question for your endeavour. What if what you manage to describe does not exist? Because that's independent of whether or not you can conceive of it, surely?[/QUOTE]
FTR, I do think that it is possible to mount logical arguments against the existence of most versions of gods. We can make logical arguments about the existence of all sorts of things, and gods are nothing special. Belief in gods is ubiquitous in human cultures, so there is nothing wrong in discussing the possibility of their existence. The question that usually arises in these debates is what counts as a "proof" or "refutation". It may be possible to logically refute the existence of an omnimax God by showing that the concept leads to a contradiction. That doesn't prove the nonexistence of all gods, since not all of them have those particular properties. Generally speaking, however, one can "prove" that gods do not exist in the sense that they are extremely implausible beings, given what we know about the nature of reality. It is just that we have to start out such an argument by acknowledging that we can never know reality in an absolute sense. The argument must proceed on the basis of premises that we can all stipulate to.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:02 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
Politically Correct;623695 wrote:God = Infinite potential + infinite actual. The rest i think stems from that. Any objections?

I have a similar response to Copernicus.

I could nearly make that the definition of 'the universe' or even 'a godless universe'.




If I was being harsh, I might say it sounds a bit non-commital.


Or, alternatively, a bit like your debate question.

A definition that can't be wrong.[/QUOTE]

It's got 'infinite' in it twice, so I suspect that once unpacked it will be dead in the water.

So...

Infinitely powerful?

Infinitely knowing?

infinitely seeing?

Infinitely Benevolent?

Any or all of these?

And while we are at it, closed or open infinity?

praxis
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Post by praxis » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:21 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]Yeah, so, again, why allow any?[/quote]I'm guessing it might be because it's a weapon he uses, not very discretely I might add, to accuse his opponent of engaging in whenever he can't address an objection or face a difficulty.

Notice how many times he invoked the accusation in his surgery thread. That was probably a demonstration for us all to take note of.

What other reason could there be for allowing fallacies in a debate when he assures us that he won't be guilty of it in the slightest? The idea must appear to benefit him somehow.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:35 pm

It's for my benefit apparently. Very benevolent, a whole eight of them before I'm disqualified.

What he doesn't know, 8 is the number of Khorne. :evil:

Image

Locked