Guide on the Theistic argument

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

No you are not.

Your proof?

Saying something in an authoritative manner doesn't make you right, BrokeProphet.


Isn't it ironic that the thing upon which your arguement seems to be founded, "being unable to perceive" ultimately, in a human, amounts to a "personal experience"?


Being unable to perceive a thing does not equal a things inexistence.
(Yes, I am aware that this applies to everyone including myself.)

[Rust]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

1. But what if you are wearing a top hat, and I'm only unable to perceive it? You can "show" it to me all you want, but I will probably be unable to perceive it unless I can physically handle it. If God existed, could one physically handle him? Doubtfully. If a man is blind and denies that light exists, that colors exist, do the light & colors cease to exist? I would say no, because I perceive them, but can it ever be proven to this man otherwise? For him they do not exist because he is unable to perceive them, from my point of view. Or is it that I am unable to see what he isn't seeing?
Like the old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.

2. I'd say I agree but I think that statement is a little condescending. If they were so easy to convince, we might all be atheists by now, right? Now, I understand that they don't just *poof*, believe, but many educated people choose to believe in a God without the help of it being driven into them like a nail.

It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....

3. The definition of "atheist" that dictionary.com offers is this: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but it seems fairly accurate to me. I shouldn't have added "deny the possible existence of"...as this may be my "personal" interpretation. And some atheists are as I described, but you're right, a large number of them have weaker beliefs. Perhaps they need to invent a new word for those whose beliefs are more solid, or I need to discover it.

Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.

Has man 2 not provided solid enough evidence to prove to man 1 that some form of God exists? I'm not saying the evidence would be solid enough for "anyone" but it was solid enough for that one man, therefore your use of the word "anyone" in the context in which you are using it is unjustified.

He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?

If tonight you looked out and saw that in letters constructed of stars it was spelled out, very clearly to you, "There is no God", what would you think?
(I know some of these questions don't necessarily pertain to what we're currently discussing, but I'm curious to know your answers.)

I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.

6. An exact quote from you: I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist.
"In that I point out natural explanations for the phenomenom we observe"...can you give me a solid, unequivocal definition of "natural"? And can you prove that God is not responsible for these natural explanations?

Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.

That's been my point throughout this thread.

Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.

[WritingANovel]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

Isn't it ironic that the thing upon which your arguement seems to be founded, "being unable to perceive" ultimately, in a human, amounts to a "personal experience"?

It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.

Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.

Being unable to perceive a thing does not equal a things inexistence.

1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.



It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....



Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.



He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?



I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.



Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.



Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.

I never said anyone said otherwise.

Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.


I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.

I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...

Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.

You: Yeeeeah, I'm not so sure about that.

Me: You're right. I've made a mistake.

You: YOU'RE WRONG

Me: I just admitted that...

Seems like an ego thing to me, but hey, who am I to question your motives?

I'm already aware of that term. I just think there needs to be a stronger word for it, seperate and more severe than "atheist."

I suck at math.

Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by WritingANovel

It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.

Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.



1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.

What "exactly" did he say?

"Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists"

Fact number 2: there exists no evidence to the contrary.

I agree that they do not arrive at their conclusions by means of science. I completely agree.
But logic? Reason? Not so much.

Most of us accept the notion that if something exists, something or someone must've made it so. Can you show me an example where this doesn't apply, or is false? So it isn't necessarily illogical to think that someone or something created all of what we think we know so much about.



I'm pretty sure you're right when you assert that he never explicitly claimed that God doesn't exist.
It's just the overwhelming impression I get when I read... uhh...any post of his having to do with God.


Fact number 3: I'm not a theist.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.

I'm looking for evidence of any god that theists claim exists. Why would I limit the evidence I am willing to listen to, to one particular definition of a god?

This is my stance: You (anyone) have evidence of a god? Show it to me.

I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.

... Okay? Who cares?

I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...

Isn't it obvious? Anyone else means "anyone who isn't them". I said that as far as I was aware they hadn't shown any evidence to anyone else. I then asked you if you knew of a case where they had, to show me.

Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.

I'm pretty sure you said this:

"k, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there. If you weren't claiming, by implacation, that God doesn't exist, what would the purpose of this thread be?"

Which, like I said earlier, is a nice ego-saving way of saying you were wrong. It's not a "I was wrong". It's you putting words in my mouth in return (i.e. "doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there").

I suck at math.

1. You don't really need to know much math to notice the point. Just, maybe, the definition of a linear function, which you can find in Google easily.

2. I said a lot more than just that example...

Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.

Something being "more advanced" to us is a vague and unconvincing standard. You could claim a simple human that had a favorable genetic mutation or invented some new technology (if you mean advanced in the technological achievement context) would be "more advanced" than the rest. You would be hard pressed to find people calling that guy a "god".

Not only is the standard very fuzzy, it it has little to do with what theists most often refer to, and what atheists object to, the claims of supernatural powers! I don't know of any atheists that has any problem with the concept of an alien civilization being more advanced than us technologically.

They have a problems with things that have no meaningful evidence.