[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:41 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Being that existence exists, there is just as much reason to think that it always has existed rather than complicate things by positing a supernatural creator for which there is no evidence.

It seems to me this is aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator.

Your reasoning seems to be, and correct me if I do err, that since existence exists or rather "just is", that we should just conclude that the universe just is and has always been. Thus there is no need to posit a creator.

If this is your reasoning, then this is not aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator at all! It is actually aimed at denying premise two of the argument.

But why think that in light of the findings of current cosmologists that the premise: "The universe began to exist" is not more probable than its negation "The universe did not begin to exist"?

Even on a cursory examination of the evidence for premise two one could not reasonably conclude that the universe is eternal.

So it seems to me that premise two enjoys a wealth of support (both scientific and philosophic) and thus the proponent is justified in maintaining that premise two is more probable than its negation which is all that is needed for the premise to obtain.

(23-03-2014 01:41 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  This is further complicated by positing that said force magically has no need for a cause for it's own existence.

Kalam is a superfluous argument based on ignorance.

Well is this really a complication? If one reaches the conclusion that the universe has a cause that brought it into existence some 15 billion years ago then we are enjoined by the principle of parsimony to posit an explanation that sufficiently explains the effect and no more than that, nor are we to multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the data.

The proponent of the Kalam does not refer to magic to support the assertion that this cause is more plausibly uncaused. Rather, philosophical arguments against the existence of an actually infinite number of past events in concert with the principle of parsimony argue that this cause is uncaused and the terminus of the causal chain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 01:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  Are you saying that if I accepted the argument as you have stated it then the logical conclusion which I could come to myself without guidance would be the God of the Bible?

Oh no. You misunderstood me. I simply said that I would allow you to mull over the conclusion and if you had questions I would try to answer them.

The argument does not conclude that the God of the Bible Created the universe. It simply concludes that the universe has a cause. That is all the argument can give you.

The reason Christian philosophers use the argument is to demonstrate that the universe has a cause and to show via a conceptual analysis of what this cause at minimum must be. They then simply ask the question: "What do we know of that could be capable of bringing the universe into existence literally from nothing?"

This argument can be used by any theist, not just Christians. It argues for the existence of a being that could freely bring about a state of affairs (the universe) from nothing.

What the theist does also is uses other arguments like the moral argument, the design argument, etc. etc. to supplement this argument and when viewed cumulatively, the theist has plenty of good reasons to maintain that his theism is rationally justifiable.

Note* These arguments are not formulated to try and prove beyond all doubt that God exists. Rather, they are formulated to be like sign posts that are pointing to a reality higher than the mere natural world we live in to a reality above and beyond the one consisting of mere matter and natural forces.

(23-03-2014 01:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  As an aside, I feel that assuming premises 1 and 2 to hold is assuming a little bit too much about our knowledge of the universe.

In order for an argument to be a good one philosophers recognize that it must meet three criteria:

A good argument must: be logically valid, be sound, and have premises more plausible than their negations. So here it is clear that premises one and two are not meant to be seen as absolute truths, rather, what must be asked is can we take the premises to be more plausible than their negation?

Premise one is a metaphysical principle dating back to Parmenides. It seems self-evident, even to a layman that something cannot come from nothing! Huh

I mean think about it! Bottles of beer and marijuana joints do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing do they?

Cars, houses, planets, stars do not just pop into existence out of nothing. There is a cause for all of these things. Sir Francis Bacon once remarked that science itself is a search for causes.

So it seems to me that at the very least we can say premise one is more plausible than saying not everything that exists has a cause for its existence. Thumbsup

(23-03-2014 01:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  Specifically how do you define "beginning", "existence" and "cause"?

Beginning in the argument simply means "comes into being". Philosophers who are proponents of the Kalam sometimes use the expression “comes into being” as a synonym. This concept can be explicated as follows: for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Existence is to be and cause is used in the Kalam as Aristotle's causal agent i.e. one that brings about a particular state of affairs (SA). Incidentally, he too argued for a Prime Mover who was the terminus of all causes.


(23-03-2014 01:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  The next question is, *are* you in fact, by using this argument, leading up to some sort of argument for the existence of the God of the Bible?

If I were debating on the topic: "Does God exist?" I would supplement this argument with the various other arguments for the existence of God.

If I were debating the topic: "Is Christianity True?" I would use all these arguments in concert with arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 12:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:25 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I see, so you're just creating strawman arguments as hypotheticals of what atheists argue, and aren't even able to do that without advancing truth claims yourself.

Do you think your assertions need to be backed with proof, or you only demand this of atheists?

I believe truth claims need to be demonstrated to be true with evidence or good arguments.

We can always debate if you are willing.

Why not, if you're willing to advance and support claims instead of demanding proof of negatives.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 11:11 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You keep equating the rejection of a claim with the assertion of an opposing claim... Facepalm

Remember when you asked for evidence of your idiocy? Thanks for providing yet another shining example of it.

The rejection of a truth claim is not always the affirmation of another truth claim, but more times than not it is, especially in the case of atheists who desire to be perceived as intellectuals and knowledgeable in science.

For example:

If an atheist rejects the Christian account of the origin of mankind then they are affirming another account of the origin of mankind unless they just admit ignorance, something some people are loathe to do.

If an atheist were to tell me:

"God did not create humans in His Own Image"

I would ask:

Well how did humans come to be?

He might say:

"I do not know." Which would be to admit ignorance.

Or he might say:

"They came to be via the process of evolution by natural selection as a result of evolving from lower forms of life."


This last claim is a truth claim. They are rejecting the Christian claim in favor of a naturalistic claim. As such it needs evidencing.

Well, thanks for showing that you do have a basic understanding of this. That means that earlier when you were trying to switch the burden of proof, you weren't being ignorant, you were being disingenuous. That makes you a liar instead of a moron, not a step up in my estimation.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:25 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 11:11 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The rejection of a truth claim is not always the affirmation of another truth claim, but more times than not it is, especially in the case of atheists who desire to be perceived as intellectuals and knowledgeable in science.

For example:

If an atheist rejects the Christian account of the origin of mankind then they are affirming another account of the origin of mankind unless they just admit ignorance, something some people are loathe to do.

If an atheist were to tell me:

"God did not create humans in His Own Image"

I would ask:

Well how did humans come to be?

He might say:

"I do not know." Which would be to admit ignorance.

Or he might say:

"They came to be via the process of evolution by natural selection as a result of evolving from lower forms of life."


This last claim is a truth claim. They are rejecting the Christian claim in favor of a naturalistic claim. As such it needs evidencing.

Well, thanks for showing that you do have a basic understanding of this. That means that earlier when you were trying to switch the burden of proof, you weren't being ignorant, you were being disingenuous. That makes you a liar instead of a moron, not a step up in my estimation.

I have never intended to switch the burden or alleviate myself of defending and supporting a truth claim I have made. I know too much and honestly have too good a command of what I know to have to resort to such measures.

We can debate whenever you are ready.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
This is getting a little "I have evidence, I have evidence, my evidence is really good"

"Ok, present some"

"You want to see my evidence? It's really good."

"Sure; present it."

"Ok, so you want to debate my evidence?"

"Sure, present some evidence"

"It's really good evidence, and I have a lot or it."

"Ok, present it."

"So you want to debate my evidence?"

Rinse, repeat.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 04:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It seems to me this is aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator.

Since you (and all theists) are unable to cook up a coherent definition of what a "supernatural creator" actually is, that is actually the LEAST plausible "cause". The very word "cause" is meaningless unless pre-existing Causality is explained first. Then there is the problem of "existence". A deity which "exists", of necessity participates in only a sub-set of Reality, as long as it existsed, (therefore cannot be the creator of the a (greater) Reality it is required to participate in). Therefore a deity really explains nothing. You STILL have not addressed the problem of using words that require (a priori) spacetime, and the "action" verb "creator", which in the absence of spacetime, is meaningless. Your entire argument, (and you have admitted it by your "most plausible" bs), is ALL a "god of the gaps argument. You NEED an explanation. Since we don't have one yet, you NEED to cook one up. It's not about science or religion or philosophy. It's about YOUR ambiguity intolerance and NEED for cognitive closure.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-03-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "What do we know of that could be capable of bringing the universe into existence literally from nothing?"
Knowledge is a slippery thing... I don't know anything of invisible hypothetical intelligent beings for example.

Quote:This argument can be used by any theist, not just Christians. It argues for the existence of a being that could freely bring about a state of affairs (the universe) from nothing.
Why a being though? What caused the being? Or is the being defined as being exempt from the condition of having a cause?

Quote:What the theist does also is uses other arguments like the moral argument, the design argument, etc. etc. to supplement this argument and when viewed cumulatively, the theist has plenty of good reasons to maintain that his theism is rationally justifiable.
I agree that there is a lot of thought put into theology. How do you feel about the testability of theological hypotheses against reality? i.e. subjecting theology to experiment?

Quote:Note* These arguments are not formulated to try and prove beyond all doubt that God exists. Rather, they are formulated to be like sign posts that are pointing to a reality higher than the mere natural world we live in to a reality above and beyond the one consisting of mere matter and natural forces.
We can detect magnetism. Gravity. Lots of things we can't see we can do experiments to prove beyond doubt that these things *work* and should be part of our theories about reality. What of counter-explanations for the sign-posts you posit? What are these sign-posts? Miracles and wonders?

Quote:Premise one is a metaphysical principle dating back to Parmenides. It seems self-evident, even to a layman that something cannot come from nothing! Huh
I would have thought that the history of 'self-evident' truths in both science in general and mathematics in particular would make any philosopher wary.

As an example, time is a property of the universe in current physical theories (as far as I'm aware, I'm no expert). It seems to me that it then becomes difficult to talk of a time before the beginning or even of the beginning in a clear way.

Quote:I mean think about it! Bottles of beer and marijuana joints do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing do they?
Neither do deities?

Quote:Beginning in the argument simply means "comes into being". Philosophers who are proponents of the Kalam sometimes use the expression “comes into being” as a synonym. This concept can be explicated as follows: for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Existence is to be and cause is used in the Kalam as Aristotle's causal agent i.e. one that brings about a particular state of affairs (SA). Incidentally, he too argued for a Prime Mover who was the terminus of all causes.
I'm a little bit... I dunno. "Existence is to be"... well what is "to be" then? I mean... it's difficult using words... how would you tell if something exists? Wouldn't you try an experiment? All of these Gods are very fine but notably untestable.

"Cause is something that brings about a particular state of affairs"... but how can I say that anything other than the current state of the universe influences its future state? I can't with confidence allocate a cause smaller than the entire universe to any event, it seems to me. Plus with quantum mechanics there's at least the possibility that the next state of the universe is not *fully* dependent on the previous state but also incorporates some randomness at the quantum level. Sorry if that sounds incoherent...

Quote:
(23-03-2014 01:59 PM)morondog Wrote:  The next question is, *are* you in fact, by using this argument, leading up to some sort of argument for the existence of the God of the Bible?

If I were debating on the topic: "Does God exist?" I would supplement this argument with the various other arguments for the existence of God.

If I were debating the topic: "Is Christianity True?" I would use all these arguments in concert with arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Out of curiousity, what argument can you advance for the resurrection?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "What do we know of that could be capable of bringing the universe into existence literally from nothing?"
Knowledge is a slippery thing... I don't know anything of invisible hypothetical intelligent beings for example.

Quote:This argument can be used by any theist, not just Christians. It argues for the existence of a being that could freely bring about a state of affairs (the universe) from nothing.
Why a being though? What caused the being? Or is the being defined as being exempt from the condition of having a cause?

Quote:What the theist does also is uses other arguments like the moral argument, the design argument, etc. etc. to supplement this argument and when viewed cumulatively, the theist has plenty of good reasons to maintain that his theism is rationally justifiable.
I agree that there is a lot of thought put into theology. How do you feel about the testability of theological hypotheses against reality? i.e. subjecting theology to experiment?

Quote:Note* These arguments are not formulated to try and prove beyond all doubt that God exists. Rather, they are formulated to be like sign posts that are pointing to a reality higher than the mere natural world we live in to a reality above and beyond the one consisting of mere matter and natural forces.
We can detect magnetism. Gravity. Lots of things we can't see we can do experiments to prove beyond doubt that these things *work* and should be part of our theories about reality. What of counter-explanations for the sign-posts you posit? What are these sign-posts? Miracles and wonders?

Quote:Premise one is a metaphysical principle dating back to Parmenides. It seems self-evident, even to a layman that something cannot come from nothing! Huh
I would have thought that the history of 'self-evident' truths in both science in general and mathematics in particular would make any philosopher wary.

As an example, time is a property of the universe in current physical theories (as far as I'm aware, I'm no expert). It seems to me that it then becomes difficult to talk of a time before the beginning or even of the beginning in a clear way.

Quote:I mean think about it! Bottles of beer and marijuana joints do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing do they?
Neither do deities?

Quote:Beginning in the argument simply means "comes into being". Philosophers who are proponents of the Kalam sometimes use the expression “comes into being” as a synonym. This concept can be explicated as follows: for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Existence is to be and cause is used in the Kalam as Aristotle's causal agent i.e. one that brings about a particular state of affairs (SA). Incidentally, he too argued for a Prime Mover who was the terminus of all causes.
I'm a little bit... I dunno. "Existence is to be"... well what is "to be" then? I mean... it's difficult using words... how would you tell if something exists? Wouldn't you try an experiment? All of these Gods are very fine but notably untestable.

"Cause is something that brings about a particular state of affairs"... but how can I say that anything other than the current state of the universe influences its future state? I can't with confidence allocate a cause smaller than the entire universe to any event, it seems to me. Plus with quantum mechanics there's at least the possibility that the next state of the universe is not *fully* dependent on the previous state but also incorporates some randomness at the quantum level. Sorry if that sounds incoherent...

Quote:If I were debating on the topic: "Does God exist?" I would supplement this argument with the various other arguments for the existence of God.

If I were debating the topic: "Is Christianity True?" I would use all these arguments in concert with arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Out of curiousity, what argument can you advance for the resurrection?

I will refer you to http://www.reasonablefaith.org

There you will find answers to some of your questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  Knowledge is a slippery thing... I don't know anything of invisible hypothetical intelligent beings for example.

Why a being though? What caused the being? Or is the being defined as being exempt from the condition of having a cause?

I agree that there is a lot of thought put into theology. How do you feel about the testability of theological hypotheses against reality? i.e. subjecting theology to experiment?

We can detect magnetism. Gravity. Lots of things we can't see we can do experiments to prove beyond doubt that these things *work* and should be part of our theories about reality. What of counter-explanations for the sign-posts you posit? What are these sign-posts? Miracles and wonders?

I would have thought that the history of 'self-evident' truths in both science in general and mathematics in particular would make any philosopher wary.

As an example, time is a property of the universe in current physical theories (as far as I'm aware, I'm no expert). It seems to me that it then becomes difficult to talk of a time before the beginning or even of the beginning in a clear way.

Neither do deities?

I'm a little bit... I dunno. "Existence is to be"... well what is "to be" then? I mean... it's difficult using words... how would you tell if something exists? Wouldn't you try an experiment? All of these Gods are very fine but notably untestable.

"Cause is something that brings about a particular state of affairs"... but how can I say that anything other than the current state of the universe influences its future state? I can't with confidence allocate a cause smaller than the entire universe to any event, it seems to me. Plus with quantum mechanics there's at least the possibility that the next state of the universe is not *fully* dependent on the previous state but also incorporates some randomness at the quantum level. Sorry if that sounds incoherent...

Out of curiousity, what argument can you advance for the resurrection?

I will refer you to http://www.reasonablefaith.org

There you will find answers to some of your questions.

LMAO




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: