Prove God herewith

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, you have serious problems with ordinary logic, and you desperately need a college course in logic or critical thinking.  Mere assertion for you seems to be equivalent to fact.  And you seem unable to respond to actual discussion -- about Santa and the tooth fairy, for example, which you apparently believe actually exist simply because someone believes in them.

Also you are unable to differentiate objective and subjective.  Failure to understand English is the death knell to serious discussion.

I think you misunderstand and this is going exactly nowhere.  But I appreciate your effort to stick to logic.  Peace to you 

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you misunderstand and this is going exactly nowhere.  But I appreciate your effort to stick to logic.  Peace to you 

Someone certainly misunderstands.  However, I got my A in Critical Thinking, so have a hard time ferreting out the problem without reference to straightforward logic.  Do we need to compare grade point averages, or is there a better way of understanding?  I can't make up for someone's lack of the proper training in a particular discipline.

[Michael Sudworth]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And you seem unable to respond to actual discussion -- about Santa and the tooth fairy, for example, which you apparently believe actually exist simply because someone believes in them.

Robert, this is such a silly statement.  Of course ideas and concepts exist. You are asserting -- without evidence -- that "existence" necessarily entails some sort of manifestation in space-time. 

[Michael Sudworth]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Someone certainly misunderstands.  However, I got my A in Critical Thinking, so have a hard time ferreting out the problem without reference to straightforward logic.  Do we need to compare grade point averages, or is there a better way of understanding?  I can't make up for someone's lack of the proper training in a particular discipline.

How about properly defining your terms before lecturing someone else about their critical thinking skills. 

[Michael Sudworth]

1 minute ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Robert, this is such a silly statement.  Of course ideas and concepts exist. You are asserting -- without evidence -- that "existence" necessarily entails some sort of manifestation in space-time. 

"evidence" is the wrong word here.  should be "without a rational argument"

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

How about properly defining your terms before lecturing someone else about their critical thinking skills. 

I tried that early on in this thread, and even gave simple examples, but was ignored.  A discussion is possible, but must be based on actual exchanges back & forth.  It seems like trying to discuss plane geometry with someone who has never studied the subject, and thus doesn't understand even the most elementary postulates and axioms.  How do you discuss logic with someone who has never seen a Venn diagram?  And who doesn't understand the way in which an enthymeme or syllogism is constructed?  What are premises?  What are conclusions?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Robert, this is such a silly statement.  Of course ideas and concepts exist. You are asserting -- without evidence -- that "existence" necessarily entails some sort of manifestation in space-time. 

 

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

"evidence" is the wrong word here.  should be "without a rational argument"

It is pretty silly to believe that Santa or the tooth fairy exist solely because someone believes they exist, but that is what some people actually infer.  Just so the mere concept of God does not grant Him existence -- and such is outside the bounds of rational argument.

[Michael Sudworth]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

It is pretty silly to believe that Santa or the tooth fairy exist solely because someone believes they exist, but that is what some people actually infer.  Just so the mere concept of God does not grant Him existence -- and such is outside the bounds of rational argument.

Outside the bounds of rational argument?  I'm not so sure. It depends on what we mean by the word "exist."  If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that "existence" must have some physical aspect to it.  As I said before, that it must manifest in space-time.

I don't think we've established that "existence" is limited to things physical.  In fact, I would argue the term may be used much more broadly.  But certainly, if you are assuming that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is *the* truth with a capital T, then sure.  Saying that "Santa exists" is problematic and irrational.  However, saying that "the idea of Santa has been making Children happy for many years" is completely rational and defensible. 

And if one accepts Pragmatic theories of truth then the statement "Santa exists" is perfectly acceptable and defensible within the context of a Pragmatic viewpoint.

So unless there is an agreement on A) the definition of "existence" and B) the theory of truth we are using to classify statements as true/untrue.  In the vast majority of cases -- and certainly within the context of science --  Correspondence is the defacto theory.  But in this discussion it seems that the disagreement between stemelbow and yourself is entirely centered around the question: "What is existence?" If you two can't agree on that then you'll simply go in circles.

 

[Michael Sudworth]

On 9/5/2017 at 0:40 PM, stemelbow said:

I guess this hits hard on me is because I have too many in my life whom I love who can't make the concept of God word very well in their lives.  And with that, they are often treated with a "well that's too bad.  sounds like it's your fault and problem" by believers.

Who cares what believers think of anything? If the concept of God doesn't work for someone then its time to put on the big boy pants and stand confident in a position.  Why on earth would anyone need validation from believers about how the concept of God doesn't work for them.  *Of course* there is going to be a fundamental, elemental disagreement.  Anti-Mormons and others have viciously attacked my testimony for years. As a missionary I was spit on and had bottles hurled at me from moving vehicles.  Why would I possibly give a hoot about what those folks think of my testimony and beliefs? 

It just seems weird to me how people always want to play the victim.  "Boo hoo, a TBM thinks that my non-believe in God is bad.  Poor me."  That makes no sense. If someone were strong enough as a believer to withstand the criticism of Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen, certainly they are strong enough to shrug off their disagreements with TBMs.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Outside the bounds of rational argument?  I'm not so sure. It depends on what we mean by the word "exist."  If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that "existence" must have some physical aspect to it.  As I said before, that it must manifest in space-time.

I don't think we've established that "existence" is limited to things physical.  In fact, I would argue the term may be used much more broadly.  But certainly, if you are assuming that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is *the* truth with a capital T, then sure.  Saying that "Santa exists" is problematic and irrational.  However, saying that "the idea of Santa has been making Children happy for many years" is completely rational and defensible. 

And if one accepts Pragmatic theories of truth then the statement "Santa exists" is perfectly acceptable and defensible within the context of a Pragmatic viewpoint.

So unless there is an agreement on A) the definition of "existence" and B) the theory of truth we are using to classify statements as true/untrue.  In the vast majority of cases -- and certainly within the context of science --  Correspondence is the defacto theory.  But in this discussion it seems that the disagreement between stemelbow and yourself is entirely centered around the question: "What is existence?" If you two can't agree on that then you'll simply go in circles.

 

I think Deflationism works here even better than the Pragmatic theory since it just straight out says we cannot define "truth" at all, making a stronger case against science and correspondence.

Rorty does not even see Pragmatism as a theory of truth, though of course these are all very nuanced positions.

But if we are the "Restoration" we dang well better lose these ancient sectarian, NeoPlatonic notions of correspondence and get with a program which justifies religious experience, or we will be re-arguing Cardinal Bellarmine vs Galileo forever. 

[DemonsAway]

On 9/5/2017 at 0:51 PM, stemelbow said:

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

Most atheists aren't making a claim, they're denying the theist claim which is a big difference. I know there are atheists that talk that way but most are in the position of not seeing reasonable evidence to support the God claim. If I claimed unicorns are real it would be absurd of me to say that since you deny my claim the burden of proof is on you to disprove it. So why would it be any different for an atheist? The burden of proof is on the theist.

Not that I think it matters too much as far as personal beliefs go. It's when a religion is claiming something like gay marriage is wrong or any other religious specific views and want to get involved in making laws against it, then they need to prove their claims. Because that's what some or even the majority of people believe God wants isn't a good answer to the people it affects and that's where the burden of proof is really relevant, imo.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/5/2017 at 1:51 PM, stemelbow said:

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

 

"Are we stuck on this? " , And how?....Excuse me but how long more are you going to pursue the reality of this inquiry where there can never be a clear answer? 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/5/2017 at 11:51 AM, stemelbow said:

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

We can't prove everything, I can't prove my theory that God changed the Earth. However, just because I can't prove my theory doesn't mean it is false. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Someone certainly misunderstands.  However, I got my A in Critical Thinking, so have a hard time ferreting out the problem without reference to straightforward logic.  Do we need to compare grade point averages, or is there a better way of understanding?  I can't make up for someone's lack of the proper training in a particular discipline.

I think the problem has been you are arguing against a position I don't hold.  I think we agree more than you realize, in what we've discussed.  There's just been some talking past each other.  It feels like this effort to tell me your the smartest is getting nowhere. 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think the problem has been you are arguing against a position I don't hold.  I think we agree more than you realize, in what we've discussed.  There's just been some talking past each other.  It feels like this effort to tell me your the smartest is getting nowhere. 

It has nothing to do with being smarter, but rather that you pointedly ignore the fact that you want to do brain surgery without any training or experience in doing such a thing, which means disaster for your patient (victim), and you seem not to care.  Responding to actual arguments might help, but you don't do that either.  Pretending seems to be your default position, which is great if you are fronting for the tooth fairy,. but doesn't go far in serious discussions.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Outside the bounds of rational argument?  I'm not so sure. It depends on what we mean by the word "exist."  If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that "existence" must have some physical aspect to it.  As I said before, that it must manifest in space-time.

I don't think we've established that "existence" is limited to things physical.  In fact, I would argue the term may be used much more broadly.  But certainly, if you are assuming that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is *the* truth with a capital T, then sure. .............................................

I said nothing about any Correspondence Theory of Truth at any time, and it is a false theory anyhow.  Nor did I assert that existence required physicality or that it be manifest in space-time.  Those are your assertions.  In fact, there are theories of the existence of God which place Him outside space-time, and which deny Him physicality.  I don't mind any of that.  What concerns me, if you bothered to read my posts, was that any assertion about the existence of God must be accompanied by the potential falsifiability of the claim in order for it to be coherent.  Incoherent and nonsense statements about the existence of God are simply foolish and not worth considering.

21 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

And if one accepts Pragmatic theories of truth then the statement "Santa exists" is perfectly acceptable and defensible within the context of a Pragmatic viewpoint.

So unless there is an agreement on A) the definition of "existence" and B) the theory of truth we are using to classify statements as true/untrue.  In the vast majority of cases -- and certainly within the context of science --  Correspondence is the defacto theory.  But in this discussion it seems that the disagreement between stemelbow and yourself is entirely centered around the question: "What is existence?" If you two can't agree on that then you'll simply go in circles.

I suppose that a pragmatic theory of truth could apply to God as well as to Santa Claus, which means that there is a practical advantage of some sort in the false assertion that God exists, because it makes children feel better.  I just thought that we were going to be more serious than to simply play "Let's Pretend."  Really?  Is that what passes for proof of the existence of God in sophisticated circles?  I have spent a lifetime reading John Hick, Bertrand Russell, and many others on this question, and there is no doubt that it is impossible to prove by either science or logic that God exists, or that the Resurrection occurred.  Those things may only be known via the Holy Spirit.  They are entirely subjective matters of personal testimony.  I would be happy to carry on a coherent discussion with anyone who wants to contest those assertions.

[Johnnie Cake]

On 9/5/2017 at 0:51 PM, stemelbow said:

I spotted this on Dan Peterson's blog

I found it an interesting story.  By embarrassing another, as it seems the point was here, do we ever really validate our position?  I find this in all sorts of religious talk from all sides. Kind of a side not, and somewhat related to what I wanted to get to here. 

If the story is authentic I find it interesting that Diderot went, as it is claimed, to establish his position of atheism.  If one holds a position is it not the burden of that person to provide reason?  It seems Diderot felt it was his burden. 

There is no proof for or against God, seems to be the common thought on this.  Some claim to know God.  But that's an impossible discussion and at this point, an unprovable point.  No?  If one claims to know God.  He might point to a visitation, like Joseph Smith's.  But if Joseph saw God, in vision, whose to say it was God and not a figment of imagination, or something other than God working upon the boy?  If one claims to know because of years of experience in being moved by the Spirit, then the same questions can be put to him/her, I'd think.  Was what was experienced really God or not?  It could be something else, thus, the burden of proof remains.  Is it not the case that nearly everyone rejects someone's claim to having experienced God in such a way as claiming to know.  That is, most traditional Christians reject Joseph's claim.  Any claims to seeing God or experiencing Him seem largely rejected unless it's a claim that works within one's framework. 

I was speaking to my wife the other day.  I find myself much more convinced of there being a God than she.  I have no intelligent reason to somehow prove my point.  It's just for some reason I feel He's there, existing, in a way that she does not.  And for all reasons to reject I tend to think it's still possible He's there. 

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

In most things, if not all, we establish this burden of proof being upon those who make the claim, no?  So if one says he believes in UFOs, is it not his burden to prove?  Is it reasonable to conclude no UFOs if no evidence is provided?  How would you prove the not of something?  It certainly doesn't seem like one can. 

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

Are we stuck on this? 

Is this a topic that would require the naysayers to assume the burden to prove the no?  Just because it's a special unique topic? 

Sounds like your wife is one smart woman...

[mfbukowski]

On 9/7/2017 at 6:06 AM, DemonsAway said:

Most atheists aren't making a claim, they're denying the theist claim which is a big difference. I know there are atheists that talk that way but most are in the position of not seeing reasonable evidence to support the God claim. If I claimed unicorns are real it would be absurd of me to say that since you deny my claim the burden of proof is on you to disprove it. So why would it be any different for an atheist? The burden of proof is on the theist.

Not that I think it matters too much as far as personal beliefs go. It's when a religion is claiming something like gay marriage is wrong or any other religious specific views and want to get involved in making laws against it, then they need to prove their claims. Because that's what some or even the majority of people believe God wants isn't a good answer to the people it affects and that's where the burden of proof is really relevant, imo.

No proof is possible either way, so it is no one's burden to not prove.   We just like to argue about inconsequential things- inconsequential because arguing about it makes no difference anyway.

"Someone is wrong on the internet"!

[mfbukowski]

On 9/7/2017 at 6:06 AM, DemonsAway said:

Most atheists aren't making a claim, they're denying the theist claim which is a big difference.

How so?  You deny a claim by making one.

I hereby make the claim that there are NO whatdoosaks.

I could write a million books about all I DO NOT believe about imaginary beings.

Who cares?

If it was simply denying a claim NO ONE WOULD BOTHER TO DO SO.  The mere fact of making the claim that they are denying the claim is the whole point of uttering the sentence in the first place.

We may be bumpkins but we didn't just fall off the turnip truck, yuck yuck!

[mfbukowski]

On 9/5/2017 at 11:51 AM, stemelbow said:

I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God. 

1- Why do you think this is a law of "reason"?  Most philosophers no longer (if they ever did believe that) believe that.  That view is called "positivism".  Google "positivism is dead".  There is so much evidence for my assertion that I won't bother to pick out a single article showing that

2- IF you are right that you cannot prove your claim of God, then can atheists prove theirs?

3- If their "claim" is not a claim but the denial of a claim, why is the denial of a claim repeated over and over and defended so strongly- the claim that it is NOT a "claim"

Are there groups of people calling themselves "Asantaists" making the claim that they do not believe in Santa?

Are they spending millions NOT claiming that Santa does not exist?

What about other imaginary beings?  Unicorns?  We could call them "A-unis" or I prefer "Acorns"!

 

[DemonsAway]

On 9/10/2017 at 4:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

How so?  You deny a claim by making one.

I hereby make the claim that there are NO whatdoosaks.

I could write a million books about all I DO NOT believe about imaginary beings.

Who cares?

If it was simply denying a claim NO ONE WOULD BOTHER TO DO SO.  The mere fact of making the claim that they are denying the claim is the whole point of uttering the sentence in the first place.

We may be bumpkins but we didn't just fall off the turnip truck, yuck yuck!

Atheist shouldn't even be a word. We don't call anyone Abigfootist or Aleprechaunist. No one is spending the time to disprove leprechauns because leprechaun theology doesn't affect other people and seep into our politics and laws. That alone is why an atheist cares about making any arguments at all.

So you're trying to say that asserting something and asking where's your evidence to support it is the same thing? I think you're trying to make it sound as though they're equal when they're not. You're trying to make your position sound more valid than it is. Even if I accepted your argument there still would be a huge difference. The theist is making an extraordinary claim and the atheist is not. They're asking where's your extraordinary evidence?

I can agree to this extent, which is the part you ignored and is most important. As I originally said, burden of proof as far as your personal belief doesn't really matter all that much, so yes I would say who cares? If a religion wants to say that creationism should be taught in schools or gay marriage is wrong and their argument is, that's what God wants, well then the burden of proof is on them. If that's God's will it shouldn't be too hard for them to prove that. Otherwise they can stay out of politics and law making and we can use logic, reason, and rational debate in those areas. So in this sense, burden of proof is important and lies on the theist/religion or at least on the leaders of those religions.

[Physics Guy]

40 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

The theist is making an extraordinary claim and the atheist is not.

Could you define "extraordinary" in this context?

Which claim by theists is it that you consider extraordinary? Some theists have claimed things that I also consider extraordinary, like the ability to survive poisonous snake bites. If that's all you mean, then I think I know what you mean by "extraordinary". If you mean that theism itself is an extraordinary claim, though, then I'm puzzled as to why you call it that. It might be many things as a claim, including wrong, but I'm blanking on any sense in which it's exactly extraordinary.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Could you define "extraordinary" in this context?

Which claim by theists is it that you consider extraordinary? Some theists have claimed things that I also consider extraordinary, like the ability to survive poisonous snake bites. If that's all you mean, then I think I know what you mean by "extraordinary". If you mean that theism itself is an extraordinary claim, though, then I'm puzzled as to why you call it that. It might be many things as a claim, including wrong, but I'm blanking on any sense in which it's exactly extraordinary.

Exactly.

I have never heard of special rule of inference for claims defined as " extraordinary". How does one distinguish them from  "ordinary" claims?

I have never seen such a class of claims defined philosophically. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Atheist shouldn't even be a word. We don't call anyone Abigfootist or Aleprechaunist. No one is spending the time to disprove leprechauns because leprechaun theology doesn't affect other people and seep into our politics and laws. That alone is why an atheist cares about making any arguments at all.

So you're trying to say that asserting something and asking where's your evidence to support it is the same thing? I think you're trying to make it sound as though they're equal when they're not. You're trying to make your position sound more valid than it is. Even if I accepted your argument there still would be a huge difference. The theist is making an extraordinary claim and the atheist is not. They're asking where's your extraordinary evidence?

I can agree to this extent, which is the part you ignored and is most important. As I originally said, burden of proof as far as your personal belief doesn't really matter all that much, so yes I would say who cares? If a religion wants to say that creationism should be taught in schools or gay marriage is wrong and their argument is, that's what God wants, well then the burden of proof is on them. If that's God's will it shouldn't be too hard for them to prove that. Otherwise they can stay out of politics and law making and we can use logic, reason, and rational debate in those areas. So in this sense, burden of proof is important and lies on the theist/religion or at least on the leaders of those religions.

You are making up rules of inference here without you defining your terms. You appear to be simply accepting logical positivism as a given. Logical positivism has in fact been debunked for over 50 years now. I suggest you Google death of positivism.

You have not defined your use of the word valid. 

You have not defined what constitutes evidence.

You use the word should without defining the basis for the validity of any moral judgments or why should even applies in that situation.

Where is it agreed anywhere that one side of the other has the burden of proof on anything?

Just in general I suggest you read up on post-modernism. Regardless of your worldview you really need to have some arguments to counter it if you are going to try. These ain't them.

They blatantly put forth your personal worldview without justifying it in any way.

You know, kind of like religion.

What is logical and reasonable is not a given, as you seem to accept on faith.

Edited September 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Physics Guy]

I haven't heard a definition of "extraordinary" either, but in the case of something like a snake-handler's claim to venom immunity, I think I get the idea. I've heard of a fair number of cases where people were bitten by poisonous snakes and got sick or died, and I've never heard of people being immune to snake venom, so I feel as though a claim to have gotten sick from a snake bit would be an ordinary claim. I'd accept such a claim without too much evidence. A claim to be immune to snake venom, however, seems extraordinary, because it departs from  my baseline of what's ordinary. I'd want a lot more evidence before believing that claim.

A claim that some transcendent being created everything, though? I don't see how that can be extraordinary, because I have no baseline for the ordinary scenario on this issue. It's not as though I can say, "Well now, I've lived through dozens of universes, and none of them were created by anyone—so your claim that someone created this one is extraordinary!"

I'm not saying the claim for a creator is true or plausible or anything. Just that calling it "extraordinary" seems to be beside the mark.