uncaused causes

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you, this is exactly what I have been arguing all along.

I reject your "internal" proof as baseless, due to your admitted lack of evidence. You are accepting this on faith, which is not compelling (or scientific).
I very specifically said it isn't scientific. This argument isn't about the legitimacy of my faith. My claim is justified belief about God (either way) can't be scientific. If you don't see the distinction (and again i'm not trying to be rude - i mean this in the most literal way) you either: lack the reading comprehension to continue, aren't familiar enough with the topic and refuse to learn to continue, or are being a contrarian and academically dishonest.

It's not a matter of knowledge gaps, it's a rejection of how you are trying to justify your beliefs. I know what the terms mean, I just feel you are using them where they are not applicable.

Again, I am familiar with the concepts.
You admitted you aren't familiar with a priori and a posteriori. You have demonstrated you have trouble drawing distinctions between claims im making, the scientific method with the basis of science, etc.


Trying to use philosophy in place of tangible evidence is a complete waste of time when trying to determine the actual tangible existence of a thing, or being.

My invisible dragon scenario is an example why. Using your reasoning, you must put my dragon, your God, and Russell's Teapot on equal footing. If you accept God, and not the dragon or teapot,
Russell's Teapot and Invisible Dragons aren't first principles. I doubt the predication of your first principles allow them.

you are not being logically consistent...
You first have to make a honest attempt to follow my logic to make this claim...

You are invoking special pleading for God.
If that is what you think you aren't making a honest attempt to follow my argument.

You keep trying to frame this argument as: Your justification in God is not justifiable to me.

This is a strawman, the argument is: Are beliefs in God justifiable by science? If not (which is my claim) my beliefs are no more cogent than yours and yours are no more cogent than mine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Again you confuse c1 and c2. I claim c1 is a first principle, i make no claim that c2 is a first principle like you are claiming. Are you even reading what i'm writing?

Ok.... if that's the case, then that clears up that problem.

So you are saying that God is not a first principle? If so, what was the point of bringing up first principles?


I'm not talking about scientific laws or theories, i'm talking about the fundamental assumptions of science. You claim science doesn't have fundamental assumptions. Here are a few. If they aren't assumptions as you claim justify them with science.
1) The world is rational
2) The world is consistent
3) The world is uniform
4) There exist unifying principle (also called natural laws)
5) Human observations can be accurate
6) Causality holds

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? We are trying to determine the truth value and justification of your God claim.

The simple reality is that you have asserted that God exists. You therefore have a burden of proof to justify your claim. You have admitted you have no proof, therefore, your belief is unjustified.

Trying to cloud the issue by jumping into the world of philosophy is senseless. I agree with the principles listed above, but that in no way addresses your truth claim. The scientific method is applicable here.


How do you know that is the effect of a natural law, or there is a natural law governing that phenomena. BTW what you claim a first principle isn't. A first principle isn't an observation.

1) Refer to your points above to answer point 1
2) The point was a first principle is self evident.

You don't know what claims fall under the prerogative of science. Your belief that all existence claims are only justifiable by empirical evidence is a minority view. Justify the existance of logic or math with science.

Now you're arguing apples and oranges. Logic and Math are not tangible, your God is. Therefore he falls under the realm of science.

science is not the only thing used to determine the validity of a truth claim. There are other types of evidence that is apart from science.

The type of truth claim we are arguing, namely the tangible existence of something, is something that only science can address.

Give an example of anything tangible that we have confirmed to exist using non-scientific means.

except ones like a priori, a posterior, first principle, philosophy of science, etc.

Not accepting your improper application of these things is not an indication of not knowing about them. In fact, it's an indication I understand them, and their applications better than you do.

that's what make them first principle. I gave you a list of 6 you hold to if you believe science generates truth. You have no justification for any of them either.

You think there's no justification for those 6 points? How about observation of the world around us?

And again, science isn't there to "generate truth". It's a method to try to best determine the workings of the universe around us.


this just shows your ignorance of the topic

And your ignorance of how reality is determined.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ok.... if that's the case, then that clears up that problem.

So you are saying that God is not a first principle? If so, what was the point of bringing up first principles?
Belief in God is a first principle.
Belief that belief in God is a first principle isn't a first principle.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? We are trying to determine the truth value and justification of your God claim.

The simple reality is that you have asserted that God exists. You therefore have a burden of proof to justify your claim. You have admitted you have no proof, therefore, your belief is unjustified.

Trying to cloud the issue by jumping into the world of philosophy is senseless. I agree with the principles listed above, but that in no way addresses your truth claim. The scientific method is applicable here.
Belief in God violate 2, 3, 4, and 6 in special cases. This means that science can't comment on the existence of God. To remind you the argument went like this:

-me:science can't comment on God's existence because belief in God requires belief that the assumptions of science don't always hold.
-you:science has no assumptions

1) Refer to your points above to answer point 1
2) The point was a first principle is self evident.
How is this related at all to what i'm saying. My point was you ASSUME 1-6 based on no scientific evidence.

Now you're arguing apples and oranges. Logic and Math are not tangible, your God is. Therefore he falls under the realm of science.
Oh my God is tangible? I think you again we run into a term you don't really understand but insist you do. Tangible.

The type of truth claim we are arguing, namely the tangible existence of something, is something that only science can address.

Give an example of anything tangible that we have confirmed to exist using non-scientific means.
I agree tangible things should be confirmed by science, God isn't tangible. I suggest you look up that word.

Not accepting your improper application of these things is not an indication of not knowing about them. In fact, it's an indication I understand them, and their applications better than you do.
Oh really? How exactly am I using them incorrectly. Show me specifically where i miss used them. Tell me what you think they mean please. You keep saying you understand them then repeatedly misuse them. Why don't you just actually define them so we can see what you think they mean.

You think there's no justification for those 6 points? How about observation of the world around us?
If i claimed i believe in God because I "observe" him or I "observe the effects" of God would you take it? Obviously not. So why don't you offer me a sound argument for any of these 6 points that isn't circular.

And again, science isn't there to "generate truth". It's a method to try to best determine the workings of the universe around us.
you again are intentionally misinterpreting my use of generate. You need to take a long hard look a the principle of charitable interpenetration - another principle i'm sure you claim you're familiar with...

And your ignorance of how reality is determined.
Look I tried to give you the benifit of doubt but you insist you are familiar with all the terms being used. That leads me to only one conclusion, you are unwilling to even make an honest attempt to interpret anything I'm saying in anyway other than strawmans you want to set up. Either actually make an attempt to address the points i'm really making or this conservation is at an end.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
What're you, my teacher?!? No! Address the arguments! Posit counter-arguments! Show me where the math is wrong! Go ahead, make my day! Give me your best shot! Sock it to me! But for goodness sake, give me something other than these pathetic, meaningless, non-responses that do everything to evade, avoid, or otherwise obfuscate the points being presented. Please.
My response is tailored to your argument, and there is not much to the fine-tuning argument. After all, it really is only the *appearance* of fine tuning. Asking you to show your math shows quickly where it falls down. You haven't shown any math, have you?
Oh, brother. Sigh.

Yeah, that's relevant! You did notice that my original post didn't consist of any larger font than is normal, didn't you? Then why bring it up here? Except to further evade the issues, that is.
Where was this evasion?

Do you think that a bold green font adds to your argument? How old are you?
Isn't it obvious? I'm comparing it to universes that are not fine-tuned (hypothetical though they may be). I'm even explaining how those universes would result without such fine-tuning. I think I'm being perfectly clear here.
No, hypothetical universes don't count. You will need access to real universes. Do that, then we will discuss sample sizes.
And you should be aware that the term 'cosmos' actually connotes 'order', as in 'an orderly universe as opposed to a chaotic one'. One could even go so far as to say, 'a universe that is fine-tuned as opposed to one that is not', which is, of course, the very topic at hand.
With a nod to the absence of a unified theory of everything, it would appear at this time that what we have is the appearance of order.

(On a lighter note, cosmos is a Greek term that originally indicated "to bring order from a state of chaos," from which we get the term 'cosmetics'.)
How is this relevant?

Fine. I was just asking. (And don't think I don't appreciate your giving me a straight-forward answer -- if only for this one time.;))

Yeah, as I say, "A rose by any other name...." This is really a distinction without a difference.
Now, are you ever going to answer my question?
Is not the philosophy forum the place in which to be pedantic?

What was the question?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I very specifically said it isn't scientific. This argument isn't about the legitimacy of my faith. My claim is justified belief about God (either way) can't be scientific. If you don't see the distinction (and again i'm not trying to be rude - i mean this in the most literal way) you either: lack the reading comprehension to continue, aren't familiar enough with the topic and refuse to learn to continue, or are being a contrarian and academically dishonest.

One more unfounded insult and I'm reporting you for flaming. One that is so quick to jump to insults is a demonstration you are not interested in rational discourse. You're attacking and belittling me because I think your position is nonsense. And you are being extraordinarily rude, grow up.

This argument is exactly about the legitimacy of your faith. We asked you to justify your belief in God, and that's what kicked off this whole debate. If you can not justify your belief, we consider it illegitimate.

And again, because you want to define it as unscientific, doesn't make it so.

1. You have proposed God exists (Therefore you have made a hypothesis)
2. This God is a tangible being
3. Proof of this being requires evidence, otherwise it will never move beyond the hypothesis stage.
4. You have a burden of proof to fulfill, which you have not done.

You admitted you aren't familiar with a priori and a posteriori. You have demonstrated you have trouble drawing distinctions between claims im making, the scientific method with the basis of science, etc.

I never admitted any such thing, now you are being dishonest.


Russell's Teapot and Invisible Dragons aren't first principles. I doubt the predication of your first principles allow them.

I never claimed they were! I lumped them together with your God, which I also don't consider a first principle. How did you possibly draw the conclusion that I considered any of those things a first principle?

You first have to make a honest attempt to follow my logic to make this claim...

Once you start using logic, I will happily follow it.

If that is what you think you aren't making a honest attempt to follow my argument.

You keep trying to frame this argument as: Your justification in God is not justifiable to me.

This is a strawman, the argument is: Are beliefs in God justifiable by science? If not (which is my claim) my beliefs are no more cogent than yours and yours are no more cogent than mine.


I'm saying your argument is fundamentally baseless. You are trying to prove the tangible existence of something using philosophy.

Name anything that we have proven to tangibly exist using philosophy while disregarding science and tangible evidence.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One more unfounded insult and I'm reporting you for flaming. One that is so quick to jump to insults is a demonstration you are not interested in rational discourse. You're attacking and belittling me because I think your position is nonsense. And you are being extraordinarily rude, grow up.
You can report me all you want - I have not broken any rules. They aren't insults. You keep misrepresenting my arguments with strawmans, it is either intentional or it isn't. I have covered all the possible reasons you might be doing this. My point was I choose not to participate in a discussion with someone who does any of the three things you mention.

This argument is exactly about the legitimacy of your faith. We asked you to justify your belief in God, and that's what kicked off this whole debate. If you can not justify your belief, we consider it illegitimate.
Why don't you address my actual argument? Or respond to my direction questions for that matter.

And again, because you want to define it as unscientific, doesn't make it so.

1. You have proposed God exists (Therefore you have made a hypothesis)
2. This God is a tangible being
3. Proof of this being requires evidence, otherwise it will never move beyond the hypothesis stage.
4. You have a burden of proof to fulfill, which you have not done.
define tangible

I never admitted any such thing, now you are being dishonest.
I remember you defining a priori by it's direct translation. Clearly that wasn't what was meant in this context. Which would you rather I believe you are doing: Intentionally miss-defining the word or that you aren't familiar with its meaning?

I never claimed they were! I lumped them together with your God, which I also don't consider a first principle. How did you possibly draw the conclusion that I considered any of those things a first principle?
here you are misrepresenting my arguments again. Were first principles part of my claim?



Once you start using logic, I will happily follow it.


I'm saying your argument is fundamentally baseless. You are trying to prove the tangible existence of something using philosophy.

Name anything that we have proven to tangibly exist using philosophy while disregarding science and tangible evidence.
define tangible please. You clearly aren't using the standard meaning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Belief in God is a first principle.

What's your point? Your first principle is based on a false belief, derailing the rest of your argument.


Belief in God violate 2, 3, 4, and 6 in special cases. This means that science can't comment on the existence of God. To remind you the argument went like this:

-me:science can't comment on God's existence because belief in God requires belief that the assumptions of science don't always hold.
-you:science has no assumptions

I am referring to scientific law, and theory. Facts we accept about the reality of the world based on scientific investigation. There is no assumptions made there.

Furthermore, belief in God does not violate any of those points.

2) The world can be consistent with God.
3) The world can be uniform with God.
4) Unifying principles/natural laws can also exist with God. (in fact, most Christians claim he's the author of those laws)
6) Causality also holds with God in the picture. The only possible exception is the uncaused cause argument, which is similarly without evidence.


How is this related at all to what i'm saying. My point was you ASSUME 1-6 based on no scientific evidence.

1) We can observe the world is rational
2) We can observe the world is consistent
3) We can observe the world is uniform
4) We can observe natural laws in effect
5) We can prove human observations can be accurate through experimentation
6) We can observe causality

Consider your point refuted. We have observable justification (and therefore scientific evidence) for all 6 points.


Oh my God is tangible? I think you again we run into a term you don't really understand but insist you do. Tangible.

From dictionary.com:

Tangible:

2. Real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary

You have a great propensity for claiming knowledge of a whole lot of things you lack basic knowledge of.


I agree tangible things should be confirmed by science, God isn't tangible. I suggest you look up that word.

Refer to above.... By definition, if your God is not tangible, he is not real or actual. He is imaginary or visionary.

Do you still agree tangible things should be confirmed by science, or are you going to change your position?


Oh really? How exactly am I using them incorrectly. Show me specifically where i miss used them. Tell me what you think they mean please. You keep saying you understand them then repeatedly misuse them. Why don't you just actually define them so we can see what you think they mean.

Because you are trying to apply philosophy to determining truth claims. I have explained this to you multiple times before. To confirm a claim of a tangible being as factual, you must provide evidence.


If i claimed i believe in God because I "observe" him or I "observe the effects" of God would you take it? Obviously not. So why don't you offer me a sound argument for any of these 6 points that isn't circular.

You're correct, I would not accept that. How do you know what you observed is God?


you again are intentionally misinterpreting my use of generate. You need to take a long hard look a the principle of charitable interpenetration - another principle i'm sure you claim you're familiar with...

I was clarifying, not misinterpreting. Again, grow up. Your constant use of unfounded insults is making you look quite immature.

Look I tried to give you the benifit of doubt but you insist you are familiar with all the terms being used. That leads me to only one conclusion, you are unwilling to even make an honest attempt to interpret anything I'm saying in anyway other than strawmans you want to set up. Either actually make an attempt to address the points i'm really making or this conservation is at an end.

I'm not purposefully setting up straw-mans, I may be misinterpreting, but not purposefully. To be honest, your argument is so hopelessly devoid of logic, I am having trouble following what the points you are trying to make are. Using philosophy to justify your claims is utterly senseless. You can't hope to prove the existence of anything with it.

Again, show me anything that has been proven to exist using your method, and it warrants consideration. If you can't show me any examples, then what reason do you have to believe this will prove your God?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Why don't you address my actual argument? Or respond to my direction questions for that matter.

Somewhere along the line you have changed your argument.

We asked you to justify your belief. I have been arguing that point all along.

Now you are trying to argue that justified belief in God can't be scientific.... While I reject this argument, that's not what we are arguing. I am still waiting to hear how you justify your belief.

I don't care how you don't justify your belief, I'm asking how you do justify it.


define tangible

Dictionary.com
Tangible:
2. Real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary

Merriam Webster:
1b. Substantially real


I remember you defining a priori by it's direct translation. Clearly that wasn't what was meant in this context. Which would you rather I believe you are doing: Intentionally miss-defining the word or that you aren't familiar with its meaning?

I was aware of what the word meant. Given the mess of an argument you're attempting to make, I had no idea what context you were trying to use it in.

here you are misrepresenting my arguments again. Were first principles part of my claim?

"Belief in God is a first principle"

Well, what's stopping me from labeling my invisible dragon as a first principle by the same criteria?

The point I'm making is that if you want to consider your God a first principle, then you can define anything that is unverifiable and untestable as a first principle as well. Reality simply does not work that way.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What's your point? Your first principle is based on a false belief, derailing the rest of your argument.
again give a valid refutation of any of the beliefs in my argument. Irrelevant isn't a valid objection in deduction.




I am referring to scientific law, and theory. Facts we accept about the reality of the world based on scientific investigation. There is no assumptions made there.
Yes there are.

Furthermore, belief in God does not violate any of those points.

2) The world can be consistent with God.
3) The world can be uniform with God.
4) Unifying principles/natural laws can also exist with God. (in fact, most Christians claim he's the author of those laws)
6) Causality also holds with God in the picture. The only possible exception is the uncaused cause argument, which is similarly without evidence.
What do you think miracles are? What do you think super natural means.

1) We can observe the world is rational
2) We can observe the world is consistent
3) We can observe the world is uniform
4) We can observe natural laws in effect
5) We can prove human observations can be accurate through experimentation
6) We can observe causality
Again if I said I observe God would you accept that as proof? Clearly not. For example: explain to me how you observe the entire universe is rational. Have you been everywhere, at all times, with perfect understanding of all events?

From dictionary.com:

Tangible:2. Real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary
AGAIN you equivocate by skipping definition 1, the one that is relevant to science and this discussion: 1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

Substantially real
what do you think substance means in this instance? Do you think it might be referring to physical matter...

Refer to above.... By definition, if your God is not tangible, he is not real or actual. He is imaginary or visionary.
awesome equivocation again.
God is tangible-2. God is not tangible-1.

Do you still agree tangible things should be confirmed by science, or are you going to change your position?
More equivocation. Tangible-1 things should be confirmed by science. Not all tangible-2 things should be confirmed by science.

It is clear you are intentionally equivocating by how you treated our discussion on logic. Is logic real? You implied it wasn't tangible.

Because you are trying to apply philosophy to determining truth claims. I have explained this to you multiple times before. To confirm a claim of a tangible being as factual, you must provide evidence.
more equivocation.

You're correct, I would not accept that. How do you know what you observed is God?
How do you know what you observed is rationality, causality, etc. You are making my point for me.

I was clarifying, not misinterpreting. Again, grow up. Your constant use of unfounded insults is making you look quite immature.
it is only immature if it isn't legitimate criticism. You are presenting straw mans, miss-representing my claims, and equivocating over and over again.

I'm not purposefully setting up straw-mans, I may be misinterpreting, but not purposefully. To be honest, your argument is so hopelessly devoid of logic, I am having trouble following what the points you are trying to make are. Using philosophy to justify your claims is utterly senseless. You can't hope to prove the existence of anything with it.
Equivocation of logic. Your denial of the relevancy of philosophy is a minority view that you only support with the logical fallacies of equivocation

Again, show me anything that has been proven to exist using your method, and it warrants consideration. If you can't show me any examples, then what reason do you have to believe this will prove your God?
Again an intentional misrepresentation. How many times have we been over this point. I don't believe i can offer you scientific proof of my God. My claim is that belief in God isn't a scientific claim.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
again give a valid refutation of any of the beliefs in my argument. Irrelevant isn't a valid objection in deduction.

In the words of Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I reject your belief in God on those grounds. Therefore, it is senseless to attribute the label of first principle to a non-existent entity.

Yes there are.

Give me an example of a scientific law or theory which has been accepted with a foundational assumption?

What do you think miracles are? What do you think super natural means.

I think miracles and the supernatural are concepts that someone made up at some point.

Again if I said I observe God would you accept that as proof? Clearly not. For example: explain to me how you observe the entire universe is rational. Have you been everywhere, at all times, with perfect understanding of all events?

1. No, because there is the possibility you were delusional in some way at the moment you claimed to see God. I would require proof to accept you actually saw what you claim to have seen.

2. From what we have observed, the universe is rational. We have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If evidence comes up that counters that point, then we must alter the idea that the entire universe is rational. That is how science works.

AGAIN you equivocate by skipping definition 1, the one that is relevant to science and this discussion: 1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

That's not the definition I am using, and the definition I used is very valid.

what do you think substance means in this instance? Do you think it might be referring to physical matter...

awesome equivocation again.
God is tangible-2. God is not tangible-1.

More equivocation. Tangible-1 things should be confirmed by science. Not all tangible-2 things should be confirmed by science.

It is clear you are intentionally equivocating by how you treated our discussion on logic. Is logic real? You implied it wasn't tangible.

more equivocation.


If you want to quibble over definitions, fine. But I consider it a dishonest attempt to dodge the point I'm making.

So, in place of tangible, lets use something along the lines of actually existent and not make-believe.

Now, address the points with that understanding of what is meant.


How do you know what you observed is rationality, causality, etc. You are making my point for me.

Again, apples and oranges. Rationality and Causality are concepts, not physically existent beings. What does rationality or causality look like? We can observe behaviour consistent with those concepts, but we can't directly observe a concept.

Your God is supposedly a physically, or "spiritually" existent being, so how do you know he actually exists?


it is only immature if it isn't legitimate criticism. You are presenting straw mans, miss-representing my claims, and equivocating over and over again.

And you're presenting faulty logic that's nearly impossible to follow, and insults. I'd be more than happy to go through an argument without a mistake in regards to the other persons position, however your argument is a convoluted train wreck.

I've asked the simple question of how do you justify belief in your God, and I haven't got a clear answer outside of faith.

Equivocation of logic. Your denial of the relevancy of philosophy is a minority view that you only support with the logical fallacies of equivocation

Bullcookies. You're trying to use philosophy to justify a position that philosophy can not justify. I'm merely calling you out on it.

Again an intentional misrepresentation. How many times have we been over this point. I don't believe i can offer you scientific proof of my God. My claim is that belief in God isn't a scientific claim.

1) Now you are intentionally dodging the argument. I am asking you to show how your own method has successfully proven the existence of any other being, object, or whatnot. I never brought science into this point, I am asking you to use your own method. You are guilty of intentional misrepresentation.

2) And you are wrong, It is absolutely a scientific claim, that is my point. I am asking you to show how it can be done in a non-scientific way, as that's how you would be able to successfully refute my point.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Look, i'm gonna sum up the points of contention in our discussion. I will state my position on them and either you give a direct answer that isn't based on equivocation, strawmans, or miss-representing the argument or i'm done with this discussion. This is my last attempt to converse with you, if you insist on violating well established standards for formal discussion it isn't worth my time. I'll even state the criteria for you to prove your side to help you avoid the equivocations and strawmans. If you don't understand any of the terms, or you find them ambiguous I implore you to ask what I mean. If you actually agree with any of them please let me know which numbers you agree with.

1)Justified belief in God is a first principle or predicate of first principles.

To refute: you must refute one of my claims in the argument I gave you. That is the only way to refute a valid deductive argument which mine is by modus ponens.

2)Some objects that exist can't be shown to exist by science.

To refute: you need to show how you can prove the existence of a priori objects with science. You first need to look up the a priori a posteriori distinction and understand it. If you don't understand it let me know. Reading this would be a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

3) Science is predicated on several assumptions.

To refute: I gave you six examples, let's just use those for simplicity sake (only using six examples makes your position drastically easier to defend). For each of the six you need to argue that either: science can prove the example in a non-circular manner or if the principle was false science would still be valid.

4)That if God exist some of these principles can possibly be violated.

Discussion: Notice this is a statement in the form of A=>B. You may find it easier to consider the contrapositive which is logically equivalent. That is ~B => ~A or "If some of these principles can't possibly violated implies God can't exist". So if you agree with "If some of these principles can't possibly be violated implies God can't exist" you MUST agree with "That if God exist some of these principles can possibly be violated"

To refute: You need to argue how an all powerful being can't ever possibly violate any of the principles I named.

Edit: You may be tempted to challenge me on the basis that it is my job to support these claims. That isn't true. I'm not advocating any of these beliefs for others. You asked why I believe what I believe. I told you. You challenge that my beliefs aren't rational. The burden of evidence lies with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Look, i'm gonna sum up the points of contention in our discussion. I will state my position on them and either you give a direct answer that isn't based on equivocation, strawmans, or miss-representing the argument or i'm done with this discussion. This is my last attempt to converse with you, if you insist on violating well established standards for formal discussion it isn't worth my time. I'll even state the criteria for you to prove your side to help you avoid the equivocations and strawmans. If you actually agree with any of them please let me know which numbers you agree with.

Fair enough.

1)That belief in God is a first principle.

To refute: you must refute one of my claims in the argument I gave you. That is the only way to refute a valid deductive argument which mine is by modus ponens.


Ok, seeing as you claim I have a sub-par understanding.... define exactly what you mean by first principle. Going by the definition I'm aware of, which is backed up by an internet search.... you have absolutely no justification to label that a first principle.

So, what is your definition.

2)Some objects that exist can't be shown to exist by science.

To refute: you need to show how you can prove the existence of a priori objects with science. You first need to look up the a priori a posteriori distinction and understand it. If you don't understand it let me know.

A priori knowledge by definition is conceptual knowledge. I've stated many times, concepts are not testable, and indeed fall outside the realm of science.

However, what is an a priori "object"? An object would imply something tangible, which you have already rejected. So, what do you mean by object?

And what objects that have been proven to exist, have been proven through non-scientific means? Can you give an example?

3) Science is predicated on several assumptions.

To refute: I gave you six examples, let's just use those for simplicity sake (only using six examples makes your position drastically easier to defend). For each of the six you need to argue that either: science can prove the example in a non-circular manner or if the principle was false science would still be valid.

I have addressed this, we have justification to accept all six points through direct observation.

4)That if God exist some of these principles can possibly be violated.

Discussion: Notice this is a statement in the form of A=>B. You may find it easier to consider the contrapositive which is logically equivalent. That is ~B => ~A or "If some of these principles can't possibly violated implies God can't exist". So if you agree with "If some of these principles can't possibly be violated implies God can't exist" you MUST agree with "That if God exist some of these principles can possibly be violated"

To refute: You need to argue how an all powerful being can't ever possibly violate any of the principles I named.

Sure, theoretically if God exists as defined as an all-powerful being, those principles could be violated.

What's your point?

Edit: You may be tempted to challenge me on the basis that it is my job to support these claims. That isn't true. I'm not advocating any of these beliefs for others. You asked why I believe what I believe. I told you. You challenge that my beliefs are rational. The burden of evidence lies with you.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You claimed that you believe God exists. We didn't ask why you believe what you believe, we asked how you justify your beliefs.

You made the positive claim, so we are asking you to back it up, the burden of proof is on you.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ok, seeing as you claim I have a sub-par understanding.... define exactly what you mean by first principle. Going by the definition I'm aware of, which is backed up by an internet search.... you have absolutely no justification to label that a first principle.
A first principle is, A proposition: that cannot be justified by other propositions in a world view, is consistent with other first principles in a world view, is foundational in a world view, and self-evident within a world view.

A priori knowledge by definition is conceptual knowledge. I've stated many times, concepts are not testable, and indeed fall outside the realm of science

However, what is an a priori "object"? An object would imply something tangible, which you have already rejected. So, what do you mean by object?
close, did you read the article i gave you? Here is a snipit:

"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy")"

An object that is a priori is an object that can be known by a priori knowledge or justification. Logic would be an example.

And what objects that have been proven to exist, have been proven through non-scientific means? Can you give an example?
logic and math are the standard examples.

I have addressed this, we have justification to accept all six points through direct observation.
No you didn't, read my requirement for justification. Your justification is observation, that isn't sufficient.

Sure, theoretically if God exists as defined as an all-powerful being, those principles could be violated.

What's your point?
Then a logical consequent of that is no scientific system that has those as assumptions can either offer evidence for or against God.


Please re-address 1-4 with these clarifications.

Edit: Grammar
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You claimed that you believe God exists. We didn't ask why you believe what you believe, we asked how you justify your beliefs.

You made the positive claim, so we are asking you to back it up, the burden of proof is on you.
I may have miss-stated my position here. I cannot offer justification within your universe of discourse, only mine. All I can do is explain why I believe, I can't give you reason that you should believe.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
A first principle is, A proposition: that cannot be justified by other propositions in a world view, is consistent with other first principles in a world view, is foundational in a world view, and self-evident within a world view.

So, to clarify, you are claiming that:

1) Your god is self evident: I categorically reject this claim. Your God is clearly not self-evident.

2) Can not be justified by other propositions in a world view: Given the rejection of the assertion that he is self-evident, how else do you reach knowledge of your God without other propositions?

3) Foundational in a worldview: God could certainly qualify here.

4) Consistent with other first principles: Depending on your worldview, this could also work.


close, did you read the article i gave you? Here is a snipit:

"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy")"

An object that is a priori is an object that can be known by a priori knowledge or justification. Logic would be an example.

Ok, but logic is not a physical or spiritual being. What A priori object has shown to exist as an actual existent being, or thing in general.

logic and math are the standard examples.

See above. Logic and Math are not existent in the sense that a God would be. You can't possibly have a priori knowledge of God. How would you gain knowledge of God without any experience?


No you didn't, read my requirement for justification. Your justification is observation, that isn't sufficient.

How does observation not meet your standard?

Then a logical consequent of that is no scientific system that has those as assumptions can either offer evidence for or against God.


Please re-address 1-4 with these clarifications.

Edit: Grammar

I reject this claim, science may be able to offer plenty of evidence. It potentially may not be able to prove God, but it can still show evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, to clarify, you are claiming that:

1) Your god is self evident: I categorically reject this claim. Your God is clearly not self-evident.

2) Can not be justified by other propositions in a world view: Given the rejection of the assertion that he is self-evident, how else do you reach knowledge of your God without other propositions?

3) Foundational in a worldview: God could certainly qualify here.

4) Consistent with other first principles: Depending on your worldview, this could also work.
#1 is the one you really object too. You left out the key part of within my world view. It is self-evident within my world view.

Ok, but logic is not a physical or spiritual being. What A priori object has shown to exist as an actual existent being, or thing in general.
Logic is an existent object. So is math. You are missing the claim. God is probably uniquely a being known a priori.

You can't possibly have a priori knowledge of God. How would you gain knowledge of God without any experience?
See irresistible grace.

How does observation not meet your standard?
Observation is an event. I need you to give me the logic of how you connect an event with your principle

I reject this claim, science may be able to offer plenty of evidence. It potentially may not be able to prove God, but it can still show evidence.
You just agreed belief in God goes possible contradicts the assumptions of science. No consistent theory can have possible contradictions.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
#1 is the one you really object too. You left out the key part of within my world view. It is self-evident within my world view.

That's not in question.

Personally, I don't care what is in your worldview, I care if it is true. If I say invisible dragons are a part of my worldview, am I justified in thinking it's reality?

Basically, I am rejecting your worldview. It is not grounded in fact, it's based on unproven concepts.

Logic is an existent object. So is math. You are missing the claim. God is probably uniquely a being known a priori.

Probably unique in being known a priori? So in other words, you can't think of anything else which has been proven to actually exist using your methodology in the real world.

So why is it the method you are using to prove the existence of a being when it has been completely incapable of doing so in the past?

All you can possibly hope to prove is that your God is a concept. This I can agree on. But it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on reality.

See irresistible grace.

This is a Non Sequitur.

Observation is an event. I need you to give me the logic of how you connect an event with your principle

Observation provides empirical evidence, and therefore justification

You just agreed belief in God goes possible contradicts the assumptions of science. No consistent theory can have possible contradictions.

What's your point? Belief doesn't matter, reality does. If god exists, he could theoretically violate those things, however, he may also not ever do so.

Again, this is all hypothetical. How does this tie to actual reality? We have never observed those 6 points to be broken, so there is no evidence or reason to assume your God actually exists on this point.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's not in question.

Personally, I don't care what is in your worldview, I care if it is true. If I say invisible dragons are a part of my worldview, am I justified in thinking it's reality?

Basically, I am rejecting your worldview. It is not grounded in fact, it's based on unproven concepts.
You are rejecting my worldview based on it's first principles. Your worldview is composed of first principles just like mine, which are unproved concepts. If you wanna reject my world view based on it's first principles that is fine, but it means my belief system is just as justified, logic, and valid as yours, the only difference is our fundamental assumptions.

Probably unique in being known a priori? So in other words, you can't think of anything else which has been proven to actually exist using your methodology in the real world.
No other beings.

So why is it the method you are using to prove the existence of a being when it has been completely incapable of doing so in the past?
The method doesn't prove the existence of anything. It proves that the belief is a first concept. Please stop treating these two concepts like they are interchangeable.

All you can possibly hope to prove is that your God is a concept. This I can agree on. But it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on reality.
No, I can prove that my God's existence is a first principle in my belief system. Something you have many of yourself that don't have any justification in the physical world...

This is a Non Sequitur.
It is the answer to your question.

Observation provides empirical evidence, and therefore justification
How does the observation provide empirical evidence? What specifically do you observe, and HOW does it tell you that any of 1-6 hold true as a universal principle.

For example let's say I drop my pencil and it falls to the floor. That in no way offers any proof of causality. How do you actually know that pencil fell by causal connection. How does this event connect with causality.

You can't prove causality. You assume it to be true. Everyone assumes it to be true to some degree. I assume it to be true also except when God intervenes. If you want to explore this idea more I suggest you read An inquiry of human understanding by Hume. A very atheist philosopher who clearly articulates these arguments.

Again, this is all hypothetical. How does this tie to actual reality? We have never observed those 6 points to be broken, so there is no evidence or reason to assume your God actually exists on this point.
It means that science can't answer the question of God existence. Science can make no comment at all on if or if not God exist.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You are rejecting my worldview based on it's first principles. Your worldview is composed of first principles just like mine, which are unproved concepts. If you wanna reject my world view based on it's first principles that is fine, but it means my belief system is just as justified, logic, and valid as yours, the only difference is our fundamental assumptions.

I am rejecting your worldview, because what you are claiming are first principles are not first principles. Your God is not self evident, therefore you can not reach a belief in your God through non-deductive means. Belief in God is not a first principle, it simply doesn't work that way.

And what first principles in my worldview are unproven concepts?

Your belief system is built on a faulty first principle. It is not based on fact, it is false.

No other beings.

Thank you, so what reason do you have to believe you will be able to justify belief or prove a being exists, with a system that has a previous track record of 0% success? It's an completely asinine idea.


The method doesn't prove the existence of anything. It proves that the belief is a first concept. Please stop treating these two concepts like they are interchangeable.

Who gives a crap if the belief is a first concept or not? We care if it's actually true.

No, I can prove that my God's existence is a first principle in my belief system. Something you have many of yourself that don't have any justification in the physical world...

And your belief system is flawed, it is based on a faulty premise.

And please, elaborate what ones exist in mine?

It is the answer to your question.

No, it's not. It's completely senseless. How on earth does it answer the question?

How does the observation provide empirical evidence? What specifically do you observe, and HOW does it tell you that any of 1-6 hold true as a universal principle.

An observation IS empirical evidence! That's what empirical evidence is, data produced by an observation or experiment.

We can observe all 6 points in action. Through that observation, prior experience and experimentation we have been able to determine to the best of our knowledge all six points are factually correct.

For example let's say I drop my pencil and it falls to the floor. That in no way offers any proof of causality. How do you actually know that pencil fell by causal connection. How does this event connect with causality.

You let go of the pencil, which is a cause. Gravity exists, which also caused the effect of the pencil dropping to the floor.

You can't prove causality. You assume it to be true. Everyone assumes it to be true to some degree. I assume it to be true also except when God intervenes. If you want to explore this idea more I suggest you read An inquiry of human understanding by Hume. A very atheist philosopher who clearly articulates these arguments.

Sure you can, this is simply a bad argument.

Here's an example: How to Prove Causality

It means that science can't answer the question of God existence. Science can make no comment at all on if or if not God exist.

Science can not answer it because there is no observable evidence for him.

However, that lack of evidence is exactly why withholding belief is the intellectually honest stance to take.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Have you looked into the history/philosophy of science? Be honest. Or are you just asserting this yourself.

Yes, I am and no, in that order. Now are you going to actually respond to what I wrote or just continue pretend that I'm ignorant and your judgement can't be questioned?

You need to read more into what causality is.
OK, done. Now what?

Your argument is hard to follow her. Are you claiming that in my argument you can substitute “any random person” with “God”. That isn’t so, belief in the existence of people is verifiable.
No, my point is that your argument talks about classes of justification that are off limits for gods. It says nothing about there actually being valid justifications in those classes which you haven't ruled out.
 
Upvote 0