I've been watching a lot of debates online lately and I couldn't hope for a better match. And this is at state no less! If I was still a student, I'll be all up ins.

3/30/11 7pm McKimmon Center



http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

3/28/2011 6:35:06 PM

what a stupid waste of time. do you think any progress on the existence of god is going to take place at the fucking mckimmon center after thousands of years of debate and scholarship?

3/28/2011 6:36:18 PM

no.

I EXPECT TO BE ENTERTAINED

3/28/2011 6:41:55 PM

Quote :

" ... research on the existence of God."

epic.

3/28/2011 6:44:44 PM

paging FroshKiller

3/28/2011 10:08:28 PM

I wonder how much NCSU pays them.

Professional trolls. My heroes.

3/28/2011 10:43:38 PM

I even believe in God and I don't see much point in going to this. Of course there's no evidence for the existence of God. At best, Craig can argue that there's no evidence against the existence of God. Even taking all of that into account, it seems a little lopsided to pit a physicist against a philosopher/theologian in any argument regarding "evidence."

3/28/2011 10:51:56 PM

not really. even the physicist, if he were honest, would be forced to say "we don't know why the big-bang happened" and "we don't know how shit went from organic molecules to fully replicating organisms." But, again, that, at best, means we don't evidence against a god.

3/28/2011 11:00:55 PM

I disagree on both counts. Craig isn't going to just say there's no evidence against God. He's going to argue that the universe can't exist without God. I imagine he'll pull out cosmological argument:

Quote :

"William Lane Craig's version of the kalam cosmological argument is as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

Krauss, on the other hand, has quite a good understanding of why this is bullshit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I don't care if these questions have been studied for thousands of years. Science has been proceeding the whole time and God is finding new places to hide. The debate is constantly evolving.

3/29/2011 8:20:11 AM

Quote :

"But, again, that, at best, means we don't evidence against a god."

The examples you gave, which are not quite as mysterious as you make them out to be, are not even related to the god question, unless someone suggests that god's existence is somehow dependent on those two subjects. It could be that god exists but played no direct role in the creation of the universe or of life. All that can be said is that there is no good reason to think that to be the case.

Quote :

"I imagine he'll pull out cosmological argument"

Yes, that is his claim to fame, although in debates I've watched his argument is more like the argument for intelligent design than the rather uncontroversial syllogism (which doesn't advance the god argument an inch) you quoted. His argument tends to go:

1. Every complex thing that came into being has a creator.
2. The universe is complex and came into being.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a creator.

He also argues that, because time and matter did not exist before the universe began, the universe must therefore have been created by something that is immune to such constraints. Enter ancient superhero who has already been drawn up precisely to meet those qualifications. This is meant to answer the question: Well, if everything that is complex and came into being has a creator, who created God?



[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 9:10 AM. Reason : ]

3/29/2011 8:52:10 AM

Quote :

"what a stupid waste of time. do you think any progress on the existence of god is going to take place at the fucking mckimmon center after thousands of years of debate and scholarship?"

Quote :

"I even believe in God and I don't see much point in going to this. Of course there's no evidence for the existence of God. At best, Craig can argue that there's no evidence against the existence of God. Even taking all of that into account, it seems a little lopsided to pit a physicist against a philosopher/theologian in any argument regarding "evidence.""

Belief in the truth of a claim is only justifiable if it is supported by "evidence". It seems lopsided because the theologian's position is inherently flawed, lacking supporting evidence. The debate isn't stacking the deck against him; reality is stacking the deck against him.

Without evidence, there is nothing to distinguish your belief from delusion. You may have whatever personal experiential support for your belief, but how am I supposed to determine whether it's a delusion? How do you know it's not imaginary?

Quote :

"not really. even the physicist, if he were honest, would be forced to say "we don't know why the big-bang happened" and "we don't know how shit went from organic molecules to fully replicating organisms." But, again, that, at best, means we don't evidence against a god."

So because scientists cannot yet answer the big questions means you get to fill in the blanks with made up bullshit? Was that viable when we didn't understand the nature of the motion of heavenly bodies? Was the Earth really carried by the World Turtle before we understood that it wasn't?

Even if science never answers "how the big bang happened", "how replicators formed"...."God did it" is not supported by a shred of evidence and explains nothing. Scientists could never discover anything new from this point until the end of time and a supernatural explanation would remain an invalid and unsupported explanation.

And finally, it is important what people believe because we don't exist in a vacuum. Beliefs affect actions and actions affect me and people I care about. I would prefer to exist in a world where policy decisions that affect us aren't based on mythology. Until that day, every debate and every discussion like this will be utterly important.

Quote :

"Well, if everything that is complex and came into being has a creator, who created God?"

It's sad that Craig and everyone else who employs Kalaam don't understand how critical this question is and how it destroys the entire argument. If God is exempt from the rules, then the rules are meaningless. If a thing actually can exist that doesn't have a creator (God), then the basis of the argument is false and the argument is invalid. And for the sake of argument, even if we granted the Cosmological argument (which we don't), it doesn't follow that this creator is the Christian God. There is no way to bridge the gap from the Cosmological argument to a specific deity.

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

3/29/2011 9:14:16 AM

He would point to the Big Bang as the moment at which the universe "came into being," which makes it subject to the cosmological argument. He would argue that God never "came into being," and therefore falls outside the bounds of the argument.

The argument relies on an overly literal interpretation of the commonly used expression that "before the universe, there was nothing," which is interpreted as meaning that the universe must have been created by something (or someone) that defies the rules of existence. It excludes the possibility that the universe came from something that is still bound by a set of natural laws, despite the fact that there are numerous theories about how this could be so, and that, significantly, do not rely on the credibility of ancient desert tribesmen.

3/29/2011 9:54:08 AM

You guys should seriously watch "A Universe from Nothing" posted above if you haven't already seen it.

Quote :

"Forget Jesus. The stars had to die for you to be here today."

3/29/2011 10:03:33 AM

Enjoyed it. Will be watching the stream (at least part of it since I have to put my kid to bed around 8).

3/29/2011 11:35:07 AM

Quote :

"You may have whatever personal experiential support for your belief, but how am I supposed to determine whether it's a delusion? How do you know it's not imaginary? "

This gets into some unhelpful territory, where basically I don't know that anything isn't imaginary, which puts God on more or less equal footing with you and everybody else.

3/29/2011 12:12:03 PM

Only if you're afraid of asking questions, collecting evidence, peer review, and the normal way we go about determining whether claims are true.

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason : specificity]

3/29/2011 12:13:00 PM

If my perception of reality is susceptible to delusion -- possibly to the level of hallucinations -- then none of that helps. My peers are the guys from "A Beautiful Mind" and who the fuck knows how I'm perceiving the evidence.

3/29/2011 12:17:20 PM

The key is we don't need to claim absolute knowledge about any given topic, so being 100% sure that this is objective reality and not the Matrix doesn't really matter.

When I ask "how do you know your beliefs aren't a personal delusion" I ask this in terms of the reality that we share as conscious beings. We could be heads in a jar somewhere, but it doesn't matter. In this reality that we perceive, study, talk about, how do we go about determining whether a claim is true?

3/29/2011 12:21:38 PM

All of which appears to assume that there is a "we" and not just "me and all the annoying wolfwebbers I'm hallucinating."

3/29/2011 12:37:39 PM

So you're conceding that imagined gods are indistinguishable from gods with no evidence? Since imagined reality is indistinguishable from reality for which you have no external verification is actually reality?


It doesn't matter, btw, whether the reality that "we" are observing is objectively reality. It is effectively reality, whether you're imagining me talking to you about it.

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/29/2011 12:45:45 PM

Quote :

"It seems lopsided because the theologian's position is inherently flawed, lacking supporting evidence."

unfortunately, the other position is equally flawed, as there is also no evidence against the existence of a god.

Quote :

"The examples you gave, which are not quite as mysterious as you make them out to be, are not even related to the god question"

actually, they are. We can't explain how life formed. And we can't explain why or how the BB happened. At best, we say "all our laws are perfect all the way back until right after the BB."

Quote :

"So because scientists cannot yet answer the big questions means you get to fill in the blanks with made up bullshit?"

That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? That's not what I said. Rather, it means that physics and science can't explain 100% of everything, and that's it.

Quote :

"If a thing actually can exist that doesn't have a creator (God), then the basis of the argument is false and the argument is invalid"

not at all. I can write a computer program and not be subject to the rules in said program. The question of "what created God" is just a furtherance of reasonable questions, but not addressing it does not mean that the argument from our own set of rules is invalid.

3/29/2011 1:15:40 PM

Quote :

"not at all. I can write a computer program and not be subject to the rules in said program. The question of "what created God" is just a furtherance of reasonable questions, but not addressing it does not mean that the argument from our own set of rules is invalid."

I'll grant this. It still stands that the argument is useless for attributing the "creator" of the Universe to any specific deity or any deity at all.

Quote :

"That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? That's not what I said. Rather, it means that physics and science can't explain 100% of everything, and that's it."

I wasn't so much responding to you specifically as every theist that uses "science can't prove everything" as a segue to why you should accept Jesus or Mohammed. Otherwise, why even mention this? Is science required to have 100% knowledge of 100% of topics before it is to be trusted as the best method for gaining knowledge? No, of course it isn't.

Quote :

"unfortunately, the other position is equally flawed, as there is also no evidence against the existence of a god."

There is plenty of evidence against particular gods. The only god for which there is no evidence against is a god which is indistinguishable from nothing. I believe we've gone through this before.

I have a word for things which are indistinguishable from nothing: nothing.

3/29/2011 1:45:04 PM

Quote :

"unfortunately, the other position is equally flawed, as there is also no evidence against the existence of a god."

Against a deistic god? No. Against a particular god like the one found in the bible? There certainly is evidence against.

Quote :

"actually, they are. We can't explain how life formed. And we can't explain why or how the BB happened. At best, we say "all our laws are perfect all the way back until right after the BB.""

You just reiterated that we don't know everything and then refused to explain what the hell that has do with a deity. What did I have for breakfast one year ago today? SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. Therefore, God.

It's called God of the Gaps. You want to insert your preferred superstition into the ever shrinking gaps in our scientific knowledge. I'd be careful with that approach. It's tough work and usually makes you look like a fool.

Quote :

"The question of "what created God" is just a furtherance of reasonable questions..."

Glad we can agree on that.

3/29/2011 1:45:54 PM

It seems Grumpy is determined to have us believe that God is on par with all other delusions. He doesn't need to sell me on that point.

It's a disingenuous argument. He doesn't go leaping off 100 story buildings just because, hey, it's totally possible that he's actually in the Matrix. Despite whatever evasive hypotheticals he tries to pawn off on the Internet, he certainly does operate, just like the rest of us, on the assumption that reality is reality, or that in any event it is worthwhile to assume that to be the case. So he's still left to explain why he chooses to believe in one particular god but not in, say, two gods. Aren't two always better than one?

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2011 2:34:14 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't go leaping off 100 story buildings just because, hey, it's totally possible that he's actually in the Matrix."

I, like pretty much everyone else, assume that I can trust my perception of reality. Now let's assume that I've had "personal experiential support" for belief in God -- that is, I have seen or otherwise experienced (perceived) the existence of God. I also have experiential support for the existence of you and others who would argue with me. Why is the one experience more compelling than the other?

It just seems absurd that now we're extending the atheism argument to "even if you see something, it's not real" and, accordingly, to "any proof you offer is fake by virtue of being proof for your side."

3/29/2011 7:55:35 PM

Quote :

"Now let's assume that I've had "personal experiential support" for belief in God -- that is, I have seen or otherwise experienced (perceived) the existence of God. I also have experiential support for the existence of you and others who would argue with me. Why is the one experience more compelling than the other?"

The question was not "which is more compelling to GrumpyGOP". The question was how do you prove to me and yourself that a belief is not a delusion? I don't need you to prove to me that I'm not a figment of your imagination. I am interested, however, how you can prove to me (and for illustrative purposes to yourself) whether a belief that is not supported by evidence can be distinguished from delusion.

Quote :

"It just seems absurd that now we're extending the atheism argument to "even if you see something, it's not real" and, accordingly, to "any proof you offer is fake by virtue of being proof for your side.""

Nowhere am I assuming that it's delusion. I want to know how you tell it's not delusion. Given that you haven't even offered proof (you haven't even suggested before now that there is such a thing as proof in this matter) this is a giant fucking strawman. You're the one doing the extending, not me.

It seems to me that all of this rhetoric solipsism acrobatics is because you are afraid to admit that you cannot distinguish between un-"disprovable" belief in god and delusion. Let me generalize the question.

You and I are in disagreement about a statement of truth. It is not a matter of opinion. What process should we take to reconcile this disagreement and come to an agreement about the truth?

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/29/2011 8:22:15 PM

Quote :

"I am interested, however, how you can prove to me (and for illustrative purposes to yourself) whether a belief that is not supported by evidence can be distinguished from delusion. "

You seem to be alternating between "belief" and "experiential support," the latter of which would qualify as at least a piece of evidence. There is at least some distinction between "I think OJ Simpson killed his wife" and "I watched OJ Simpson kill his wife."

Now if you've got a lone witness to a crime, it's entirely unreasonable to ask them to make the crime repeat itself. It can't be done. Even if I'd seen OJ stab somebody I'd be hard pressed to do it again, and even if I'd seen some apparition of the almighty -- which I assume would be an extreme case of "personal experiential support" -- it seems unlikely that I could make that apparition appear again at will.

The obvious answer to your question is that a person with such support could not prove it to you. They can't recreate it. But it is evidence for the person who witnessed it, because it is likewise unreasonable to insist, "Well, you're the only person that experienced it, nobody can corroborate or review your claims, so you're wrong."

I never once implied that one's own experiences constituted proof, merely evidence to themselves.

Quote :

"You and I are in disagreement about a statement of truth. It is not a matter of opinion. What process should we take to reconcile this disagreement and come to an agreement about the truth?"

Where possible we should try to ascertain the truth by process of rigorous experimentation. It is -- unfortunately for my side, I freely admit -- an unfortunate reality that in this matter it is not possible. If I could do as much I would pretty much have proven the existence of God, and I've already said we can't do that.

3/29/2011 10:39:40 PM

The problem is not solely that "you're the only one that perceived it and therefore you're wrong". The problem is "you're the only one that perceived it and there is no collaborating evidence and there are mountains of contradictory evidence."

If it was anything except god, I believe you'd readily admit that it could have been a delusion. If you saw a pink elephant fly through the car in front of you as you were driving down the highway, but the car was unaffected, no one else saw it, and no direct or indirect evidence for the existence of the pink elephant was left behind, you'd readily admit that you imagined it.

Why do religious claims get a pass? Not only do they lack evidentiary support, but we understand the mechanism for which people gain religion. You must admit that were you born in a Muslim family you'd believe in Allah rather than Yahweh. If you were born in Ancient Greece, you'd be worshiping Zeus or Artemis. If you were brought up believing in invisible pink elephants, reinforced by your parents, your friends, and your church, you'd be attacking my inability to disprove invisible pink elephants and talking about the personal revelation the Great Crimson Pachyderm revealed to you. Surely this calls into question the truth value of each of the thousands of practiced religions in the history of humanity.

Because of this, any specific theism is worse off than neutral in terms of truth value. "You can't disprove it" is not a strong enough defense. It must be proven, and none of them have, admittedly by you because they cannot be proven. I am an atheist not because I know there is no god. I am an atheist because no theistic claims have yet been proven and the lack of a personal god that cares about humanity is consistent with reality as we observe it.

3/30/2011 12:02:39 AM

Quote :

"The problem is "you're the only one that perceived it and there is no collaborating evidence and there are mountains of contradictory evidence.""

I've yet to see any evidence contradicting the existence of God or any "experiential support" of the existence of the same. If Jesus showed up and said hello to me tomorrow, you couldn't actually provide any evidence contradicting that it happened. That's the whole point. At best, you could prove that something was going on -- drugs, dementia, what have you -- that provides an alternative explanation for the experience. That's a far cry from "mountains of contradictory evidence."

Quote :

"If it was anything except god, I believe you'd readily admit that it could have been a delusion."

I'll readily admit that anything could be a delusion.

Quote :

"You must admit that were you born in a Muslim family you'd believe in Allah rather than Yahweh."

I was raised agnostic. Mom was nominally Methodist but I don't recall ever going to church or Sunday school or anything until I converted on my own, to a different denomination at that. Dad frequently read us a religious text, but it was Zen Buddhist, and he thought of it as philosophical rather than religious.

Try not to talk completely out of your ass next time.

Quote :

"you'd be attacking my inability to disprove invisible pink elephants and talking about the personal revelation the Great Crimson Pachyderm revealed to you."

I'm not "attacking" anything as it is. It's that kind of language that makes it look like those of us with religion are always trying to shove it down your throats. I think it's pretty clear that I'm on the defensive in these discussions.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 2:16 AM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 2:15:50 AM

Quote :

"I've yet to see any evidence contradicting the existence of God or any "experiential support" of the existence of the same. If Jesus showed up and said hello to me tomorrow, you couldn't actually provide any evidence contradicting that it happened. That's the whole point. At best, you could prove that something was going on -- drugs, dementia, what have you -- that provides an alternative explanation for the experience. That's a far cry from "mountains of contradictory evidence.""

Provide a definition of god and I'll happily provide the evidence. Generally speaking "observed reality is not consistent with a benevolent and powerful deity" does a pretty solid job on it's own for most definitions of god. The only definition that stands up to this is the one that has no observable direct or indirect effects on reality: indistinguishable from non-existing.

Quote :

"I was raised agnostic. Mom was nominally Methodist but I don't recall ever going to church or Sunday school or anything until I converted on my own, to a different denomination at that. Dad frequently read us a religious text, but it was Zen Buddhist, and he thought of it as philosophical rather than religious. Try not to talk completely out of your ass next time."

I was raised Roman Catholic and I am an atheist. Did you honestly think I was suggesting that everyone raised in a particular religion will definitely be that religion? I was speaking generally. We know that culture has the largest impact on practiced religion. There is not a uniform distribution of religion; a random arrangement is not responsible for the Muslim 97% majority in Saudi Arabia.

Quote :

"I'm not "attacking" anything as it is. It's that kind of language that makes it look like those of us with religion are always trying to shove it down your throats. I think it's pretty clear that I'm on the defensive in these discussions."

It was just a phrasing, dude. It has been suggested in this thread that "you cannot disprove it" is a valid defense of religion and I'm merely trying to illustrate that theism is on shaky footing by default and requires positive proof to be accepted as a claim.

3/30/2011 9:02:01 AM

Quote :

"I, like pretty much everyone else, assume that I can trust my perception of reality. Now let's assume that I've had "personal experiential support" for belief in God -- that is, I have seen or otherwise experienced (perceived) the existence of God. I also have experiential support for the existence of you and others who would argue with me. Why is the one experience more compelling than the other?"

This argument only begins to hold water if you are prepared to back it up with a sound argument for how your "personal experiential" evidence for the existence of God is equal to the evidence for my existence.

Bear in mind I'm not asking, "how do you explain your belief to me?" but rather "how do you explain your belief to yourself?" Do you really consider whatever miracle or visitation you think you experienced is of the same evidentiary weight as, say, this discussion and the hundreds of others we've had? Does it comply as consistently with everything else you know about the universe? It seems you are unable to argue in the affirmative without obliterating the entire value of things like evidence and reason, tossing every type of perception into a large bin labeled "who knows?" And even that is not an argument for the existence of God; it's an argument for the existence and/or non-existence of everything.


[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 9:11:37 AM

Quote :

"Generally speaking "observed reality is not consistent with a benevolent and powerful deity" does a pretty solid job on it's own for most definitions of god."

You act as though the "all powerful/all loving deity" question is completely resolved. This will be a huge relief to the people who have been debating it forever.

Quote :

"Did you honestly think I was suggesting that everyone raised in a particular religion will definitely be that religion?"

Of course not. You didn't "suggest" anything. You outright said that if I were born Muslim I'd believe in Allah, and that if my parents -- specifically calling out my parents -- had taught me to believe in pink elephants I'd be arguing with you about them right now. This method of attacking religion as something religious people get from their parents and then never think about -- unless, of course, they have the wisdom to go atheist -- is old and obnoxious.

Quote :

"Do you really consider whatever miracle or visitation you think you experienced is of the same evidentiary weight as, say, this discussion and the hundreds of others we've had?"

This is all hypothetical -- I'm not personally claiming to have seen any such thing.

But no, not really. Your existence has the advantage of being easily proven or disproven. We could conceivably run your IP, track you down, and get you to demonstrate your identity. With an apparition or whatnot, at best we can prove that the person who saw it was under the influence of drugs or a psychological disorder, which at least offers an alternative explanation.

But at the end of the day, so what? To a person who sees something, it has enough weight to make them think they saw it, and I've yet to hear a particularly good reason for why they should doubt their own eyes. I once saw a squirrel with tusks. That shit doesn't fit in great with what I know about the universe and nobody else can corroborate having seen it, but I'll go to my grave sure that I did and hoping to see another example to prove it.

3/30/2011 1:35:38 PM

Quote :

"You act as though the "all powerful/all loving deity" question is completely resolved. This will be a huge relief to the people who have been debating it forever."

The existence of apologists does not prove religion nor does the existence of debate mean both sides of the argument are equally valid. You're welcome to provide a specific example of a god if a general disproof is dissatisfying.

Quote :

"Of course not. You didn't "suggest" anything. You outright said that if I were born Muslim I'd believe in Allah, and that if my parents -- specifically calling out my parents -- had taught me to believe in pink elephants I'd be arguing with you about them right now. This method of attacking religion as something religious people get from their parents and then never think about -- unless, of course, they have the wisdom to go atheist -- is old and obnoxious."

One again, I was speaking generally and for clarification I said quite literally that culture has the "largest impact" not "get from their parents and then never think about it".

Quote :

"To a person who sees something, it has enough weight to make them think they saw it, and I've yet to hear a particularly good reason for why they should doubt their own eyes."

Ever seen an optical illusion? Ever mistaken a dream for a memory or a memory for a dream? Did you ever really believe in Santa Claus or a monster under your bed? Ever mistake one sound for another? Ever smell something for which there was no immediately observable source? Ever been over-tired and over-stressed and seen and heard things that didn't make sense? Ever hear your child crying when they weren't actually?

You've yet to hear a particularly good reason for why someone should doubt their senses when they see something that doesn't jive with reality? When they remember seeing or feeling something that doesn't jive with reality? Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable because of how fallible our senses and memories can be.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2011 2:13:18 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't so much responding to you specifically as every theist that uses "science can't prove everything" as a segue to why you should accept Jesus or Mohammed. Otherwise, why even mention this? Is science required to have 100% knowledge of 100% of topics before it is to be trusted as the best method for gaining knowledge?"

No, but I think it would be a necessary condition for beginning to say, unequivocally, "there is no god".

Quote :

"The problem is "you're the only one that perceived it and there is no collaborating evidence and there are mountains of contradictory evidence.""

Really? You've got mountains of evidence that shows there is no "other side" and there is no god anywhere? Really?

Quote :

"Generally speaking "observed reality is not consistent with a benevolent and powerful deity""

wrong. observed reality is not consistent with you want a benevolent and powerful deity to be. It's pretty arrogant to say "a god must be as I want it to be"

Quote :

"It has been suggested in this thread that "you cannot disprove it" is a valid defense of religion"

Not at all. Rather, it has been said that you simply can't disprove things. That's not a defense. It's a simple statement.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 2:35:54 PM

Quote :

"No, but I think it would be a necessary condition for beginning to say, unequivocally, "there is no god"."

My brand (and probably the most common brand) of atheism is not "there is no god, unequivocally." It's "no theistic claims about supernatural beings have been proven, therefore it is almost certain that there is no god." I agree that it is unreasonable to state unequivocally that there is no god. I've basically admitted in this thread that a deistic god that has no discernible effect on reality is possible.

Quote :

"Really? You've got mountains of evidence that shows there is no "other side" and there is no god anywhere? Really?"

No, there are mountains of evidence against every specific theistic claim. There are mountains of evidence against everything that is used to support the notion of an "other side".

Quote :

"wrong. observed reality is not consistent with you want a benevolent and powerful deity to be. It's pretty arrogant to say "a god must be as I want it to be""

I'm not the one claiming that god is benevolent and powerful. But since no one was willing to provide a definition I provided a general one that fits generally speaking with the major traditions practiced on planet Earth. God could be a total dick (which would make a lot more sense actually).

Quote :

"Not at all. Rather, it has been said that you simply can't disprove things. That's not a defense. It's a simple statement."

"You cannot disprove things" is a ridiculous statement. Falsification is key to science. There is a point where a claim cannot be supported by the evidence given and the claim is then disproven, barring new evidence. In fact, "disproving" the contradiction of a claim is a formal proof of a claim.


[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : capital E]

3/30/2011 2:50:04 PM

Quote :

"no theistic claims about supernatural beings have been proven, therefore it is almost certain that there is no god."

false. it would be "it is almost certain there is no evidence for god". learn the difference.

Quote :

"There is a point where a claim cannot be supported by the evidence given and the claim is then disproven"

false. the point becomes "there is no evidence for this claim." At the point where you actually have evidence against the claim, then it has been disproven.

Quote :

"No, there are mountains of evidence against every specific theistic claim."

waiting...

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 2:55:31 PM

waiting for a specific theistic claim....

Quote :

"false. it would be "it is almost certain there is no evidence for god". learn the difference."

You don't get to tell me what I believe. It is certain to me that no theistic or supernatural claims are supported by evidence, therefore it is almost certain there is no god.

Quote :

"false. the point becomes "there is no evidence for this claim." At the point where you actually have evidence against the claim, then it has been disproven."

No, at this point is "the total evidence available does not support this claim." Not all claims can be believed by virtue of just simply being claimed. It is untenable to be agnostic to every claim which cannot provide supporting evidence.

Once again, I, and science more generally speaking don't talk in terms of absolute knowledge.

3/30/2011 3:13:05 PM

Quote :

"No, at this point is "the total evidence available does not support this claim." Not all claims can be believed by virtue of just simply being claimed. It is untenable to be agnostic to every claim which cannot provide supporting evidence."

and you are correct. But there is a difference in saying that and in saying "this claim is patently false." At best, we leave it at "this claim has not been proven" and we call it a day.

Quote :

"waiting for a specific theistic claim...."

so, you've got a video feed from Jesus' tomb on Sunday/Monday morning? Or, you've got sworn depositions from the guards that were there? Oh, you've got a video feed of the lamps in the temple, showing somebody refilling them every night? You've found the burial site of Muhammad? no, of course you don't. You have arguments, reasoned as they may be, but you don't have "mountains of evidence."

Quote :

"You don't get to tell me what I believe. It is certain to me that no theistic or supernatural claims are supported by evidence, therefore it is almost certain to you there is no god."

fixed it for you.

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 3:20:12 PM

Ok, I concede that I don't have a video feed of the entirely of the history of the earth. What I do have are:

-an unfathomable amount of human and animal suffering
-no collaborating evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, nor the prophet status of Mohammed.
-overwhelming evidence for the existence of humanity predating Jesus and Mohammed for 2M years.
-strong evidence for claims of Jesus and Mohammed being adapted from previous religious traditions.
-10000 other practiced religions which have no more or less evidence than either of these claims.

I admit that this doesn't mean that I can say with 100% certainty that jesus was not resurrected, but what I can say is that the evidence strongly suggests that he wasn't to the point that believing that he was is not consistent with the evidence.

Quote :

"At best, we leave it at "this claim has not been proven" and we call it a day."

Up until the point where someone says "I believe this claim, and my belief is justified."

3/30/2011 3:39:12 PM

Quote :

"-an unfathomable amount of human and animal suffering - So, again, a god doesn't behave the way you want him to. How fucking arrogant. Not evidence, though. Just argument. -no collaborating evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, nor the prophet status of Mohammed. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, argument -overwhelming evidence for the existence of humanity predating Jesus and Mohammed for 2M years. so, "evidence" against a 4000-year old earth. assuming that the earth was not created to appear older than 4000 years. -strong evidence for claims of Jesus and Mohammed being adapted from previous religious traditions. argument, not evidence -10000 other practiced religions which have no more or less evidence than either of these claims. argument, not evidence "

yeah, still no evidence buddy.

3/30/2011 3:55:47 PM

Who says arguments cannot be used as evidence against a claim? Even a statement of fact is ostensibly an argument (as evidenced by Grumpy's aside above).

Quote :

"So, again, a god doesn't behave the way you want him to. How fucking arrogant. Not evidence, though. Just argument."

Jesus's resurrection is dependent on the existence of God as described in the Bible is it not?

Quote :

"so, "evidence" against a 4000-year old earth. assuming that the earth was not created to appear older than 4000 years."

No, "evidence" that the story was made up by a tribe of people that followed many other tribes of people making up stories.

It's sweet that you're not accepting any evidence for a claim short of videotape. Apply that level of skepticism to the claim that Jesus was actually resurrected and see what happens.

3/30/2011 4:05:31 PM

This is dumb. No one can win this debate.

Quote :

"1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause."

Hopefully, he does pull this out. I really like the ignostic position myself, which basically states that before discussing the existence of gods, we must first establish a coherent definition of a god. Of course, no one can really do that, so to proceed beyond that point is pointless.

In the context of the argument I quoted, the "cause" that was the catalyst for "everything" is synonymous with "God." In that case, we're left with a watered down version of pantheism, where nature can be used interchangeably with god.

3/30/2011 5:06:19 PM

don't forget to actually watch the debate guyz

I'll probably miss it, so I'm hoping they put up a video right quick

3/30/2011 5:09:07 PM

"Watch Live" looks like you're only going to see slides. Hopefully it turns into video.

3/30/2011 6:09:23 PM

1. Contingent beings existing is more probable in a Universe with a God than without. Nuh-uh.
2. The Universe had a beginning. Ok, so what? Transcendent cause of the universe most plausibly defined as God? Why?
3. Fine-tuning. Anthropic principle.
4. Moral Objectivity if exists must come from God. Prove moral objectivity independent of human reason exists first.
5. Resurrection of Jesus. Most biblical scholars believe that the story of Jesus was accurate. You don't say...

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2011 8:40:52 PM

Quote :

"Who says arguments cannot be used as evidence against a claim? Even a statement of fact is ostensibly an argument (as evidenced by Grumpy's aside above). "

ummm, science. durr. You said you have EVIDENCE, not arguments. there is a difference.

Quote :

"Jesus's resurrection is dependent on the existence of God as described in the Bible is it not?"

Yes, but it is NOT dependent upon said god being exactly how you want him to be in order to recognize him. Again, pretty fucking arrogant.

Quote :

"No, "evidence" that the story was made up by a tribe of people that followed many other tribes of people making up stories."

OK, where's the evidence. Where's the video feed. Where's the 4.5billion-year-old witness?

Quote :

"It's sweet that you're not accepting any evidence for a claim short of videotape."

Actually, no, I will accept actual evidence. And you have yet to present any. All you have are arguments. Arguments are not evidence, and they never have been.

3/30/2011 8:54:28 PM

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Sound arguments are fine supporting evidence for a claim. Every single bit of Dr. Craig's "evidence" were logical arguments.

Quote :

"Yes, but it is NOT dependent upon said god being exactly how you want him to be in order to recognize him. Again, pretty fucking arrogant."

Are you inferring then that the Biblical account of God does not suggest that it is both all powerful and benevolent?

Quote :

"OK, where's the evidence. Where's the video feed. Where's the 4.5billion-year-old witness?"

You require evidence for me to prove that religious tradition existed before Jesus that has striking parallels to the story of Jesus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

3/30/2011 9:03:46 PM

There is no evidence against the existence of unicorns. Should we bother considering that they might exist?

3/30/2011 9:05:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry but you're wrong. Sound arguments are fine supporting evidence for a claim. Every single bit of Dr. Craig's "evidence" were logical arguments."

No, they are not evidence. Evidence is indisputable fact, given some set of common principles. Arguments are not. Otherwise they wouldn't be arguments. They would be facts.

Quote :

"Are you inferring then that the Biblical account of God does not suggest that it is both all powerful and benevolent?"

No, I am saying that your definition of benevolent is not binding on a deity.

Quote :

"You require evidence for me to prove that religious tradition existed before Jesus that has striking parallels to the story of Jesus? "

Actually, no. I am well aware of that. Too bad I was talking about the 4000-year-old earth, not Jesus. Even still, such information is not evidence that the Jesus story is false. Rather, it is evidence of similarities between the Jesus story and other mythologies.

^ unless you can provide some kind of relevance of said unicorns to our existence, then no, not really

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 9:11 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2011 9:10:59 PM

Quote :

"1. Contingent beings existing is more probable in a Universe with a God than without. Nuh-uh. 2. The Universe had a beginning. Ok, so what? Transcendent cause of the universe most plausibly defined as God? Why? 3. Fine-tuning. Anthropic principle. 4. Moral Objectivity if exists must come from God. Prove moral objectivity independent of human reason exists first. 5. Resurrection of Jesus. Most biblical scholars believe that the story of Jesus was accurate. You don't say..."

So is this a summary of the debate? How was it?

3/30/2011 9:11:46 PM