Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[EricPH]

Again, it is your burden of proof, not mine. You can't prove it? Then I'm well-justified in believing it doesn't exist, and I don't need to prove anything. Asking me to do so would be a fallacy.

Prove to me that the universe and life came into existence purely by natural causes. The burden of proof is now with you.

[Count Lucanor]

Proof is a “red herring” and so all anyone has is hope.

If proof is a "red herring" it would be a "red herring" for everything, there would be no proof of absolutely anything. You literally have reduced all possible demonstrations to pure wishful thinking. You call such ridiculous exercise of intellectual anarchy a sound philosophy?

You can’t definitively prove that there is or isn’t a God, no more than I can prove that there is or isn’t. There is no burden of proof therefore on either party so why are you claiming that there is?

And since by your admission, you cannot prove that I can't prove that there isn't "God", but only hope that I cannot prove it, I am then perfecty entitled to claim that I can prove it. And by your own admission I don't even need to prove my claim, because "there's no burden of proof". All of this the result of your "sound philosophy".

You can either believe that there is or isn’t a God and exercise your faith in that belief.The same for me. Why are you claiming otherwise?

Saying that a non-belief can only be a belief, without acquisition of knowlege, is one of the most ridiculous statements one could hear. There are unjustified beliefs and justified true beliefs (JTB), which amounts to acquisition of knowledge. So I definitely can know that there isn't "God", that there isn't two moons orbiting the Earth, or that there are no square circles. Now, if you cannot know whether something exists or not, it is your problem, not mine. Your admitted lack of knowledge applies only to you, and I guess you can only hope that it applies to someone else.

Are you trying to invent a new philosophy? Your philosophy is flawed.
My philosophy is sound.

I don't think you had ever read the word philosophy before joining this forum. I mean, "sound philosophy" one that rejects any attempt of demonstration? Nonsense!! It is very unlikely that you are in a position to determine which philosophy is new or old, and whether it is sound or flawed.

[Count Lucanor]

...logic and the combination interactions are not the same which proves that these 2 off forces in nature are not the same.

Proves? Did I read "proves" like in "proof"? Wasn't "proof" a red herring? Maybe that's how your "sound philosophy" works: by being incoherent.

[Count Lucanor]

Again, it is your burden of proof, not mine. You can't prove it? Then I'm well-justified in believing it doesn't exist, and I don't need to prove anything. Asking me to do so would be a fallacy.

Prove to me that the universe and life came into existence purely by natural causes. The burden of proof is now with you.

One at a time.

You admit there are natural causes within the universe. Do you also admit "unnatural" causes within the universe?

Where do you get that the universe must have come into existence? What makes it not possible to have existed always?

It is widely agreed that life arose at some point along the line of natural history, that is, there was a non-living natural world before the appearance of life. There were, obviously, events naturally caused in the non-living world, as well as in the world after life appeared. So there is a natural world and natural causes that no one seems to object. Which takes us back to the first question: do you also admit "unnatural" causes within the universe?

[Jacob10]

...logic and the combination interactions are not the same which proves that these 2 off forces in nature are not the same.

Proves? Did I read "proves" like in "proof"? Wasn't "proof" a red herring? Maybe that's how your "sound philosophy" works: by being incoherent.

Proof is a “red herring” whereby confirming the possibility or impossibility of God.

Nature offers absolutes though.

The absolutes that nature offers is 0,0…0,1…1,0..1,1 so you can’t claim that 0=1 and 1=0.Well you can but nature disagrees because it has provided definitive proof that it’s 2 forces are different.

So all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God with the definitive proof that nature has full logic absolutes and not half logic absolutes and definitive proof that it’s 2 off forces are different.

My philosophy is sound.

[Jacob10]

Proof is a “red herring” and so all anyone has is hope.

If proof is a "red herring" it would be a "red herring" for everything, there would be no proof of absolutely anything. You literally have reduced all possible demonstrations to pure wishful thinking. You call such ridiculous exercise of intellectual anarchy a sound philosophy?

You can’t definitively prove that there is or isn’t a God, no more than I can prove that there is or isn’t. There is no burden of proof therefore on either party so why are you claiming that there is?

And since by your admission, you cannot prove that I can't prove that there isn't "God", but only hope that I cannot prove it, I am then perfecty entitled to claim that I can prove it. And by your own admission I don't even need to prove my claim, because "there's no burden of proof". All of this the result of your "sound philosophy".

You can either believe that there is or isn’t a God and exercise your faith in that belief.The same for me. Why are you claiming otherwise?

Saying that a non-belief can only be a belief, without acquisition of knowlege, is one of the most ridiculous statements one could hear. There are unjustified beliefs and justified true beliefs (JTB), which amounts to acquisition of knowledge. So I definitely can know that there isn't "God", that there isn't two moons orbiting the Earth, or that there are no square circles. Now, if you cannot know whether something exists or not, it is your problem, not mine. Your admitted lack of knowledge applies only to you, and I guess you can only hope that it applies to someone else.

Are you trying to invent a new philosophy? Your philosophy is flawed.
My philosophy is sound.

I don't think you had ever read the word philosophy before joining this forum. I mean, "sound philosophy" one that rejects any attempt of demonstration? Nonsense!! It is very unlikely that you are in a position to determine which philosophy is new or old, and whether it is sound or flawed.

We were talking about the possibility or impossibility of God.Definitive proof one way or the other is a “Red Herring” on that score unless you want to put the burden of proof on yourself and provide it.All anyone has is hope.

You are perfectly entitled to say you can prove that God is a possibility or an impossibility yes….but saying it and proving it definitively are two different things.

Unbelief in the possibility of a God is a religious belief system.The individual believes (belief system) that God is an impossibility in hope because they are unable to definitively prove that God is an impossibility.

My philosophy is sound.

[Jacob10]

You are wasting your time trying to win the debate definitively Count Lucanor. I am not trying to win the debate definitively by claiming God is a possibility or an impossibility.

All I can do is hope that God is either a possibility or an impossibility.That is all you can do as well.

I win the debate because I highlight this point.

my philosophy is sound.

[Jacob10]

Presence sits above awareness which sits above consciousness which sits above thoughts which sits above emotions.

[EricPH]

Again, it is your burden of proof, not mine. You can't prove it? Then I'm well-justified in believing it doesn't exist, and I don't need to prove anything. Asking me to do so would be a fallacy.

Prove to me that the universe and life came into existence purely by natural causes. The burden of proof is now with you.

Where do you get that the universe must have come into existence? What makes it not possible to have existed always?

Go with whatever option you choose, but lets have the evidence please.

It is widely agreed that life arose at some point along the line of natural history, that is, there was a non-living natural world before the appearance of life.

It is obvious that life arose during some point in history. If you want to say this happened purely by natural causes, then please provide the evidence.

There were, obviously, events naturally caused in the non-living world, as well as in the world after life appeared. So there is a natural world and natural causes that no one seems to object. Which takes us back to the first question: do you also admit "unnatural" causes within the universe?
You admit there are natural causes within the universe. Do you also admit "unnatural" causes within the universe?

This amount to an atheist type world view with no compelling evidence. If there were compelling evidence then all atheists would agree on how the universe and life happened.

[Belindi]

The difficulty with evidence for the existence of God is it's impossible to identify Him objectively. He has no DNA, dental records, fingerprints or personal documentation. God will not appear in any identity parade.
The existence of God may be ascertained by defining him as love, truth, goodness, or beauty, and producing evidences of love,truth, goodness, or beauty
I don't mean like a top-down Platonic Form of love, truth, goodness, or beauty. More like the black box that conceals the common cause of multiple evidences .

Of course. The"existance" of an incorporeal Being is always shaky. Like the existance of "consciousness" or other incorpoereal things. But it's not true that God is always incorporeal (acc. the stories). Christians think he took human form and walked the Earth (and rose from the dead). Muslims think he sent an angel to dictate the Quran. Zeus, Aphrodite, and Artemis had mortal lovers, and some had mortal children.

I suppose it depends what (or who) we call "Gods". But the Greeks called Zeus, Artemis and Aphrodite Gods, despite their remarkable lack of omnipotence, omniscience, and (even) good manners. I mean, Hermes stole all those cattle from Apollo. God the thief!

W.B. Yeats chips in with "Leda and the Swan":

A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
And how can body, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.
Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

Did Leda (I wonder) think there was "no evidence" of God's existance? The "Me Too" movement suggests we trust her, expecially when her daughter Helen was hatched out of an egg.

Leda and the Swan by WB Yeats gave me gooseflesh when I read it on your post! Thanks for that.
Unfortunately few men are able to be mystics such as was WBYeats who can interpret God as if an encounter with God is orgiastic. Mysticism always puts the belief cat among the sceptical pigeons. But do please carry on in that vein seductive though it be.

[Count Lucanor]

We were talking about the possibility or impossibility of God. Definitive proof one way or the other is a “Red Herring” on that score unless you want to put the burden of proof on yourself and provide it.All anyone has is hope.

You are evidently ignorant of philosophy and talking about things you don't know, such as what is the meaning of a "red herring". A "red herring" is an argument, an informal logical fallacy, a statement that diverts attention from the issue in discussion to another unrelated issue, as a smoke screen to avoid the challenge of the real issue. We are in a philosophy forum, in a topic about the proposition "God is an impossibility", which means arguments in favor or against that proposition are completely on topic, relevant to the discussion, and expected to gravitate around demonstrative statements. So when you say in this context that "proof " is a "red herring", you're completely lost. An attempt of proof in a debate cannot be considered a redirection away from the topic in contention, which is in contention precisely by means of demonstrative arguments, the proofs. Your "red herring" claim is utter nonsense!

Nature offers absolutes though.

The absolutes that nature offers is 0,0…0,1…1,0..1,1 so you can’t claim that 0=1 and 1=0.Well you can but nature disagrees because it has provided definitive proof that it’s 2 forces are different.

So all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God with the definitive proof that nature has full logic absolutes and not half logic absolutes and definitive proof that it’s 2 off forces are different.

Now, there you have it, a true "red herring" fallacy. Besides being a false and misleading statement, it provides no support to the claim that "all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God".

You are perfectly entitled to say you can prove that God is a possibility or an impossibility yes….but saying it and proving it definitively are two different things.

The fact is that you have denied yourself the possibility of proving me wrong. You admit that I'm entitled to have only hope that my statements on the issue are true, but you cannot say whether such statements are true or not.

Unbelief in the possibility of a God is a religious belief system.

That's ridiculous. Anyone can devise theoretically an entity, label it with some name and claim: "it exists". Memo The Flying Teapot or Gina the Dragon in My Garage. You don't believe they exist? Then you are a member of a religious cult. Sound philosophy.

The individual believes (belief system) that God is an impossibility in hope because they are unable to definitively prove that God is an impossibility.

Whatever "God" is said to be, it is still a theoretical entity, a concept. As such, it is a contingent idea, not a necessary one. We could have done well without it and actually many people did so. It was a novel idea once, a belief that required evidential support to become a justified true belief. Lack of such support is all that is needed to justify non-belief. Lack of justification from the believers side does not automatically compels non-believers to produce additional justification for their non-beliefs.

All I can do is hope that God is either a possibility or an impossibility.That is all you can do as well.

I win the debate because I highlight this point.

You cannot win a debate by not proving a point and merely projecting your self-admitted failures onto others. You cannot prove something yourself?, fine, that's your problem. And while you are somehow entitled to say that all I can do is hope that God is an impossibility, saying it and proving it definitely are two different things. You are now just saying it, that does not win a debate.

[Count Lucanor]

Again, it is your burden of proof, not mine. You can't prove it? Then I'm well-justified in believing it doesn't exist, and I don't need to prove anything. Asking me to do so would be a fallacy.

Prove to me that the universe and life came into existence purely by natural causes. The burden of proof is now with you.

Where do you get that the universe must have come into existence? What makes it not possible to have existed always?

Go with whatever option you choose, but lets have the evidence please.

I take that response as your admission that it is possible for the universe to have existed always. But let's see where your other alternative leads us, let's see that universe that "came into existence". If it came into existence and was caused by something that existed prior to its existence, then how do you call that realm that existed prior to the universe? And secondly, why can that realm not be considered part of the universe?

It is widely agreed that life arose at some point along the line of natural history, that is, there was a non-living natural world before the appearance of life.

It is obvious that life arose during some point in history. If you want to say this happened purely by natural causes, then please provide the evidence.

I only stated what was obvious and wanted you to confirm that there was a non-living natural world before the appearance of life. You confirmed, and that's all I needed.

There were, obviously, events naturally caused in the non-living world, as well as in the world after life appeared. So there is a natural world and natural causes that no one seems to object. Which takes us back to the first question: do you also admit "unnatural" causes within the universe?

This amount to an atheist type world view with no compelling evidence. If there were compelling evidence then all atheists would agree on how the universe and life happened.

You're dodging the question. And then you say there's no compelling evidence, as if objecting some or all my statements, but what exactly you are objecting to? For what there's no compelling evidence?:
1. That there were events naturally caused in the non-living world?
2. That there were events naturally caused in the world after life appeared?

[Sy Borg]

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

Your criticism fails.

Do you consider the writings of superstitious people centuries after the fact to be reliable? That liberties would not be taken? That guesswork would fill in the gaps? That the work - before scientific or philosophical language - would not rely almost exclusively on metaphors to describe ideas? That the writers might not indulge in a little exaggeration or creative licence or add their own spin or ideas?

Witness testimony is not even especially strong evidence in court, let alone fabrications of ancient people made centuries after the alleged events occurred. People can see things, they can lie, they can misinterpret. It happens all the time.

[Ecurb]

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

Your criticism fails.

Do you consider the writings of superstitious people centuries after the fact to be reliable? That liberties would not be taken? That guesswork would fill in the gaps? That the work - before scientific or philosophical language - would not rely almost exclusively on metaphors to describe ideas? That the writers might not indulge in a little exaggeration or creative licence or add their own spin or ideas?

Witness testimony is not even especially strong evidence in court, let alone fabrications of ancient people made centuries after the alleged events occurred. People can see things, they can lie, they can misinterpret. It happens all the time.

Of course the evidence is weak. That doesn't mean it is not "evidence". People thought Troy never existed, until the ruins were discovered. We can decide which evidence to believe and which is "reliable". That (in the case of witness testimony) is up to the jury. But we need not have the judge exclude the "evidence" altogether. The only reason people search for Noah's ark, or achaeological evidence of the Jewish escape from Egypt is that the Bible provides some evidence that these events may have happened.

Doesn't the Catholic Church require evidence of miracles before conferring sainthood? You and I may not accept the miracles as factual -- but there must be some "evidence" in support of them. The Catholics may be wrong, but they're not idiots or liars (well, some of them are, but not all).

Let's ask another question: Who is more likely to have come back from the dead? Jesus, or Joe Blow. OK, in Jesus's case we may think the odds against are one in a ten million, but they're still a billion times greater than the odds for Joe Blow. Why the difference if not for evidence?

Evidence is not proof. There's lots of evidence for the existence of Sasquatch, too. That doesn't mean we have to believe in Sasquatches.

[EricPH]

Do you consider the writings of superstitious people centuries after the fact to be reliable?

I think you are missing the point about faith in God, he is in control. The Bible is written in the way that God intends it to be written. Billions of people still believe in God, there is a power in the written word because of that belief. Faith and trust in God will continue, we each have the freedom to believe as we wish.