Debate Now Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by 320 Years of History, Nov 4, 2015.

  1. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    45,091
    Thanks Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +17,240
    How about if I start with my observations and then tie that back to a belief system? Would that work?
     
  2. RoccoR
    Offline

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    8,079
    Thanks Received:
    2,123
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +5,324
    Debate Now ⇒ Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
    ※→ ding, et al,

    To believe in yourself and your own powers of observational accuracy as evidential support (inductive logic), powers in the process of reason (deductive logic), or your ability at accurately identifying causality (pathologies) is NOT wrong and is NOT a weakness. Nor is the issue of the kind that even considers "right" and "wrong."

    It is a matter of inquiry and the best conduct that will give the greatest possibility of an accurate or true result. There are times when there is no absolute answer → and a determination is to be made as to what degree the condition is required to be shaped and reshaped (successive approximation).

    In examining the purety of Gold (Au & an Atomic number: 79) Five 9's (99.999% pure) is the absolute closest in today's technology that can be said is pure Gold. There is not realworld difference between Five 9's and 100%; we cannot tell the difference between the two solutions. To say that Gold is 99.9999...% pure is a distinction of no consequence. After Five 9's, no further shaping is required.​

    (COMMENT)

    You say: • "blindly accept knowledge" This is a matter of credibility and past record of performance. If a child gives me the correct answer to a complex question, the fact that it came from a child does not change the fact that it is correct. Blind acceptance is a matter of risk (in the acceptance of the data and not the provider); NOT a matter of truth.

    You say: • "if what they say makes sense" This is your first level application of observational accuracy as evidential support as to the knowledge. We still teach Newtonian Mechanics to aspiring minds. We know that Newtonian Mechanic is not quite right, but it works pretty well in most cases on Earth. BUT we have seen the slight errors in Newtonian Mechanics -- and how Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (one of the two might be wrong or the mathematics we use is flawed --- or only operate in a limited range) do not mesh together.

    You say: • "I just won the debate?" The content of a debate is not the TRUE facet judging a debate. The debate is not about and of the morals or wealth of knowledge. The winner is that one that is popularly picked as being the most valuable after the debate.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  3. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    45,091
    Thanks Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +17,240
    Whose argument for God's existence are we debating exactly?

    I tried to establish my argument and was rebuffed for doing so.
     
  4. RoccoR
    Offline

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    8,079
    Thanks Received:
    2,123
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +5,324
    RE: Debate Now ⇒ APOLOGY
    ※→ ding, et al,

    There was no intention, on my part to rebuff you.

    (APOLOGIES)

    Let me extend my sincere apology for what must have been an inappropriate response.

    Please excuse me.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    45,091
    Thanks Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +17,240
    ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 1

    1. If God exists then what he has created can be used as evidence.
    2. We can use our reason and own experiences as creators as a proxy to understand what that evidence can tell us.
    3. Our creations are the realizations of our intentions.
    4. Our creations are created for a purpose.
    5. Our creations are created in steps.
    6. The more complex our creation the more steps required to complete them.
    7. The more complex our creations the greater the intelligence required to complete them.
    8. The realization of the intention of the creation cannot be fully understood until the finished product is realized.
    9. The purpose of our creation can be determined from studying the finished product.
     
  6. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    45,091
    Thanks Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +17,240
    ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2

    1. We know that space and time had a beginning.
    2. We know that that beginning followed rules.
    3. We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.
    4. We know that matter and energy has only changed form since the beginning of space and time.
    5. We know that those changes followed rules. The rules which existed before space and time.
    6. We know that the universe is full of information.
    7. We know that information is the domain of intelligence.
    8. We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.
    9. We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.
    10. We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.
    11. We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.
    12. We know that the universe became self aware.
    13. We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.
    14. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    47,992
    Thanks Received:
    10,228
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,834
    “Believing God Exists Based on Arguments for His Existence is Illogical”

    Correct.

    Such arguments fail as either an appeal to authority fallacy or an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

    An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a theist cites religious text, doctrine, or dogma from a religious source such as the bible or koran, where such sources are devoid of objective, documented facts.

    An appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when a theist uses religious dogma to answer a question that science is still considering; that science may not yet have an explanation for a given question doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. RoccoR
    Offline

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    8,079
    Thanks Received:
    2,123
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +5,324
    RE: Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
    • Posting # 76 | ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
    ※→ "ding." et al,

    In my eyes, each of the assertions held in Posting #76 might deserve at least an entire Chapter in a larger and more comprehensive work. Certainly, a much closer look than I could conjure is deserved.

    So, let me just take one for an initial examination.

    (COMMENT)

    Premise #1 is a variation on a theme; something on the order of those postulated by theologians for centuries (to include St Thomas Aquinas). We do not know whether or not:

    • Space had a begininng.
    • Time had a beginning.
    • Space-Time had a beginning.​

    Trapped in the concept of how humanity observers time, we can only go back to approximately 10^(-34) seconds before the prevailing cosmological model of the "Big Bang" (a point which was infinitely hot and infinitely small); or ≈ 13.799±0.021 billion years backwards in time before that means of mathematical examination collapses (the point at which the theory of General Relativity" breaks-down). But we really do not know anything about that which was infinitely hot. Nor do we know if the infinitely small point was the entirety of the universe; since we now believe that we can only detect about 4% to 5% of the content of that portion of the universe known to man. We do not know if anything existed before the "Big Bang."

    Premise #1 rests on the model that the universe is NOT timeless: having a definite beginning and end. In the sense that the Argument begins with premises that are actually true; we are unsure.

    Remember, that the "Big Bang" refers to only that material in the Universe that humanity can detect and base its observations upon. We cannot say anything about the universe that could have consisted with dark energy and dark matter before the "Big Bang."

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
  9. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    45,091
    Thanks Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +17,240
    I agree that each point is deserving of a chapter or more to fully cover it. Unfortunately the nature of this topic can not be proven through a single assertion but through a conglomerate of assertions. It isn't easy to prove the existence of something which is outside of space and time, but I am happy enough to discuss each point with you as you see fit. So, in that vein let me respond to your counterpoint. BTW you will have to excuse me if I don't use the proper debate terminology as I have no formal training in debate.

    Before I begin I would like to correct one of the statements you made in your response. The equations of GToR do not breakdown at the singularity, they yield infinities which I believe are an accurate representation of what lies beyond.

    If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. But we know that space and time must have had a beginning because the SLoT states that for every matter to energy and energy to matter exchange there is a corresponding loss of usable energy. So an infinite acting universe (i.e. cyclical model) would eventually reach thermal equilibrium as time approached infinity. This we do not see.

    We know from cosmic background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's GToR field equations that ~14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. Every cosmological model honors this point.

    The question is how did it get that way.

    The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

    In summary, space and time had a beginning and that beginning followed rules and those rule were in place before space time itself.
     
  10. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    45,091
    Thanks Received:
    1,916
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Ratings:
    +17,240
    Maybe it is meant to be a collaborative effort.
     

Share This Page