Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

Your puzzle is not accurate formulated unless you define the "religious" views of yor opponent.

Thanks for your observation. Please have your own go at giving some accurate formulations. Since you've read this thread, this should be no trouble at all for you.

[fr0d0]

Hello Rabbit. Sorry for the short break - I had to go sort out some stuff for my Mother (she lives some distance away) and was offline for the weekend as a result.

Post #94

I didn't mean that applying logic to everything religious was illogical.. I meant: applying the same logical reasoning that faith does not require proof to the whole of religion was illogical.

"argumentum ad populam (appeal to the masses)."
YOU SAID my reply went against standard Christianity. I was simply refuting that. It matters not to me if I'm in the majority or minority. My challenge was for you to find one example to refute my position (that any Christian has actual conclusive, verifiable proof of God's existence), which you have not.
You're completely off subject suggesting that I believe something simply because it's popular. That's a completely nonsensical conclusion. Nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. And couldn't be further from the truth.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

Absolutelt not. You completely misunderstand again. 'Not provable' as in made by God or not.. is what I'm saying.

I'm happy with it that people belief without conclusive proof but I'm sceptical about the idea that the choice of a SPECIFIC belief, such as a monotheistic belief, out of the vast array of all possible beliefs (such as non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs) needs no other justification than the choice itself. This is a what Dennett would identify as a skyhook, from all possibilities a particular possibility is claimed out of nowhere. This is illogical and certainly is NOT rationalisation, which you claim it to be.

Like I've said, you are absolutely right that faith is indiscriminate. Faith would support belief in the nonsensical right through to the supremely sensible. What divides these potential beliefs is the resultant belief set and not the subject of faith. this is how believers logically discern between them. Yes yes yes, there is not reason from the faith statement alone to believe anything. Faith doesn't work alone.

Post #96

You seem to assert that the answer on A is positive:
A+: "faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof"
But not the positive answer on B:
B+: "faith in general does not require proof"

So from the above, you see I think A+ and B+ are the same. So you are wrong.
It seems you need to re-calibrate your lasers but I'll carry on just in case it'd be helpful to you.

A++: "the existence of the christian god does not require proof and is a true statement"
Constantly in your answers there is that mix of A+ and A++.
If I am wrong about this please say so.

A++ - I'm far more tentative with my assertion that this is a truth, but I would apply the truth to all faith, not singling it out to Christianity alone. It simply seems to fit the way God is defined in Christianity for one. Unless I am mistaken.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

So we're talking hypothetical reasoning that is also provable?
I take the definition of God as outlined in the Christian Bible. I also find God defined in an infinite other sources but perhaps you could get your teeth into that one. The reasoning is consistent to the nature of this God.

Post #97

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

True: 1, 2, 3, 6.

[Purple Rabbit]

Hello Rabbit. Sorry for the short break - I had to go sort out some stuff for my Mother (she lives some distance away) and was offline for the weekend as a result.

OK, I was being impatient I guess.

I didn't mean that applying logic to everything religious was illogical.. I meant: applying the same logical reasoning that faith does not require proof

What IS the LOGICAL reason for this claim?

...to the whole of religion was illogical.

Further down you acknowledge truth of (6) "belief in general does not require proof". This is not consistent with what you state here (my recap): "religion in general does not require proof".
The only word that's changed is faith (into religion)? How do you account for this? Why religion (~ institutionalized belief) does not require proof but faith does?

"argumentum ad populam (appeal to the masses)."
YOU SAID my reply went against standard Christianity. I was simply refuting that.

My reason for identifying an ad populam is the second part of your sentence "You're singling me out for something universally accepted and doctrinal". With this you bring in the argument of authority of the masses. What else would it matter to this debate if it is 'universally accepted doctrine'? This was a reaction on my question "what IS the basis to choose your christian god?". By giving me the above reply you strongly suggest that it is so because it is 'universally accepted'. So isn't it obvious that I am left to conclude that the basis for you to choose your christian god is that it is a universally accepted? If it is not a reason for you, than you haven't really answered that question. So is a reason for you to choose from all possible gods your christian god because it is universally accepted doctrine or not?

It matters not to me if I'm in the majority or minority. My challenge was for you to find one example to refute my position (that any Christian has actual conclusive, verifiable proof of God's existence), which you have not.

That is a clear (but possibly unintended) straw man. Nowhere in this thread have I asserted that any christian has actual conclusive, verifiable proof of god's existence. This surely is ridiculous because it should be clear by now that I defend an atheistic stance. I have asserted that throughout history christians (more specifically christian theologians) HAVE ASSERTED to have proof for it. Do you register the difference? ASSERTING proof is not quite the same as HAVING conclusive proof. And this time I'm gonna require total accuracy from you, because this misinterpretations of my words is going on for a considerable amount of posts now. I take it you need not another clarification of what my statement was. Anyway it ran:
"Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god."

You're completely off subject suggesting that I believe something simply because it's popular. That's a completely nonsensical conclusion. Nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. And couldn't be further from the truth.

Your own phrasing suggested it to me. Please try to be articulate in your answers.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

Absolutelt not. You completely misunderstand again. 'Not provable' as in made by God or not.. is what I'm saying.

This again is a consequence of your own inaccurate phrasing:
"The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable."
You do not state here: "The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. And the creation of the universe by god is not provable."
It would be strange to conclude that, because the subject of creation of the universe by god is quite different from the subject of the existence of god. In other words you insert a totally new unsubstantiated claim, that not only the existence of god is unprovable, but also that his creation of the universe is not provable. Claims that I btw totally adhere to. But the validity of these claims is no reason to conclude from it that the existence of god and his asserted creation of the universe are anywhere near the truth.

I'm happy with it that people belief without conclusive proof but I'm sceptical about the idea that the choice of a SPECIFIC belief, such as a monotheistic belief, out of the vast array of all possible beliefs (such as non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs) needs no other justification than the choice itself. This is a what Dennett would identify as a skyhook, from all possibilities a particular possibility is claimed out of nowhere. This is illogical and certainly is NOT rationalisation, which you claim it to be.

Like I've said, you are absolutely right that faith is indiscriminate. Faith would support belief in the nonsensical right through to the supremely sensible. What divides these potential beliefs is the resultant belief set and not the subject of faith. this is how believers logically discern between them. Yes yes yes, there is not reason from the faith statement alone to believe anything. Faith doesn't work alone.

The only conclusion is that you think your faith is true because your faith (the resultant belief set) says so. I'm glad you've opened up on this, athough it being a nonsensical conclusion.

You seem to assert that the answer on A is positive:
A+: "faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof"
But not the positive answer on B:
B+: "faith in general does not require proof"

So from the above, you see I think A+ and B+ are the same. So you are wrong.
It seems you need to re-calibrate your lasers but I'll carry on just in case it'd be helpful to you.

So let's be clear. You say A+ and B+ are the same. Well my friend, everybody here on the forum can see that they are quite different. They not only differ in number of words, but also the word "general" stands out as a difference to "the existence of the christian god". What's more, B+ covers a vastly greater set of beliefs, it includes the belief in Zeus and his divine offspring, Thor, Zoroaster and also the belief in purple rabbits from the 26th dimension. So how precisely does that lot fit in with "the christian god"?

A++: "the existence of the christian god does not require proof and is a true statement"
Constantly in your answers there is that mix of A+ and A++.
If I am wrong about this please say so.

A++ - I'm far more tentative with my assertion that this is a truth, but I would apply the truth to all faith, not singling it out to Christianity alone. It simply seems to fit the way God is defined in Christianity for one. Unless I am mistaken.

So all faiths are equally true. That is the most preposterous nonsense covered in this thread as of yet. So Zeus created everything and rules the world, and the christian god does, with Thor at his side, while Vishnu in his department is calling the shots, Zoroaster is calling all shots equally forceful, meanwhile the purple rabbit by accident created the universe.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

So we're talking hypothetical reasoning that is also provable?
I take the definition of God as outlined in the Christian Bible. I also find God defined in an infinite other sources but perhaps you could get your teeth into that one. The reasoning is consistent to the nature of this God.

Does it say in the bible that the existence of god is unprovable. If yes, in what verse?

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

True: 1, 2, 3, 6.

Is it right to conclude from this that according to you 4, 5, 7 and 8 are false?

[fr0d0]

It seems that we are dogged by severe misinterpretation Rabbit.

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

Absolutelt not. You completely misunderstand again. 'Not provable' as in made by God or not.. is what I'm saying.

This again is a consequence of your own inaccurate phrasing:
"The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable."
You do not state here: "The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. And the creation of the universe by god is not provable."

No I don't. Because that's not what I said either. I said the creation by God of the universe or the non creation by God of the universe are equally provable/ dis-provable. Perhaps it's your preconception that prevents you from seeing a simple assertion?

Like I've said, you are absolutely right that faith is indiscriminate. Faith would support belief in the nonsensical right through to the supremely sensible. What divides these potential beliefs is the resultant belief set and not the subject of faith. this is how believers logically discern between them. Yes yes yes, there is not reason from the faith statement alone to believe anything. Faith doesn't work alone.

The only conclusion is that you think your faith is true because your faith (the resultant belief set) says so. I'm glad you've opened up on this, athough it being a monsensical conclusion.

LOL You never cease with the illogical statements do you? How is that nonsensical? I'm assuming you're not illogically applying the same definition to two different meanings of the word 'faith'? (because you insist you're not playing word games here). I'm glad you finally heard the answer though.

So let's be clear. You say A+ and B+ are the same. Well my friend, everybody here on the forum can see that they are quite different. They not only differ in number of words, but also the word "general" stands out as a difference to "the existence of the christian god". What's more, B+ covers a vastly greater set of beliefs, it includes the belief in Zeus and his divine offspring, Thor, Zoroaster and also the belief in purple rabbits from the 26th dimension. So how precisely does that lot fit in with "the christian god"?

So you don't understand what I just said.

So all faiths are equally true. That is the most preposterous nonsense covered in this thread as of yet. So Zeus created everything and rules the world, and the christian god does, with Thor at his side, while Vishnu in his department is calling the shots, Zoroaster is calling all shots equally forceful, meanwhile the purple rabbit by accident created the universe.

...Which inspires yet another preposterous summation. From where I'm sitting this looks incredibly childish.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

So we're talking hypothetical reasoning that is also provable?
I take the definition of God as outlined in the Christian Bible. I also find God defined in an infinite other sources but perhaps you could get your teeth into that one. The reasoning is consistent to the nature of this God.

Does it say in the bible that the existence of god is unprovable. If yes, in what verse?

There are no claims to the contrary to the best of my knowledge. Again, prove me wrong.

1) belief in the existence of the christian god does not require proof to subscribe to it
2) the existence of the christian god does not require proof to be true
3) the existence of the hindu gods does not require proof to be true
4) the existence of the christian god a) is true AND b) does not require proof
5) the existence of the christian god a) is true BECAUSE it does not require proof
6) belief in general does not require proof
7) the existence of the christian god does not require belief to be true
8) the existence of hindu gods does not require belief to be true

Which of these assertions in your opinion are true statements, which of them are false?

True: 1, 2, 3, 6.

Is it right to conclude from this that according to you 4, 5, 7 and 8 are false?

Indeed. I thought that was too obvious to state.

---

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.

[Purple Rabbit]

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.

There are two problems with that answer:

1) Proof of existence does not imply visibility. It is enough that god's existence is traceable. Even for science this suffices. No scientist has ever seen an electron, still according to science there is enough proof for it's existence. So I would say this leaves no room for your unprovability claim.

2) If you do interpret this as a clear statement that god is unprovable then the bible defines that god (among other things) is unprovable. Referring to the bible definition of god as you did, means your reasoning has been circular for your claim becomes:

(A) god's definition in the bible states that god is unprovable
(B) therefore god's existence is unprovable

This is clearly fallacious reasoning.

[fr0d0]

1. This is not a scientific claim. Your understanding is again found seriously wanting.
"no one can see him" = proof is not possible
"only where he has been" = conclusively establish without proof

2. You asked for biblical affirmation and now you're criticising me for my limited sources!!! The statement holds true outside the bible like I said. This is one wildly fallacious statement. Please reign it in a bit.

[Purple Rabbit]

1. This is not a scientific claim. Your understanding is again found seriously wanting.
"no one can see him" = proof is not possible
"only where he has been" = conclusively establish without proof

Your inaccurate phrasing and use of rhetoric here won’t hide the fact that you claimed unprovability of the existence of god and that you now claim that invisibility equals unprovability of existence. It is possible to proof existence of something without it being visible to the most strict standard of proving anything known to man: science. Forensic research is based on it and is accepted in court. Science makes use of it leading to fantastic results. Saying that the claim is unscientific has nothing to do with this. Scientific proof is proof according to a specific verifiable standard. If you want to conform to some higher standard that besides existence also includes visibility, you are really talking a different language and adding new conditions to your claim.

This is a very clear case for anyone reading this thread of diversion from your original claim. And that while I have asked you over and over to be accurate in your phrasing. A good debater knows when he is wrong. Deal with it.

2. You asked for biblical affirmation and now you're criticising me for my limited sources!!! The statement holds true outside the bible like I said. This is one wildly fallacious statement. Please reign it in a bit.

I merely followed the leads you gave me. You claimed that god’s existence is unprovable by definition. So I asked for your definition. You answered that the bible contains your definition. So I asked where the bible says that god’s existence is unknowable and you answered that in Exodus 33 such is the case, not even being relevant if that really is what Exodus 33 says. Now you want to escape to definitions outside the bible. The problem is you don’t see that the illogic starts with your assertion that god in unprovable by definition. No matter what definition you seek inside or outside the bible, if it states that god is unprovable or you assert that such is the case your reasoning becomes circular: god’s existence is unprovable because the definition of god says so. So, don’t throw any claims of being “wildly fallacious” at me. Again a good debater should know when he is wrong. This is in no way an invalidation of you as a person or of your right to believe what you believe. It is end of story this time for your line of reasoning pursued in this thread. Clean up your logic and start over again.

I therefore strongly urge you to reconsider your attitude in this debate. When you show no clear signs of adhering to basic debating hygiene as suggested in the above then there is no reason for us to continue this debate any longer.

[josef rosenkranz]

Your puzzle is not accurate formulated unless you define the "religious" views of yor opponent.

Thanks for your observation. Please have your own go at giving some accurate formulations. Since you've read this thread, this should be no trouble at all for you.

Hi
Remarking that your formulation is to my opinion incomplete was not meanning to offend anybody so I don't understand your impolite answer.
May be that you don't agree with my answer to your puzzle or that you expected another kind of answer of the sort true/not true,then say what's your opinion,if you wish.
I consider thar we dicuss in this forum always in a friendly manner, don't we ?

[Purple Rabbit]

Your puzzle is not accurate formulated unless you define the "religious" views of yor opponent.

Thanks for your observation. Please have your own go at giving some accurate formulations. Since you've read this thread, this should be no trouble at all for you.

Hi
Remarking that your formulation is to my opinion incomplete was not meanning to offend anybody so I don't understand your impolite answer.
May be that you don't agree with my answer to your puzzle or that you expected another kind of answer of the sort true/not true,then say what's your opinion,if you wish.
I consider thar we dicuss in this forum always in a friendly manner, don't we ?

Dear josef,
If your remark was not meant offensive you should not read offense in my answer, after all in it I'm only inviting you to do it better. That is not being impolite, that's handing over discussion to you. I did not use rude language or anything of the sort. Indeed the puzzle has been ill-defned, has been plagued by misinterpretation and the thing is not exactly running smooth. Please step in where-ever you see fit. But my hope is that you will add focus on the content of the discussion rather than commenting on appraoches taken by others.

[josef rosenkranz]

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.

The Old Testament ,written by many persons as it is proved by the at last four styles of writing named E,J,P and D ,written and rewritten along history for many times, can by no means be quotted as proving something one way or another concerning the existence of God.

The only thing it can prove is it's own existence as a book written by men and not by Moses or by God himself or by any supranatural entity.
Moses for sure has not written the book because the Deuteronomy describes his death.

What the Bible proves is that the very notion of God emanates fom a man-written book which was written ,for all we can reasonable think, following orders emmitted by leading factors of certain antique hebrew societies (may be kings or priests) in pursue of political,social,economical,spiritual ...purposes.

Bibliologists presume that the Old testament , in it's canonic format ,was written in the 6-th century BC
during the reign of king Joshiahu of the kingdom of Yehudah, with the purpose to prove his right as descendent of the house of king David to the northern ex -Israel kingdom now conquerred by the Assyrians.

It beats me when I see at the evangelists tv channel lead by Pat Robertson ,how preachers speak in front of a huge public keeping in front of them the Bible and quoting fom various texts in a such serious manner about events which took place ,of the kind of the above optical phenomenon between God and Moses ,as if they were anounced just yesterday on CNN or Fox News or BBC.

In a serious debate it is ,in my opinion no place for quoting not a single sentence from the Bible unless the debate is of a theological kind just misplaced in an atheist forum.