Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Esquilax]

Negative Esquilax.....not a strawman.

You might be able to make an argument that it is a red herring....but that would be a stretch. I'm done trying to teach you. You're just too incredulous to learn.

Maybe you'll listen to someone else.

Right, so do you deny that Craig's presuppositionalist position is relevant to the conversation or not?

[Heywood]

Negative Esquilax.....not a strawman.

You might be able to make an argument that it is a red herring....but that would be a stretch. I'm done trying to teach you. You're just too incredulous to learn.

Maybe you'll listen to someone else.

Right, so do you deny that Craig's presuppositionalist position is relevant to the conversation or not?

The only things relevant to the argument you have rejected are the elements of the argument you have rejected. How about you list all the premises of Craig's argument and the conclusion he draws from them and we'll see if his presuppositional position is one of the premises.

Can you do that? Can we evaluate Craig's argument instead of Craig the man?

[Esquilax]

The only things relevant to the argument you have rejected are the elements of the argument you have rejected. How about you list all the premises of Craig's argument and the conclusion he draws from them and we'll see if his presuppositional position is one of the premises.

And when one of the elements of every argument Craig has made- and I would remind you that he has committed to this- is "I'm right, and everything that might indicate I'm wrong doesn't exist to me," then there is a fundamental, glaring flaw in every argument Craig will ever make. And to be clear, this isn't me saying this, this isn't like some vendetta I have, this is a thing Craig proudly and openly states in his books.

If the answer is always going to be "therefore god," regardless of what actual evidence is there to be presented, if evidence will actually be ignored if it doesn't fit in with the "therefore god" conclusion, what more need be said? We already know what the conclusion is going to be, and we know that this conclusion is going to be blindly thundered toward no matter what's in its way. What honest discussion of any topic can be had with a presuppostionalist?

Can you do that? Can we evaluate Craig's argument instead of Craig the man?

I am evaluating his argument. It's not my fault that his argument comes with such a gaping hole under its epistemological base. And you're still strawmanning me; as I've said numerous times, this isn't about the person, but one of the fundamental positions that he has embraced.

[Mister Agenda]

First thing that comes up when I Google 'definition of atheist':

a·the·ist/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing in there about denying. How are we supposed to believe in something if we not only don't know it exists, but don't know what it's supposed to be? YOU propose your particular God out of the potential infinity of imaginable Gods, and then we evaluate your claim.

Suppose a certain Smith approaches you and tells you that by "God" he means "dog." Would you still disbelieve in the existence of Smith's god?

If I had known you were a Humpty Dumpty-ist, I'd not have engaged with you in the first place. I do speak your language, though: Blorgle smark letckin drup.

And if not, then you are no longer an atheist, because you now believe in the existence of at least one god.

As much as someone who is apolitical becomes political if you define politics as breathing, I suppose.

That's a start, but in order to say "I don't know if God exists," you still need to understand the meaning of the term "God."

If it can mean 'a dog', it can mean anything. And if it can mean anything, it doesn't really have a meaning at all.

If you think the Christian conception of God has no reference, yet still remain an agnostic, then you need at least one different conception of God of whose existence you are unsure.

That would be any god that isn't contradictory to itself or observation.

---

Defining ones terms is not a cheap trick. It is good rhetoric.

I'm good with datc's definition of god as whatever he or she wants it to be for the purpose of winning arguments. Nothing like having the loyal opposition render their position meaningless for you.

---

Yes, congratulations: if you strip all the pertinent words in a definition of any meaning, and then add on whatever meaning is convenient to your petty little games, then you can make anything mean anything, and thus apply any label to anyone.

You must be very proud of your cheap rhetorical trick.

This is not a trick. It's a reductio ad absurdum of Mister Agenda who wrote:

YOU propose your particular God out of the potential infinity of imaginable Gods, and then we evaluate your claim.

I did just that, and look at the results. Unpleasant, wasn't it?

It certainly was. Given the chance to explain what YOU meant by 'God', you brought up a dog. You mentioned someone named Smith, but I can only assume that you're really talking about yourself, and that you consider your dog to be God. I never dreamt you would respond with that level of idiocy, I really rather thought you would define what you mean by God...but now I hope you didn't, else you're the sort who might kill people their dog tells them to, and that hasn't worked out well for others, historically speaking.

There is in philosophy a distinction of vast importance: between meaning and reference. At the very least, meaning is ideal, in the mind; reference is real, out there. Consider a word "dog." It has a meaning, "a highly variable domestic mammal closely related to the gray wolf." And a reference, in fact, numerous references, as there are many dogs existing.

Now think of "unicorn." It also has a meaning: "a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead." But it has no reference! There are no unicorns out there, despite the fact that the term "unicorn" is perfectly well-defined.

Thus, the term "Morning Star" differs in meaning from the term "Evening Star," yet they pick out the same reference or object in the real world: planet Venus.

In order to call yourself an atheist meaningfully, you need a small number of definite and well-developed concepts of God or meanings of the term "God" for which you deny there is a reference, i.e., which you deny exist.

As I said, most of us don't deny that any exist. We're just not aware of any good reason to think that any do. Just like unicorns. But there's always a joker who will say something like; "Unicorns are real, they're rhinoceroses!" You're that joker, not someone who actually has something meaningful to discuss.

And I provided a definition and asked if and how yours differed. You went with 'God is a dog'. Have fun with that. I expect you'll be stuck with it for a while.

---

A theist needs to have a definite concept of God in whose existence he believes.

It would be silly for them to believe in something if even they don't know what they mean by it.

But an atheist, I presume, is not a machine built for shooting down random theistic concepts of God.

He is a human being.

You say so, but you don't speak to me as though you really believe it's true.

As a result, he can't just sit there waiting for a random theist to inform him of his personal idea of God (which may well be "dog") and then get all excited and try to refute it.

Because theists can mean anything they want by 'God', as you've illustrated, the word 'God' no longer really has any meaning at all. It's like saying 'I believe in Glupbummer, do you believe Glupbummer is real, too?' No, I don't. It might turn out that the definition of Glupbummer is something I believe in, but I can't know it until I know what you mean by 'Glupbummer'. I can't believe in Glupbummer until I know what it is. To disbelieve something is to not believe it. You want to put us in the position of the theist who believes in God without knowing what they mean by the word 'God'. If it's even silly for theists to believe in God without knowing what they mean by it, how is it supposed to be rational for atheists to do the same thing?

The atheist is not spared the necessity of coming up with his own full-featured worldview.

That's true. But atheism is not that world-view, at most it can just be a component of it. The same is true of theism.

He must know what he believes and what he does not believe. He needs to articulate for himself a finite personally significant number of concepts of God and prove that none of those exist in reality.

There is no finite list of meanings for the word God, because it means different things depending on who is doing the talking. It has little real meaning of its own: none really, if 'my dog' is in the running as a definition. It's a nonsense word until you define it. Atheists aren't the ones who made it a nonsense word either, theists have managed that trick on their own. I'd have been happy to go with :

God/ɡäd/
noun
1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I have no idea why that defintion is a problem for you, but at least I tried.

The burden of proof is on both of us.

The burden of proof is on the one who doesn't believe in Glupbummer? You're a riot.

---

We recently did a thread on synthetic life and how it demonstrates lineages of life can come into existence as the products of intellects. There is no demonstration that lineages of life can come into existence via some natural process.....yet you atheists still believe it does.

Claiming that atheistic world views are free from assertions is wrong.

That was an interesting thread. I expect the experience of learning how different artificial life forms will be from the 'wild' ones will have the opposite effect that you predict.

---

Definition.
"Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds"

If you actually follow the link and read, you'll see your statement is flatly wrong.

I have read tons about abiogenesis. It hasn't been shown to be true. It has never been observed. Yet it is believed as fact by atheists everywhere.

I don't believe it as a fact. Q.E.D.

[Mister Agenda]

If pressed most atheist would claim that abiogenesis happens or has happened somewhere. At least that is my experience after countless discussion with them. Maybe I am wrong...maybe atheists secretly believe there is an intelligent agent out there somewhere....that creates life.

Maybe most atheists are telling the truth when they say they don't know. Maybe you should try that.

First, there is nothing wrong with believing something which is not proven to be true.

Kind of depends on the claim, doesn't it? There's nothing wrong wit me taking your word for it that you tied your shoes this morning. Taking your word that you tied them with psychokinesis has a few more ramifications.

Even God has to believe somethings which are not proven to be true. If God is all powerful God can create a lessor being and trick that lessor being into thinking it is God. God knowing that He can do this has to wonder if He is not some lessor being being tricked by a covert superior being. God can't really know with absolute certainty....if He is God. It is a necessary truth that a world view must contain at least one assertion.

You seem to have a decent case that omniscience is impossible there, I give you that. But God doesn't HAVE to assert that he's God, he can accept it as tentatively true for practical purposes while still recognizing that he can't really know.

Second, I don't insist that abiogenesis is not true. God could have created the universe in such as fashion as to insure abiogenesis would happen. I just note that creation via intellect as a means to bring lineages of life into this world has been proven while abiogenesis has not.

And what difference would it make to you if the origin of life was simulated in a laboratory by replicating the conditions believed to have been the case at the time? What's the point of contending that it hasn't happened because it hasn't been observed, when observing things has never been the ultimate standard of determining whether something has happened? We've never observed a dinosaur walking either, are we to file that under 'we can't infer that dinosaurs could walk because we haven't actually observed it happening'?

[bennyboy]

Heywood, someone being utterly intellectually dishonest and beign called out for it is not an ad hominem. The fact that he's so dishonest and uninterested in actual debate is a relevant factor to how we should regard his claims.

No, this is wrong. One argument against Craig was that his background doesn't qualify him to establish a credible argument. That is in fact ad hominem.

Just because few here believe in his arguments doesn't mean that it's no longer worth arguing properly.

---

Unless the basis of WLC argument is his own authority.....you are committing the ad hominem fallacy by outright rejecting it. You may have good reason to not like WLC but that alone isn't sufficient reason to say a particular argument WLC makes must be bad.....so when you do so....it is you who loses credibility....not WLC.

Yeah, doubling down on the same bad argument isn't going to help you. As I said in the last post, and the original post, so you have no reason not to get this and are either terrible at reading comprehension or outright lying, I'm not rejecting the argument because WLC said it. I'm rejecting the argument because I have good reason to; aside from the man's long history of distorting science to fit his views, not to mention his lack of any relevant credentials, WLC has stated numerous times in print and speech that he will disregard anything that does not outright confirm his views about god, that when the evidence might contradict scripture, it is scripture that takes precedence.

The reason I reject the argument isn't because I don't like Craig, and I trust anyone willing to go back one page will be able to see your dishonest oversimplification of my position for what it is. The reason I reject it is because Craig is a presuppositionalist conman; he's ill educated, demonstrably dishonest, and states from the outset he refuses to come to the discussion honestly. Why should anyone trust the word of a man whose position is "I'm not going to consider anything that doesn't confirm what I already believe."?

I'm sorry, this is still textbook ad hominem. It doesn't matter if he's a conman. It doesn't matter what he stated about his way of reaching his ideas, and it doesn't matter if he's dishonest. What matters is the content of the ideas he's gone on record with, preferably in his very many formal debates.

The reason to reject an argument is, and only can be, because the argument is demonstrably false or poorly supported. And that's an easy enough claim to make about Craig's arguments-- why bother with the biographical metacommentary?

[Esquilax]

I'm sorry, this is still textbook ad hominem. It doesn't matter if he's a conman. It doesn't matter what he stated about his way of reaching his ideas, and it doesn't matter if he's dishonest. What matters is the content of the ideas he's gone on record with, preferably in his very many formal debates.

It absolutely does matter how he reaches his ideas, when that method infects his every idea with inexcusable bias. Presuppositionalism turns every argument into mere pretense on the part of the arguer; we are no longer getting a full account of all the facts, and a conclusion based upon them, but instead a collection of either facts or misrepresentations that lead exclusively to a predrawn conclusion, regardless of accuracy.

Doesn't the fact that a given position makes its holder stop actually debating seem kinda relevant, in an argument?

The reason to reject an argument is, and only can be, because the argument is demonstrably false or poorly supported. And that's an easy enough claim to make about Craig's arguments-- why bother with the biographical metacommentary?

Gee, I don't know: if a guy started off his argument with the statement "everything I'm about to say is a lie," would that level of metacommentary be germane to the argument he's about to make? Why should a slightly slimier version of precisely that sentiment be any less relevant?

[Heywood]

Even God has to believe somethings which are not proven to be true. If God is all powerful God can create a lessor being and trick that lessor being into thinking it is God. God knowing that He can do this has to wonder if He is not some lessor being being tricked by a covert superior being. God can't really know with absolute certainty....if He is God. It is a necessary truth that a world view must contain at least one assertion.

You seem to have a decent case that omniscience is impossible there, I give you that. But God doesn't HAVE to assert that he's God, he can accept it as tentatively true for practical purposes while still recognizing that he can't really know.

Accepting as tentatively true while recognizing it might be otherwise....is essentially an assertion in my opinion.

---

It absolutely does matter how he reaches his ideas, when that method infects his every idea with inexcusable bias. Presuppositionalism turns every argument into mere pretense on the part of the arguer; we are no longer getting a full account of all the facts, and a conclusion based upon them, but instead a collection of either facts or misrepresentations that lead exclusively to a predrawn conclusion, regardless of accuracy.

Doesn't the fact that a given position makes its holder stop actually debating seem kinda relevant, in an argument?

Gee, I don't know: if a guy started off his argument with the statement "everything I'm about to say is a lie," would that level of metacommentary be germane to the argument he's about to make? Why should a slightly slimier version of precisely that sentiment be any less relevant?

You presuppose every argument Craig makes is bad. You're guilty of "presuppositionalism".

[Chas]

You seem to have a decent case that omniscience is impossible there, I give you that. But God doesn't HAVE to assert that he's God, he can accept it as tentatively true for practical purposes while still recognizing that he can't really know.

Accepting as tentatively true while recognizing it might be otherwise....is essentially an assertion in my opinion.

---

It absolutely does matter how he reaches his ideas, when that method infects his every idea with inexcusable bias. Presuppositionalism turns every argument into mere pretense on the part of the arguer; we are no longer getting a full account of all the facts, and a conclusion based upon them, but instead a collection of either facts or misrepresentations that lead exclusively to a predrawn conclusion, regardless of accuracy.

Doesn't the fact that a given position makes its holder stop actually debating seem kinda relevant, in an argument?

Gee, I don't know: if a guy started off his argument with the statement "everything I'm about to say is a lie," would that level of metacommentary be germane to the argument he's about to make? Why should a slightly slimier version of precisely that sentiment be any less relevant?

You presuppose every argument Craig makes is bad. You're guilty of "presuppositionalism".

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

You go on making up meanings, BlowJob - it's what you're good at.

[Esquilax]

You presuppose every argument Craig makes is bad. You're guilty of "presuppositionalism".

Recognizing other people's presuppositionalism is not presuppositionalism. It's a simple acceptance of the facts: Craig presupposes the truth of his religious worldview in the face of any and all facts. This is a thing that he has stated to be true, and merely understanding that this is totally what he has said is not literally the same thing as what he's doing, that's lunacy.

And it's fascinating that the guy accusing me of a fallacy for so long leaps so easily to the tu cuoque fallacy himself.

Besides, I'm an atheist, and I'm familiar with Craig's roster of arguments too. Why wouldn't I think that a worldview that only leads to the christian god would be full of bad arguments? Not believing in god is kinda the job description, here. If I thought an argument in favor of god was true, I wouldn't be an atheist.