Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

[Achán hiNidráne]

On The Miniatures Page, in a thread on The DuuuuhVinci code, I made a crack about how entertaining it was to watch Christians get bent out of shape over a work of bad iction when they believe in their own, equally banal fiction (i.e. God). Of course, I'm now locked in a tooth and nail battle with a theist over the existance of God.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=76067

I'm getting nowhere, can I get some pointers? I suck at debate.

 

[geetarmoore]

On The Miniatures Page, in a thread on The DuuuuhVinci code, I made a crack about how entertaining it was to watch Christians get bent out of shape over a work of bad iction when they believe in their own, equally banal fiction (i.e. God). Of course, I'm now locked in a tooth and nail battle with a theist over the existance of God.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=76067

I'm getting nowhere, can I get some pointers? I suck at debate.

From everything I've seen, you'll never get anywhere. Theists have to make their own mind up about the the ignorance of theistic beliefs. I've never seen anyone become 'won over' in an Internet debate on the topic.....

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

The answer comes after the question this isnt Jeopardy.

What am I doing wrong? Debating a theist.

 

[roger]

I think you are getting owned a little bit.

The poster feels that the orderly laws of the universe is circumstantial evidence for a creator, but freely admits that it is speculation. Can't see a problem with that, myself, though I don't share his opinion.

A possible response is to ask him to come up with a unruly set of rules (no pun intended). The natural order argument has never resonated with me because, for things to work, they kind of have to, well, work. That's stated naively, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

But really, that's not going to hold any truck with him, since he is making the supposition, and agrees that it is a supposition, that a creator is probably required to create natural laws.

He hasn't provided evidence, agrees he hasn't, but says his intuition about how things probably are lead him to theism. Your and my intuition leads us to atheism. No biggie. Nothing proven in either case.

 

[Bri]

"You obviously haven't noticed, but the universe is NOT in a orderly nature; from small scaled chaos like torandos, earthquakes, and tsunamis, to cosmic-scale events like supernova, black holes, and entropy.

Hardly the work of an "intellegent designer.""

You can argue with what I wrote, or you can argue with what you wish I'd wrote. Which will it be?

I cite the orderly nature of nature's laws, not the order of the entire universe itself.

This is the problem with atheism, if pursued logically. It ultimately must deny the existence of reason to escape confronting the origin and logical conclusions of reason and the rational nature of the universe's laws.

The problem of evil (which you seem to be anxious to engage) can only be examined once you have bought into a fundamentally moral nature of the universe, and that only comes after you have accepted the fundamentally rational and meaningful nature of the universe.

Surely someone can point out the flaws in this argument.

First, I didn't see where you attempted to engage in the problem of evil. You (correctly) placed the burden of proof on him. His "proof" seems to be that atheism "must deny the existence of reason to escape confronting the origin and logical conclusions of reason and the rational nature of the universe's laws."

My first question is...what is the "origin and logical conclusions of reason and the rational nature of the universe's laws" of which he speaks?

It sounds as though he's trying to claim that because reason exists, it must have been created by a rational being. My second question might be: then who created the rational being which is also rational and therefore must have been created by a rational being?

-Bri

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The short answer (already given by another poster): what you are doing wrong is debating a theist.

The long answer: Your problem lies in your opening post. by saying "God is a work of fiction" you have indeed made a claim and the burden of proof then falls upon you. Had you said something more along the lines of "Christians can't prove their God is real" then the burden of proving the unprovable would indeed fall upon anyone who argues otherwise.

 

[roger]

Okay, now he has put his foot in it. Ask him to justify this statement:

Either the physical laws of the universe are grounded in an underlying metaphysical reason (which by definition cannot be fully accessible to human reason) or one has no concrete reason to believe that the sun will in fact rise in the East tomorrow.

A simple "Evidence" or "why" will suffice. Or, more civily "I don't understand why you say this. Could you clarify your reasoning on this point for me?"
Make sure he is the one making the claims, not you. Just keep coming back with questions, not your own assertions.

 

[Jimbo07]

one has no concrete reason to believe that the sun will in fact rise in the East tomorrow.

Actually, he's correct. It is not rational to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

This is an error, however, because it leads to an unnecessary God as follows:

Belief, by definition, must be irrational. The most rational of us hold irrational beliefs in order to get by. It is irrational to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is perfectly rational to bet that it will. It is highly probable that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is an inherent uncertainty in physical results.

In a probabilistic universe, God may not be necessary.

...

myself, I don't know.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

"Either the physical laws of the universe are grounded in an underlying metaphysical reason (which by definition cannot be fully accessible to human reason) or one has no concrete reason to believe that the sun will in fact rise in the East tomorrow."

Or maybe physical laws of the universe are grounded in underlying natural reasons we have yet determined. They would certainly look metaphysical without adequate understanding.

Isn't anything natural but not understood often considered supernatural? Lightning, stars, earthquakes. Weren't these the acts and evidence of gods before we better understood electricity, nuclear fusion, and tectonic plates.?

We have better reason to believe the sun will in fact rise in the East than in the West. Why? Experience based on evidence.

Do we have better reason to believe the natural laws have natural origin rather than supernatural origin. What experience based on what evidence?

To say definitively that there is no God is extrapolation based on past tendencies in human history.
To say definitively that there is a God is conjecture based on simply making God whatever supernatural is, which is conveniently unknowable through natural observation (evidence).

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

"All I've undertaken is to show that the existence of God cannot be ruled out, and that there is reason to believe something metaphysical/supernatural underpins both the laws of the universe and our ability to comprehend them—which is itself a working out of those natural laws."

What reason is there to believe something supernatural underpins natural laws and our perception?

Why can't laws have their basis in other laws as yet formulated and conceptualized by humans.

You can make the source of a natural law some greater natural law. Then the theist will make God the source of the new natural law.

The only thing we've learned in history, is that God actually does less than previous generations thought. At the same time, we've learned that if there is a God, he's a lot smarter than previous generations gave Him credit for.

 

[Jimbo07]

"All I've undertaken is to show that the existence of God cannot be ruled out,

And it's hard to disagree.

and that there is reason to believe something metaphysical/supernatural underpins both the laws of the universe and our ability to comprehend them—which is itself a working out of those natural laws."

What reason is there to believe something supernatural underpins natural laws and our perception?

Just because something cannot be ruled out doesn't make it overwhelmingly likely, either.

You can make the source of a natural law some greater natural law. Then the theist will make God the source of the new natural law.

Yup. God-of-the-gaps is a neat trick to be used by either side.

The only thing we've learned in history, is that God actually does less than previous generations thought. At the same time, we've learned that if there is a God, he's a lot smarter than previous generations gave Him credit for.

I really like this last statement... just sayin' is all...

 

[geni]

A possible response is to ask him to come up with a unruly set of rules (no pun intended).

Univsersal constants that are not universal or change over short time scales would be the logical candidates.

 

[Tricky]

In this and most debates with Christians, the question is going to eventually boil down to the source of authority. You are, for better or for worse, going to have to challenge the authority of the Bible. This is actually easy to do, what with the unknown authorship, the delayed writing, the scientific impossibilities and the outright contradictions, but if you do, then you will probably send them into a frenzy. So maybe something like a simple question.

Q: Do you believe the bible is infallibe?

If the answer is "yes" then you can say, "then nothing I say can change your mind, so let's just drop it.

If the answer is "no" then ask "how can you be sure which parts are correct and which parts can be ignored?" or "how can you be sure your interpretation is correct?"

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

In this and most debates with Christians, the question is going to eventually boil down to the source of authority.

Not if the Christian is smart enough to avoid it. Keeping God simple and ambiguous will keep God free of an authoritative literature. Then, any theist can use the "God is evident in the universe" approach.

You're right though, pin God to the Bible, and for the non-Christian, things get a lot . . . less . . . trickier? [puts pinky to bottom lip, raises eyebrows]

 

[Jimbo07]

Not if the Christian is smart enough to avoid it. Keeping God simple and ambiguous will keep God free of an authoritative literature. Then, any theist can use the "God is evident in the universe" approach.

Ack! Definitions!

Isn't this what people were calling a Deist as opposed to a Theist?

 

[dahduh]

Both Nyarlathotep and Tricky have good points.

1. Establish the claim
2. Prove it

Presumably your theist is upset because Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene. This claim is largely based on the apocryphal gospel of Philip, in which Mary is described as Jesus' "companion" and, with some stretching and interpolation, one can infer that he kissed her liked to kiss her on the mouth in a manner that rather peeved the disciples. In the gospel of Mary, Peter says "we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman," which if you are of a lewd disposition can be interpreted to mean a physical relation. In other words, the evidence is thin at best, and your theist would almost certainly reject this interpretation.

On the other hand, the gospels voted in at the Council of Nicea claim among other things that Jesus rose from the dead, and enjoyed a suspiciously brief and ephemeral existence before ascending to heaven. You could ask your theist how he would approach this story if he had never encountered it before. Would he apply the same standard of evidence that he would apply to the gospels of Phillip and Mary? Knowing that the the testaments of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were selected by popular vote from a number of testaments, can they be considered to offer a balanced historical truth? Considering that three of these books at least were written more than 100 years after the event, at a time when the authors had every interest in presenting Jesus in the best possible light? Why not consider the gospels of Phillip and Mary equally seriously? Or the Koran for that matter?

When it comes down to it, the only thing we can be certain about is that Da Vinci Code openly presents itself as fiction, whereas the scriptures, perhaps less honestly, do not.

 

[blutoski]

On the other hand, the gospels voted in at the Council of Nicea claim among other things that Jesus rose from the dead, and enjoyed a suspiciously brief and ephemeral existence before ascending to heaven.

I haven't read tDvC, but what of Evangelista? Does it get mentioned in the novel?

 

[ceo_esq]

Considering that three of these books at least were written more than 100 years after the event ...

Excuse me? The dates generally proposed by scholars for composition of the canonical Gospels are roughly in the following ranges:

Mark: 65-80
Matthew: 80-100
Luke: 80-130
John: 90-120

It's possible that all four were composed less than 60 years after the last events related by them, and highly unlikely that all were not already in existence 100 years after such events.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

These folks don't seem to like an extra serving of fiction with their fiction.

~~ Paul

 

[roger]

Actually, he's correct. It is not rational to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

This is an error, however, because it leads to an unnecessary God as follows:

Belief, by definition, must be irrational. The most rational of us hold irrational beliefs in order to get by. It is irrational to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is perfectly rational to bet that it will. It is highly probable that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is an inherent uncertainty in physical results.

In a probabilistic universe, God may not be necessary.

...

myself, I don't know.

I don't strictly hold with Popper. Popper argues that the sun rising tomorrow is an inductive argument (which is still rational I take exception with you there, but just not guaranteed). I argue (but not here, it'd take a book) that the sun rising is a deductive conclusion, so long as we rule out solipistic/brain in a vat/the Matrix type assumptions. I'll gladly stipulate that those assumptions are possible, but if any are true we can devise no test to prove it, so I'm warranted to ignore them until we come up with a test.

And yes, I recognize I am asserting, not proving the above. Can't put 20 years of thought in one post, you see. Or I'm lazy. Something like that.