Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

[Deus Ex Machina]

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.

There is no point in debating the "existence of god" because that debate as stated, presupposes that the concept "god" has some sort of validity. You have allowed him or her to beg that question.

Almost all theists I have run into, when challenged on THAT point resort to to related arguments:

1) The universe must have been started by something/someone (the unmoved mover in Thomism).

The answer is to point out that the first part of this hypothesis requires that the universe cannot make itself (an unproven assertion) and secondly that someting unmade made it - which is a wonderful piece of circular logic.

The first part of the argument is that every effect has a cause and that no cause can exist without a prior effect.. The argument then progresses to - well then there must be a "prime mover" something that causes without itself being caused. this sounds wonderful until you realize that what is being done in this argument is to state a set of conditions and, then, bring in an argument where those conditions do not apply as a way to resolve the first argument.

2) The wonder and beauty and natural laws of the universe show a divine inspiration.

This is really a redaction of point 1.

No-one "sucks" at debate. Most people never bother to learn how to do it. Learn the logical fallacies for a start, then take a look over the subject of debate and logic. Take your time, learn the rudimentary basics and you will find yourself cutting apart these wafflers.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
However, what this has to do with anything whatsoever is quite beyond me. We're purely interested in what the probability is prior to finding ourselves here. If that probability is extremely low, but nevertheless we find ourselves in such a low probability Universe, then we know that something has gone wrong with our reasoning.


rocketdodger
I think this has everything to do with what we are talking about. If the probability was extremely low, but nevertheless we are here, then we can simply say thats the way the dice rolled. A being in some other universe could look at us and say "holy cow, they got really lucky to even be existing" but from our point of view there is no luck -- we already exist.

It's no good simply saying you disagree with me. You need to provide arguments. But there aren't any. What you're saying is simply absurd. If something with what appears to be a very low prior probability (eg 1 in a googolplex) occurs, then we effectively know that it cannot have actually had such a low probability. But I repeat myself. {shrugs}

I stand by my claim that the probability of our universe existing is unity, and therefore theological arguments based on that probability hold no water.

Well you're wrong, it's as simple as that. You haven't even come up with any arguments. Just making unsubstantiated assertions doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I can do so perfectly easily. Just imagine experiencing qualia which exhibits no patterns.

rocketdodger
You can't imagine such a thing, because the attribute of "no patterns" is a pattern.

No it isn't. That's like saying you can't have a string of random numbers because all strings of numbers exhibit patterns. But they don't.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
What definition? Consciousness is impossible to define.

rocketdodger
You mean define completely.

No I don't.

Certainly we can define it in part. "what I am," for instance. My claim is that what we think of as consciousness could not exist in an unordered system.

"What I am" does not count as a definition. It's meaningless.

What do you mean by could not? I take it you mean logically impossible? In which case you need to spell out the inherent contradiction in such a notion. I await your reply with interest.

 

[rocketdodger]

It's no good simply saying you disagree with me. You need to provide arguments. But there aren't any. What you're saying is simply absurd. If something with what appears to be a very low prior probability (eg 1 in a googolplex) occurs, then we effectively know that it cannot have actually had such a low probability. But I repeat myself. {shrugs}

My arguments are probability theory! If you roll a die there is a 1/6 chance of landing a 1. Upon rolling a 1, you are asserting that we can decide that probability must have been higher? That doesn't make sense to me. Even if we roll the 1 on the first try, that is no license to think our calculations were off. If, on the other hand, we roll the die twice and both rolls are a 1, we might start to suspect we are off.

My claim is that regardless of the estimated probability of an event, if you only choose once, you can't make any inferences about the accuracy of your original estimate unless that estimate is zero. But one in a googleplex is much greater than zero...

Well you're wrong, it's as simple as that. You haven't even come up with any arguments. Just making unsubstantiated assertions doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

You will have to show me how a single event of low probability occuring can change the prior probability of that event. Again, I just don't see how you come up with this notion.

No it isn't. That's like saying you can't have a string of random numbers because all strings of numbers exhibit patterns. But they don't.

I am not saying that. A random number is still a "number", and all numbers at least exhibit the pattern of "being a number."

What does it mean to "not have a pattern?" It means to not have a pattern. But isn't "not having a pattern" also a type of pattern?

"What I am" does not count as a definition. It's meaningless.

Not at all! How else could I define myself to myself in the absence of any other classifier? It might be meaningless to you, but not in general.

What do you mean by could not? I take it you mean logically impossible? In which case you need to spell out the inherent contradiction in such a notion. I await your reply with interest.

I don't mean logically impossible, perhaps I should not have said "could not." What I mean is that I think this is in the realm of things that are impossible for us to imagine but are not logically impossible because we can't find a contradiction.

We can't get a verdict on this, however, until you show me that a human can conceive of a completely unordered reality. I don't think we can, for reasons I already explained.

 

[Dr Adequate]

These following statements by Dr A are inconsistent.

They are not. One is a specific example of the other.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Too bad that's not the topic Dr adequate is prepared to discuss; he prefers to keep discussing things he believes he understands.

Do you ever actually mean anything? If so, may I urge you to say it?

For starters, who are you talking to about what?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Instead we can change it to:

1) An example of a non-conscious process which produces order is the action of my arms and hands in sorting the pebbles on the beach and putting them into pretty patterns.

2) My arms and hands are not conscious.

3) Nevertheless the sorting is a direct consequence of intelligent design.

You can indeed change what I've said. Specifically, you can change it from something which is a counterexample to something which isn't and then complain about that instead of any actual statement I've made.

Yeah, you do that, you're good at it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Right that's it, I've had enough of people on here. People just ignore all my arguments and assert I'm wrong without ever justifying their stance.

Well believe what you like, I've had enough.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think I see how this works.

Woo : The ultimate metaphysical entity is called John Smith.

Me : Evidence?

Woo : Here are lots of things made by a guy called John Smith.

Me : But here is something made by a guy called Fred Bloggs, and not John Smith.

Woo : You fool! Haven't I told you that EVERYTHING is made by John Smith!

Me : Yes, you did. I was very impressed by the confidence with which you asserted it.

Woo : So when you claim that something is "made by Fred Bloggs" this is circular reasoning, because it requires the assumption that some things were not made by John Smith.

Me : Did YOU just use the phrase "circular reasoning"?

 

[rocketdodger]

Well believe what you like, I've had enough.

Well its just you and me now Dr. Adequate. Since I think we agree maybe this thread is dead (and we won).

 

[Z]

Right that's it, I've had enough of people on here. People just ignore all my arguments and assert I'm wrong without ever justifying their stance.

Well believe what you like, I've had enough.

You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[hammegk]

If there's a physical, .....

Why yes, that is the question; "Is existence 'physical'?".

So what.

As II continues to point out, assuming it exists to "demonstrate logically" it exists is circular.

 

[Bellatrix]

what are you doing wrong?
I have to say that argree with previous posts saying that your problem is that your debating a theist, but to put it more tackfuly let me give you some insight into the mind of a beleiver. Belivers tend to think that everything they say about their god is true... no matter what. I was one once and no one could desude me from my beleif that God was not only there, but took personal interest in every one of us. I'm no good at debate so I can't help you there, all I can offer is he's going to remain firm in his beleif until he relizes for himself that it doesn't make sense.

 

[scimystic]

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.

Mark,

As you are already debating your theist you are probably sunk for this particular round. The two of you are arguing from a shared understanding of observation and observation based reason as acceptable criterion for knowledge. But you are also arguing from a divergent understanding of a second criterion. You both have something called 'truth'. You mean by this 'proposals that you can objectively prove'. He or she means by it 'proposals that must be embraced on the basis of their subjective appeal and their source in ancient authority'. If you can clarify your theist's position sufficiently to get them to understand that their beliefs cannot be seen to qualify as knowledge on any basis that you can understand (and even this is about as easy as nailing jello to a wall) then they will simply activate the 'faith escape' and walk away with their beliefs unscathed (through their assertion that these beliefs qualify as 'truth', on their basis, which you do not understand). In other words, from where you are now, you can't win.

There is a way to win, but it requires at least 3 phases, and if the first 2 are not well executed then the theist will, in Phase 3, still be able to grasp the faith escape lever.

Phase 1 is to agree a basis for knowledge. 'If any proposal can be seen to have the following characteristic(s):................................ then we will embrace it as knowledge. If it can be seen not to have them, then we won't.'
If your theist won't agree to this in any form then ask them to return to the intellectual sandbox and come back again when they are honestly ready to proceed.

Phase 2 is to functionally clarify your theist's position. 'I will establish as knowledge, on the basis that we have agreed in Phase 1, the existence of a Supernatural Being who is defined by his/its possession of the following characteristics:..................................... And if I cannot so demonstrate this then I will publicly disavow my previous belief in the aforesaid Being'. Again, if your theist is unwilling to go here, then assure him that you are, in regard to every proposal that you embrace as knowledge, and invite him to come back if/when he is prepared to match your commitment.

Phase 3 is to go ahead and use the arguments that we have been developing for at least the past 2500 years to annihilate your theist's position. [For a good grounding in these arguments see Martin and Monnier's 'The Impossibility of God', and George Smith's 'The Case Against God'.] If you have executed Phase 2 properly then the annihilation will be clean and compelling. His proposals - which, trust me, will be absurd - will finally be transparently and undenieably absurd. If you have executed Phase 1 properly then he will not be able to pull the faith escape lever. You have pre agreed your criteria for knowledge. 'Faith in it's being 'the truth'' will probably not (unless you are better than I at teasing some legitimate meaning out of this mush) have been among them. Your theist will finally be able to triumph over his sillyness, or he will be able to withdraw without intellectual honor or credibility and explicitly take his place among the tooth fairy believers.

Good luck and good hunting,

K

 

[rocketdodger]

..snip..

In other words, from where you are now, you can't win.

There is a way to win, but it requires at least 3 phases, and if the first 2 are not well executed then the theist will, in Phase 3, still be able to grasp the faith escape lever.

..snip..

I disagree. This guy seems really sharp, and doesn't seem to be making the mistake of getting into the dogmatic attributes of the theistic god -- he is limiting the discussion to pure metaphysics. Anyone well versed in the subject knows that at that level its a draw.

 

[scimystic]

I disagree. This guy seems really sharp, and doesn't seem to be making the mistake of getting into the dogmatic attributes of the theistic god -- he is limiting the discussion to pure metaphysics. Anyone well versed in the subject knows that at that level its a draw.

Rocket,

Sharp or not, and metaphysics or not, it doesn't matter. If the guy is unprepared to state any defining characteristics then his proposal fails as knowledge then and there. [As in: "I assert the existence of a thrimble". "And what, sir, do you mean by 'a thrimble'"? "Well, I can't tell you. But it exists".] If he is prepared to state characteristics - whether metaphysical or not - and if Phase 1 has been properly executed, then he is irrevocably on our ground. His proposals can be dismissed here as cleanly and definitively as if they were of his being a poached egg, or a teapot in solar orbit.

Best regards,

K

 

[Bri]

He didn't have to. Mark did it for him:

Actually, let me clarify my last statement: With no evidence, what reason would I have to even "speculate" the existance of an omnipotent/omniscent/omnibenevolent being that rules the universe?

Even assuming Mulopwepaul accepts these characteristics, he was very careful not to make any positive claim of the existence of such a being:

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.

-Bri

 

[rocketdodger]

Rocket,

Sharp or not, and metaphysics or not, it doesn't matter. If the guy is unprepared to state any defining characteristics then his proposal fails as knowledge then and there. [As in: "I assert the existence of a thrimble". "And what, sir, do you mean by 'a thrimble'"? "Well, I can't tell you. But it exists".] If he is prepared to state characteristics - whether metaphysical or not - and if Phase 1 has been properly executed, then he is irrevocably on our ground. His proposals can be dismissed here as cleanly and definitively as if they were of his being a poached egg, or a teapot in solar orbit.

Best regards,

K

I agree with you here. But my point is that this guy doesn't seem to be asserting anything other than the impossibility of ruling out a god, and to that extent he can't be defeated in an argument. We can say with certainty that 2 + 2 =|= 5, but not that a god doesn't exist.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh for God's sake.

What a waste of time and space this discussion board is. It seems that scarcely anyone's intellect exceeds that of a gorilla's

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh for God's sake.

What a waste of time and space this discussion board is. It seems that scarcely anyone's intellect exceeds that of a gorilla's

Ian you had your chance to contribute to the discussion between us gorillas, you tried to assert arguments that don't hold, and then resorted to name calling when you got frustrated with our intelligence as if it is somehow our fault that we cannot understand wtf you are asserting.

If you would rather participate in hit and run name calling than actually contribute, so be it, but don't accuse the board of being a waste of time. It is certainly a waste of your time, if this is how you want to behave, but not ours.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian you had your chance to contribute to the discussion between us gorillas, you tried to assert arguments that don't hold, and then resorted to name calling when you got frustrated with our intelligence as if it is somehow our fault that we cannot understand wtf you are asserting.

If you would rather participate in hit and run name calling than actually contribute, so be it, but don't accuse the board of being a waste of time. It is certainly a waste of your time, if this is how you want to behave, but not ours.

No, it is a waste of time because no atheist, no skeptic ever seems to understand anything. Even all these people who are fond of inserting "Dr" in their names.

A complete total waste of time.

Enjoy your lives.