On November 18th, I will debate Dr. Joe Hinman on the topic of the existence of God.
Good luck, David. He doesn’t have a prayer 
God the creator being is inherently irrational and contradictory: A consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acts outside of time.
This guy will no doubt run away from the contradictions and toward the fine-tuning argument.
Will someone record it? Even if you never publish it, a recording would be a great way to learn what requires improvement.
Help me out with this one please, because I am stuck:
It seems to me that it is impossible to experience physical evidence that either proves or disproves God’s existence. Human technology just isn’t to the point where we can send a camera out to the very edges of existence and say, “well, no God here”. So, even though the Godless scenario is obviously the more likely and reasonable, it still seems unscientific to me to be absolutely assured that there is no God.
Is that a correct way of thinking?
Help me out with this one please, because I am stuck:
It seems to me that it is impossible to experience physical evidence that either proves or disproves God’s existence. Human technology just isn’t to the point where we can send a camera out to the very edges of existence and say, “well, no God here”. So, even though the Godless scenario is obviously the more likely and reasonable, it still seems unscientific to me to be absolutely assured that there is no God.
Is that a correct way of thinking?
Contradictions are not possible. Any claimed definition of God involves a contradiction. Beyond those definitions, “god” is an empty word, as meaningful as “flarghn”.
As for the contradiction in your post - what is meant by observing something at or beyond “the edge of existence”?
Help me out with this one please, because I am stuck:
It seems to me that it is impossible to experience physical evidence that either proves or disproves God’s existence. Human technology just isn’t to the point where we can send a camera out to the very edges of existence and say, “well, no God here”. So, even though the Godless scenario is obviously the more likely and reasonable, it still seems unscientific to me to be absolutely assured that there is no God.
Is that a correct way of thinking?
There is no physical evidence, but there is logical evidence. You can’t have physical evidence of supernatural claims, it doesn’t make those claims disprovable.
There is no physical evidence, but there is logical evidence. You can’t have physical evidence of supernatural claims, it doesn’t make those claims disprovable.
And what is the logical evidence?
And one does not have to disprove anything.
‘GreedyCapitalist’
On November 18th, I will debate Dr. Joe Hinman on the topic of the existence of God.
Some time ago, I debated a local “right to life” committee in a public forum; it attracted about 250 people and the local press; I was essentially alone! They tried to cut me off on several occasions; I reminded them that they invited me and the rules gave me equal time. Given the press was in attendance, they yielded.
It was tough! And at the end, about 20 pro-lifers gathered around me and started their attack. I remained calm throughout - which infuriated them: they wanted an emotional, not intellectual, debate and did not get it. The press was somewhat surprised as well.
This might give you a couple clues as to how it might all come down. Good luck, stay focused.
Help me out with this one please, because I am stuck:
It seems to me that it is impossible to experience physical evidence that either proves or disproves God’s existence.
Actually… that’s a different question than what GreedyCapitalist has said he’s going to debate. He is going to debate whether or not there is a “rational warrant for the belief in God”.
It really should be a short debate since all descriptions and definitions of God clearly state that He can exist outside of the laws of the universe, outside the laws of logic and outside of human rationale. So then, by definition you must “believe” and not know by rationale. How can anyone possibly argue only using our earthly powers of reason to explain something that is beyond reason and does not even claim to adhere to it.
As for proving or disproving God. You’re right that you cannot literally disprove God since proving the absence of something non physical and non-measurable in a potentially infinite universe is… well… pretty much the definition of impossible. The existence of God could, however, be proven since he is ostensibly an omniscient being with limitless powers. A simultaneous world-wide physical materialization of Himself in front of every living human would suffice (imho).
Anyway, I don’t have a problem with believers only because they are believers. As long as the person philosophically understands, admits and accepts that their belief IS outside of all reason and rationale. I do know some people like this, but it is rare.
I’m interested in how this debate will go. I’m trying to think if there is any way to play with the words to make a “rational warrant for belief in God”. I suppose one could take the position that:
“It is rational to believe in God because it makes me feel better. It makes me happy. I grant that basing my actions on ‘God’s will’ is irrational because there’s no certain and objective way to know God’s will. All things being equal if I chose not to believe in God, I would be unhappy all my life and that would be irrational.”
lol That’s the best I can do.
Kinda reminds me of the famous quote:
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.” Donald Rumsfeld
Believing in unknown unknowns might bring some people inner peace. :pirate:
‘Weston’ date=‘Nov 13 2009, 02:10 PM’ post=‘236356’
It seems to me that it is impossible to experience physical evidence that either proves or disproves God’s existence.
And if he says that, you just say: that’s true, but the burden of proof is on you - the believer.
Logic dictates that. Keep it as simple as possible.
And what is the logical evidence?
And one does not have to disprove anything.
There have been a million threads on this subject. Move to one of them
There have been a million threads on this subject. Move to one of them
That was not a question; it was a rhetorical response to you.
You said “There is no physical evidence, but there is logical evidence. You can’t have physical evidence of supernatural claims, it doesn’t make those claims disprovable.”
There is no logical evidence - unless you want to present some.
And one does not have to disprove those claims.
Do you understand what I am saying?
It still seems unscientific to me to be absolutely assured that there is no God.
Is that a correct way of thinking?
Not exactly. It’s beyond the domains of science to say that anything is absolutely (i.e. without context) assured. But the (contextual) assurance that there is no god is philosophical, not scientific.
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.” Donald Rumsfeld
My favorite obfuscation :pirate:
As for the contradiction in your post - what is meant by observing something at or beyond “the edge of existence”?
It was an exaggeration. I meant to make the point that God (according to theists) is a supernatural being, and we as humans have no way to observe or experiment with things of supernatural qualities (I know supernatural things cannot exist, but there is only logical proof even of that).
There have been a million threads on this subject. Move to one of them
That is going to be a little hard, since “God” has only three characters, and the search won’t return any results. I know I’ve had a very hard time trying to find those threads.
Will there be a video available to watch, for those of us who live far away?
That is going to be a little hard, since “God” has only three characters, and the search won’t return any results. I know I’ve had a very hard time trying to find those threads.
I put in “Deity”. You can find several topics, though there are many that contain that word
google: god site:forum.objectivismonline.net
Will someone record it? Even if you never publish it, a recording would be a great way to learn what requires improvement.
Yes, I have had many people requested it and my opponent is OK with it.