Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

[otseng]

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538

[no evidence no belief]

But can you see why it's problematic to use our own private, internally consistent, definition, if this private internally consistent definition is diametrically opposite to the definition of the human race? Can you see how that might lead to some confusion?

I would not say that it is "diametrically opposite". Rather, I think there is significant overlap. But, I do agree that confusion can exist.

Ok, thanks.

For the purposes of this debate, all we need is to determine the immediate cause of the universe - whether it is NIH or IH. We do not need to determine the cause of NIH or IH.

We'll need to get back to this. It is germane to the issue of falsifiability, in my opinion.

Really? OK, we can discuss this.

If it's ok, let's save this for after we're done with definitions issues. Maybe we can discuss this argument for NIH concurrently to the fine tuning argument, which is for IH.

We can discuss it another time, but for the record, I think theology is a made up discipline.

Sure, if NIH is true, theology is just a bunch of bunk and based on fiction. If IH is true, then theology is a legitimate field.

I still disagree. Theology is the field of study of things which are not supported by evidence and logic.

There is significant dependence on evidence and logic. In (Evangelical) Christian theology, the evidence is primarily the Bible. Doctrines must be formulated by scriptural support. So, you might not agree with the evidence, but it is still supported by evidence (the Bible) and logic.

Well, if you're beholden to logic to any degree at all, you must be interested in the reliability of the premises on which you base your conclusions, and on the strength of the evidence on which you base the premises.

Without asking yourself whether the Bible is a reliable source of truth, then Evangelical Christian theology based on the evidence of the Bible, is no more of a legitimate pathway to truth than Evangelical Middle-Earth theology based on the evidence of the Lord of the Rings (if such a thing existed).

If you accept that the Bible is irrefutably true, then evangelical theological claims may or may not be logically consistent with that initial assumption, much like if you accept that the Lord of the Rings is true, then claims about Middle-Earth may or may not be consistent with that initial assumption.

But it's MANDATORY for anybody who cares about truth to ask herself: Is the assumption that the Bible, the Lord of the Rings, the Koran, Scientology Literature, Greek Mithology are true.... justified? Is such an assumption supported by logic and evidence?


If 2 + 3 = 6, then it's logically accurate to claim that 6 - 3 = 2.

But the conclusion, while consistent with the premise, has ZERO truth value, if the premise is not-true.

I'm sure you agree with this basic argument, and that our disagreement is on the actual truth of some Bible claims. We should wait until we discuss theism to look at this in more depth.

If it turned out that IH were supported by evidence and logic, then it would indeed be reasonable to consider it true, but in that very instant it would stop being the purview of theology and be the purview of science.

That's quite a claim. I do not see how you can support such a claim.

Mmm. I thought it would be obvious to you as well. Never mind, we don't need to dwell on this, unless it becomes a major point of contention in our central debate.

Of course, my thesis on this matter is completely destroyed if you can present an example of a theological claim which is supported by logic and evidence.

Well, what we're discussing is the very first verse of the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1

Yup. If God is defined as an intelligent entity with the ability to create, and logic and evidence are found to support that hypothesis, then your argument for deism will have been made, and we can go on to discuss theism.

If the entire human race forgot how to talk, and we had to reinvent all languages, and we decided to assign the label "natural" to things which are downstream of the big bang in the causal chain, and "supernatural" to things which are upstream, there would be no problem whatsoever. The definition is perfectly clear, and perfectly functional.

The problem is that we don't live in a vacuum, humanity has not forgotten its languages. Languages already exist and the words "natural" and "supernatural" are already taken.

That's why you suggested to link back to our accepted definitions so that readers would know how we are using terms.

I changed my mind. As you yourself admitted, it would generate confusion. Not just among external readers, but among ourselves as well. After all, you yourself admitted that you accidentally used the word "naturalistic" (as defined outside this debate) when you intended mechanistic.

We could decide, for the purpose of discussing who is the best boxer who ever lived, to define a "hobbit" as a person with two arms and two legs. In and of itself, that definition is perfectly fine, clear and not contradictory. Under that definition, Mike Tyson would be a Hobbit. No problem.

We are not defining words to mean things that are totally different. When we say that something is natural means that something is part of our universe, this is totally compatible with accepted definitions. Further, when we say that something is supernatural means something that is outside our universe, again, it is totally compatible with standard definitions.

When we say that a "Hobbit" means a person with two arms and two legs, it is totally compatible with standard definitions. "Hobbit" have two arms and tow legs. "Hobbit" is compatible with having two arms and two legs.

But that's not good enough. "Compatibility" is not good enough.

Imagine we were trying to find a label to describe Mike Tyson. The fact that some element of "being a hobbit" is compatible with what we're trying to label, is not sufficient to compensate for the fact that so much more about "being a hobbit" is fundamentally incompatible with what we're trying to label.

We're trying to describe "something outside the universe". The fact that some element of "supernatural" is compatible with what we're trying to label, is not sufficient to compensate for the fact that so much more about "supernatural" (according to uncontrovertial, globally accepted definitions) is fundamentally incompatible with what we're trying to label (necromancy, magic talismans, religious faith, fairies, demons, etc).

To everybody in the world, the word supernatural is inextricably intertwined with fairies, magic, occult, religion, faith, theology, dragons, leprechauns, tarot cards, love potions, witches, unicorns, etc.

Actually, I would not disagree. But even though I do not believe in fairies, tarot cards, and love potions, I am not opposed to the usage of the word supernatural.

Sure, you don't believe in fairies, but would you not agree that if fairies, as commonly defined, DID exist, they would be supernatural? Irrespective of whether you believe in fairies, you agree that "supernatural" is an accurate word to describe them, right? Ditto necromancy, magic potions and leprechauns.

Irrespective of whether one believes in any particular supernatural being or claim, the consensus is pretty strong that "supernatural" is the word to describe these beings.

Sure, people have they own concepts of the supernatural. But, there's not going to be any terms that we use that are free from personal interpretations.

Surely you're not saying that because no term is entirely free from personal interpretation, then it's ok to arbitrarily use any word to describe any concept, irrespective of how egregiously the redefinition of the term runs counter to standard definitions, right?

Sure, there's not going to be any terms that we use that are free from personal interpretations. So is it ok to interpret the term "Hobbit" as a description of Mike Tyson?

It's a matter of degree. Language is about consensus. The more an interpretation of a word, in defining any given concept, is at odds with the interpretation of the overwhelming majority, the less reasonable your personal interpretation.

You could decide that, for the purpose of our debate, the "N word" is a non-offensive and totally benign word to describe African Americans. Can you see how that is a less valid interpretation than the opposite interpretation would be?

You could decide that, for the purpose of our debate, the word "supernatural" simply means "something outside the universe". Can you see how, given that the overwhelming majority of humanity attaches additional and/or incompatible meanings to this word, your one-man-show interpretation of the word is not very strong?

To define the scientific concept of "upstream of the big bang in the causal chain" with the word "supernatural", which is irrefutably associated with voodoo, witchcraft, tarot reading, love potions, magical spells, unicorns and dragons, is utterly absurd, much like using the word "unimportant" to define one of the most influential figures in human history.

Here's part of the problem. Science has only recently been seriously considering that things exist outside our universe. For practically all of history, there was a clear understanding of what is outside our universe/world, and that was the supernatural realm.

Come on Otseng, once upon a time we thought that supernatural Gods lived on top of mount Olympus, a small mountain located on the border between Thessaly and Macedonia, about 80 km southwest from Thessaloniki, Greece's second largest city. We used to think that the wind, the sea, rivers, owls, cats, beetles, were supernatural. We used to think that Apollo's chariot was responsible for causing the sun to rise, and that lightning was spears thrown by Zeus from the clouds. More recently (and to this day in some cases), people believed that a supernatural place called hell is located about 4000 miles below earth, about the same distance as Miami is from Vancouver. We used to believe the supernatural was right outside our stratosphere, right outside our solar system, right outside our galaxy, and now right outside our universe.

As we discover that more and more of what we thought to be supernatural is actually natural, the supernatural of necessity recedes to that which we don't know yet.

Belief that the supernatural is right outside our universe, is no different in substance to previous belief that the supernatural was right on top of a mountain or right outside our stratosphere.

Now, science is positing the existence of things outside our universe, but of course does not accept the mystical parts of it.

That would be as silly as accepting the mystical parts of Greek Mythology when we started exploring Mount Olympus.

Science is in effect intruding on religion.

Well of course it is. And it has been ever since we thought that disease was caused by evil spirits, and sacrificing a goat was the cure.

Terminology for things outside our world/universe has always had religious/mystical connotations.

Terminology for things on top of Mount Olympus had always had religious/mystical connotations, until we had the know-how to apply logic and evidence to exploring the stupid mountain, and then mount olympus stopped being the purview of religion and started bying the purview of science.

BTW, are you also rejecting your previous definition of 'natural'?
"Natural is everything inside our universe."

Yes. Sorry. Natural and supernatural are simply not good words for inside and outside the universe. It's misleading and confusing.

Now, I don't mind if we use another word other than supernatural, provided that we agree to the definitions and that the terms are clear.

I really appreciate that.

Look, I hear where you're coming from. You are a man of faith. For me to propose a cold, pragmatic, "scientific" term such as "upstream of the big bang in the causal chain" to describe something that to you has mystical and spiritual significance is callous from my part. Words matter, and the term is clearly biased towards favoring my worldview.

On the other hand, I'm a skeptic and an atheist. For you to propose "supernatural", a word which is rooted in religious faith, spirituality, mysticism, etc, to describe something that to me has ZERO mystical and spiritual significance, is equally unfair. Words matter, and the term is clearly biased towards favoring your worldview.

The words to describe stuff inside and outside the universe, when we eventually find them, will have to be neutral words that rub neither one of us the wrong way.

I am open to suggestions, but until we figure it out, can I make a suggestion?

Let's ask ourselves, what is it we're trying to find a label for? We're trying to find a label for "everything which is inside the universe" and we're trying to find a label for "everything which is outside the universe".

So rather than holding up the entire substantial debate until we find words to describe these rather simple concepts, for the time being, until we figure it out, why don't we just say "everything which is inside the universe" when we mean "everything which is inside the universe", an why don't we say "everything which is outside the universe" when we mean "everything which is outside the universe"?

If we were trying to find a word that encapsulates a concept which would take two pages to describe, then I would understand the paramount necessity for selecting a label/abbreviation for such a long-winded concept. But since we're dealing with a concept which takes 6 words to describe in full, is it really necessary to invest so much energy in finding a word to summarize it?

If you don't mind, let's just use the extended concept-descriptions ("Everything which inside/outside the universe") until we find a suitable one-word abbreviation, and in the meantime lets proceed to fine-tuning. What do you say?

[otseng]

Without asking yourself whether the Bible is a reliable source of truth

Hopefully we'll eventually get to this in this thread. (Though I suspect it will take a while before we get to it.)

When we say that a "Hobbit" means a person with two arms and two legs, it is totally compatible with standard definitions.

I don't think your hobbit analogy applies. But, it's not really important to get into that.

BTW, are you also rejecting your previous definition of 'natural'?
"Natural is everything inside our universe."

Yes. Sorry. Natural and supernatural are simply not good words for inside and outside the universe. It's misleading and confusing.

I think we have to at least have working definitions of these terms for the purposes of this debate. There's no way that we can avoid using these and related terms.

At the minimum, I think we should agree on the definition of the term natural. If this is adequately defined, then I think we can at least try to proceed past discussing semantics.

[no evidence no belief]

Yes. Sorry. Natural and supernatural are simply not good words for inside and outside the universe. It's misleading and confusing.

I think we have to at least have working definitions of these terms for the purposes of this debate. There's no way that we can avoid using these and related terms.

At the minimum, I think we should agree on the definition of the term natural. If this is adequately defined, then I think we can at least try to proceed past discussing semantics.

Ok. So can we agree not to use the term "natural" to describe "stuff inside the universe" and "supernatural" to describe stuff outside the universe"?

When we mean to use the concept of "stuff outside the universe" we will not use an abbreviation (until we find one that works), we will just spell out the entire description: "Stuff outside the universe".

But you are right that this poses an inverse question, if "natural" and "supernatural" don't mean "inside/outside the universe", then what do these words mean?

I put much thought into it, and I don't think we will be able to find a definition of these that we both agree on. This cannot be an on-the-side discussion on semantics. Our respective opinions of what "natural" and "supernatural" are, is a core difference in our worldviews that requires in-depth debate.

We don't have to agree to disagree on this. We can totally debate it in depth, either in conjunction with this current debate, or later. But I'm confident our opinions are incompatible as of right now.

My honest opinion is that everything which exists is natural. If God exists, he is natural. I think supernatural is a fictional concept that is the direct product of human ignorance. Whenever we don't know the answer to a question, we tend to make up a supernatural explanation.

We are fallible creatures. Sometimes we get stuff wrong. We've often started by thinking something was supernatural, and then realized it was natural. Yet somehow it has never happened in the history of the world that we started out thinking that something was natural, and then as we understood it better, realized it was supernatural.

Heck, if supernatural was a discrete thing, a discrete way in which an object or force manifested itself in reality, you'd think that it would happen at least once in the history of humanity that we thought lightning or something was a natural phenomenon and then realized it was actually caused by an anthropomorphic deity after all.

But no, somehow it's always in one direction, not the other. We realize the supernatural was actually natural, not the other way round.

Always, as our knowledge increases, the degree to which we need to appeal to the supernatural to explain our surroundings decreases. This to me, reinforces the opinion that supernaturalism is just belief based on ignorance.

In reality, it's impossible for anything which manifests itself to be anything other than natural.

I don't think that this definition I gave is necessarily incompatible with theism, but I'm pretty sure you will not agree to it. You believe that the supernatural exists, right?

I'm not sure how to proceed. Do you want to try outlining your full definition of natural and supernatural? Maybe we can figure it out from there.

The other question is this: Do you reckon that even if we find ourselves at an impasse with regards to the question of what "natural" and "supernatural: means, do you think we'll be able to set that disagreement aside and continue focusing on the IH vs NIH debate, or do we need to solve this? I don't think it's a semantics issue. I don't believe the supernatural exists. You do. It's a big disagreement

[otseng]

Ok. So can we agree not to use the term "natural" to describe "stuff inside the universe" and "supernatural" to describe stuff outside the universe"?

How about we use the term intra-universe for stuff inside our universe and extra-universe for stuff outside our universe?

My honest opinion is that everything which exists is natural. If God exists, he is natural.

Here is an example of where I have no idea what you mean by this since I'm not sure how you are defining natural. Now, if you mean God is NATURAL (using your previous definition of the term), then I agree.

I think supernatural is a fictional concept that is the direct product of human ignorance.

Same thing here. I have no idea what you mean by supernatural. If you mean a fairy, Zeus, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, then sure, I agree that these are fictional concepts.

But no, somehow it's always in one direction, not the other. We realize the supernatural was actually natural, not the other way round.

I disagree that it's always one direction.

Always, as our knowledge increases, the degree to which we need to appeal to the supernatural to explain our surroundings decreases. This to me, reinforces the opinion that supernaturalism is just belief based on ignorance.

I think past supernatural explanations needs to be considered individually and also in context. Sure, people have used a supernatural explanation in the past that have turned out to have a naturalistic explanation. But, it does not show that IH falls under this.

In reality, it's impossible for anything which manifests itself to be anything other than natural.

Depends on how you define natural.

I'm not sure how to proceed. Do you want to try outlining your full definition of natural and supernatural? Maybe we can figure it out from there.

We should start with standard definitions. I'll repost what I gave as definitions for nature:

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature

everything in the physical world that is not controlled by humans, such as wild plants and animals, earth and rocks, and the weather

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/nature

the physical world including all living things as well as the land and the oceans

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d ... can/nature

The other question is this: Do you reckon that even if we find ourselves at an impasse with regards to the question of what "natural" and "supernatural: means, do you think we'll be able to set that disagreement aside and continue focusing on the IH vs NIH debate, or do we need to solve this? I don't think it's a semantics issue. I don't believe the supernatural exists. You do. It's a big disagreement

Well, when you say the the supernatural does not exist, if you can't define what supernatural means, then I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

I think we really should nail down definitions of words that will be used in the debate. The term nature/natural should be easier to nail down than supernatural. If we can agree to the definition of nature/natural, we can refer to things not natural as supra-natural or non-natural, thus avoiding the religious implications of the term supernatural.

[no evidence no belief]

Ok. So can we agree not to use the term "natural" to describe "stuff inside the universe" and "supernatural" to describe stuff outside the universe"?

How about we use the term intra-universe for stuff inside our universe and extra-universe for stuff outside our universe?

Deal!

I think we really should nail down definitions of words that will be used in the debate. The term nature/natural should be easier to nail down than supernatural. If we can agree to the definition of nature/natural, we can refer to things not natural as supra-natural or non-natural, thus avoiding the religious implications of the term supernatural.

I think that the bottom line for me is this: My previous definition of NATURAL was "everything which exists" and of SUPERNATURAL was "that which does not exist". I would apply this definition to natural/supernatural in general. I would scrap the system whereby uppercase and lowercase versions of the word have different meaning.

Mind you, I'm not trying to persuade you of this. Just outlining what my worldview is.

Natural is that which exists. Supernatural is that which does not exist.

When superimposed with humanity's perception/understanding/knowledge, natural could be defined as "that for which we're able to gather sufficient empirical data to form a fact-based explanation". Supernatural would be "that which we don't understand yet and make up fairy tales to explain".

I'm not sure about this. For example, people that believe the "moon landing was faked" do not form this opinion based on sufficient empirical data to form a fact-based explanation. Yet that belief, while stupid, is not supernatural.

In order to be considered supernatural, a belief must be formed despite the lack of evidence, plus the belief must involve magic, necromancy, religion, love potions, gods, angels, goblins, etc.

So I guess I would define natural and supernatural in the abstract, separate of our understanding of them, like this:

Natural: that which exists
Supernatural: that which does not exist

With human perception thrown into the equation, I would define them like this:
Natural: An event which we can analyze empirically and have an understanding of.
Supernatural: An unjustified and fictional explanation for a phenomenon we don't actually understand. An attempt to glorify our lack of understanding, and building a grandiose fairy tale around our ignorance, puffing it up to the point that the mere lack of empirical facts about the phenomenon, is unjustifiably morphed into the theory that that which we can't understand is objectively beyond any understanding".

In short, the two terms, when seen not in abstract terms, but in terms of humanity's interaction with its environment, are these:
Natural: That which we understand on the basis of application of logic to empirical evidence
Supernatural: Fictional tales we come up with, usually involving violations of the laws of physics, when we don't understand something.

Examples of natural: stars, pancakes, black holes, iron, galaxies, lions, singularities, electrons, etc.

Examples of supernatural: Witchcraft, demons, god, love potions, necromancy, wizardry, etc.

If it turns out that evidence and logic actually support any of the supernatural things above, then they would have to be moved to the natural column.

There you have it. My two cents.

[otseng]

I think that the bottom line for me is this: My previous definition of NATURAL was "everything which exists" and of SUPERNATURAL was "that which does not exist". I would apply this definition to natural/supernatural in general. I would scrap the system whereby uppercase and lowercase versions of the word have different meaning.

Mind you, I'm not trying to persuade you of this. Just outlining what my worldview is.

Natural is that which exists. Supernatural is that which does not exist.

Of course, I reject this definition. It is a complete departure from the standard definitions I provided above.

I'll also say this, until we can agree on a definition, I will be using the standard definitions for nature/natural.

When superimposed with humanity's perception/understanding/knowledge, natural could be defined as "that for which we're able to gather sufficient empirical data to form a fact-based explanation". Supernatural would be "that which we don't understand yet and make up fairy tales to explain".

I also reject this definition based on same reason as above.

Natural: An event which we can analyze empirically and have an understanding of.
Supernatural: An unjustified and fictional explanation for a phenomenon we don't actually understand. An attempt to glorify our lack of understanding, and building a grandiose fairy tale around our ignorance, puffing it up to the point that the mere lack of empirical facts about the phenomenon, is unjustifiably morphed into the theory that that which we can't understand is objectively beyond any understanding".

Of course, your definition is not based on any standard definitions.

Examples of natural: stars, pancakes, black holes, iron, galaxies, lions, singularities, electrons, etc.

Examples of supernatural: Witchcraft, demons, god, love potions, necromancy, wizardry, etc.

If it turns out that evidence and logic actually support any of the supernatural things above, then they would have to be moved to the natural column.

If evidence and logic support IH, then it would not make sense to claim that God is natural (according to what practically everyone means by natural). That would be a complete deviation from the accepted definitions of natural. As you said earlier, "Our definitions for any given concept must match as closely as possible to the definitions of that concept used by the rest of humanity."

[no evidence no belief]

I think that the bottom line for me is this: My previous definition of NATURAL was "everything which exists" and of SUPERNATURAL was "that which does not exist". I would apply this definition to natural/supernatural in general. I would scrap the system whereby uppercase and lowercase versions of the word have different meaning.

Mind you, I'm not trying to persuade you of this. Just outlining what my worldview is.

Natural is that which exists. Supernatural is that which does not exist.

Of course, I reject this definition. It is a complete departure from the standard definitions I provided above.

I'll also say this, until we can agree on a definition, I will be using the standard definitions for nature/natural.

When superimposed with humanity's perception/understanding/knowledge, natural could be defined as "that for which we're able to gather sufficient empirical data to form a fact-based explanation". Supernatural would be "that which we don't understand yet and make up fairy tales to explain".

I also reject this definition based on same reason as above.

Natural: An event which we can analyze empirically and have an understanding of.
Supernatural: An unjustified and fictional explanation for a phenomenon we don't actually understand. An attempt to glorify our lack of understanding, and building a grandiose fairy tale around our ignorance, puffing it up to the point that the mere lack of empirical facts about the phenomenon, is unjustifiably morphed into the theory that that which we can't understand is objectively beyond any understanding".

Of course, your definition is not based on any standard definitions.

Examples of natural: stars, pancakes, black holes, iron, galaxies, lions, singularities, electrons, etc.

Examples of supernatural: Witchcraft, demons, god, love potions, necromancy, wizardry, etc.

If it turns out that evidence and logic actually support any of the supernatural things above, then they would have to be moved to the natural column.

If evidence and logic support IH, then it would not make sense to claim that God is natural (according to what practically everyone means by natural). That would be a complete deviation from the accepted definitions of natural. As you said earlier, "Our definitions for any given concept must match as closely as possible to the definitions of that concept used by the rest of humanity."

Here is a meta-list of definitions and synonymous words for supernatural from a sample of reliable sources: Magical, not physical, not material, necromancy, wizardry, witchcraft, love potions, voodoo, spectral, elves, ghostlike, talismanic, occult, paranormal, psychic, mystic, mystical, relating to or seeming to come from magic, of or relating to God or a god or a demigod or a spirit or a demon, attributed to a ghost or spirit, spiritual, fairies.

I really think that this is a useless word. I don't expect us to agree on this. Honestly, I don't know if it's worthwhile for us to attempt to persuade each other, because we're bound to fail.

I say it would be more productive for us to establish if evidence and logic support the assertion that a God exists, and THEN try to debate what kind of word should be used to describe this entity.

To try to assign labels to an entity we haven't established exists is kinda going backwards about it.

To be honest, I don't understand exactly why we're debating this word.

Natural and supernatural were initially introduced to use as labels to describe concepts USEFUL TO OUR DEBATE. Namely, the concepts of inside or outside the universe. Now that we've agreed to use other words to describe these concepts (intra-universal and extra-universal), I don't see the purpose of debating the meaning of words we discarded.

I mean, I'd be happy to open up a new thread to discuss this separate topic, but as long as we've agreed not to use these words to describe concepts germane to our discussion, then why are we wasting time with this on this thread? Pretty soon people are goin to start thinking one of us is stalling because he's run out of arguments

We agree the universe began to exist, we agree that something caused it. We agree to use the word intra-universal for stuff inside the universe and extra-universal for stuff outside it.

We just disagree on whether intelligence was involved.

Every argument for intelligence's involvement you've attempted so far failed, because you conceded that each argument supported your position no more than it support its antithesis. An argument that supports not-X just as well as X, is not a good argument for X.

Insofar as it's only reasonable to believe a claim if it's supported by logic and evidence to a greater degree than alternatives, you have failed to demonstrate that deism is a reasonable claim to believe, because alternative claims including its very antithesis have an equal amount of evidence and logic support.

If you're out of arguments, then please concede that it's not justifiable to believe in the deist God. Otherwise please present your arguments.

You've alluded to the argument from fine-tuning for a while. I say we go on to that.

[otseng]

Here is a meta-list of definitions and synonymous words for supernatural from a sample of reliable sources: Magical, not physical, not material, necromancy, wizardry, witchcraft, love potions, voodoo, spectral, elves, ghostlike, talismanic, occult, paranormal, psychic, mystic, mystical, relating to or seeming to come from magic, of or relating to God or a god or a demigod or a spirit or a demon, attributed to a ghost or spirit, spiritual, fairies.

I really think that this is a useless word. I don't expect us to agree on this. Honestly, I don't know if it's worthwhile for us to attempt to persuade each other, because we're bound to fail.

I don't think we'll reach agreement on the term supernatural. But, I hoped we could reach agreement on the term natural. But, it appears that's not going to happen either. So, I will assume that the term natural, whenever it is used, will be according to standard definitions (and not with your new proposed definition). As for supernatural, I'll try to limit my usage of the term, and instead, I will use the term supra-natural to refer to things not natural. But, if I do use the term supernatural, it will be according to standard definitions.

Every argument for intelligence's involvement you've attempted so far failed, because you conceded that each argument supported your position no more than it support its antithesis. An argument that supports not-X just as well as X, is not a good argument for X.

Insofar as it's only reasonable to believe a claim if it's supported by logic and evidence to a greater degree than alternatives, you have failed to demonstrate that deism is a reasonable claim to believe, because alternative claims including its very antithesis have an equal amount of evidence and logic support.

If you're out of arguments, then please concede that it's not justifiable to believe in the deist God. Otherwise please present your arguments.

You've alluded to the argument from fine-tuning for a while. I say we go on to that.

I'll summarize and then move on to fine-tuning.

Things we agree on for the cause of the universe:
- Methodological naturalism is false
- The cause was outside our universe
- The cause was timeless
- The cause cannot be anything that involves time, including string theory

Things I assert for both IH and NIH:
- The cause violates known laws (namely, the first law of thermo)
- Things can not be empirically measured for things outside our universe
- The origin of the universe can be classified as a miracle

Things only for IH:
- Only one universe exists
- Our universe was caused by an entity with volition
- Intuitively comprehendible
- Accepted by many across time and cultures

Things only for NIH:
- Many universes exist
- Our universe was caused mechanistically
- Novel explanation (only proposed by Luca)

[no evidence no belief]

Please see below for some slight modifications/clarifications to your statements.

Here is a meta-list of definitions and synonymous words for supernatural from a sample of reliable sources: Magical, not physical, not material, necromancy, wizardry, witchcraft, love potions, voodoo, spectral, elves, ghostlike, talismanic, occult, paranormal, psychic, mystic, mystical, relating to or seeming to come from magic, of or relating to God or a god or a demigod or a spirit or a demon, attributed to a ghost or spirit, spiritual, fairies.

I really think that this is a useless word. I don't expect us to agree on this. Honestly, I don't know if it's worthwhile for us to attempt to persuade each other, because we're bound to fail.

I don't think we'll reach agreement on the term supernatural. But, I hoped we could reach agreement on the term natural. But, it appears that's not going to happen either. So, I will assume that the term natural, whenever it is used, will be according to standard definitions (and not with your new proposed definition). As for supernatural, I'll try to limit my usage of the term, and instead, I will use the term supra-natural to refer to things not natural. But, if I do use the term supernatural, it will be according to standard definitions.

Ok. Lets see how it goes.

Every argument for intelligence's involvement you've attempted so far failed, because you conceded that each argument supported your position no more than it support its antithesis. An argument that supports not-X just as well as X, is not a good argument for X.

Insofar as it's only reasonable to believe a claim if it's supported by logic and evidence to a greater degree than alternatives, you have failed to demonstrate that deism is a reasonable claim to believe, because alternative claims including its very antithesis have an equal amount of evidence and logic support.

If you're out of arguments, then please concede that it's not justifiable to believe in the deist God. Otherwise please present your arguments.

You've alluded to the argument from fine-tuning for a while. I say we go on to that.

I'll summarize and then move on to fine-tuning.

Things we agree on for the cause of the universe:
- Methodological naturalism is false

Yes. To believe a priori that, no matter what, there is no way that goblins, elves, demons, fairies, gods exist, is not reasonable. It's possible that love potions, necromantic spells and unicorns exist. One must not exclude such possibilities a priori. It is nonetheless reasonable to operate under the tentative assumption that these things don't exist until evidence that they do exist is presented.

- The cause was outside our universe

yes.

- The cause was timeless

Yes. Otherwise we run into the problem of infinite regress

- The cause cannot be anything that involves time, including string theory

Well, string theory can only be ruled out if its determined that it is contingent on time in all its forms. We are positing that whatever caused the universe is able to move/operate through some kind of as-yet-unspecified timeless medium. String theory could allow for that as much or as little as any mechanism for how a deity would allow for that. So, insofar as they are contingent on time, any specific mechanisms for IH or NIH would have to be discarded. Insofar as they are not contingent on time, and specific mechanisms for IH or NIH would both be potentially viable. If string theory allows for timeless string vibrations then it's a viable mechanism for NIH. If God magically moving timelessly allows for timelessness, then it's a viable mechanism for IH.

Things I assert for both IH and NIH:
- The cause violates known laws (namely, the first law of thermo)

Magnetism violated known laws before additional laws became known. I'm not sure what the significance of your assertion above is, but it is true that we are unable to account for the behavior of space-time and physical constants at singularities, so it's currently true that the cause violates known laws. We don't know how this works yet. So, I'll agree to this for now, but with some slight reservations.

- Things can not be empirically measured for things outside our universe

I disagree with this, but as I recall, we'd agreed to agree to disagree on this.

- The origin of the universe can be classified as a miracle

I strongly disagree with this statement. One of the synonyms for "miracle" from thesaurus.com is "supernatural occurrence".

Wikipedia defines it thus: "A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1] Such an event may be attributed to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader."

Synonym.com defines "miracle" as "a marvelous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent"

We've agreed that the word supernatural does not apply to our debate. The word "miracle" is inextricably intertwined with it, to the point that it's considered a synonym by multiple reputable sources.

Merriam-webster defines "miracle" as "an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God". To describe both IH and NIH you CANNOT use a word that the go-to source defines as directly attributed to IH. You're absolutely welcome to use the word miracle to describe IH, but to use a word that implies God to describe a position that explicitly excludes God is absurd.

There are additional definitions of "miracle" that further confuse the matter, rendering the word completely and utterly useless for our debate.

For example, meaning 2 of "Miracle" from Merriam-Webster is "a very amazing or unusual event, thing, or achievement".

The second definition from synonym.com is "any amazing or wonderful occurrence".

ANY amazing or wonderful occurrence.

So if tonight I managed to get into a three-way with two Victoria's Secret models, it would be a miracle. Hey, it would be amazing. And definitely wonderful, at least for me.

This is a useless word for us, confusing, misleading and completely inapplicable to the subject matter in more ways than one. I must insist that you limit its use to IH.

Things only for IH:
- Only one universe exists
- Our universe was caused by an entity with volition
- Intuitively comprehendible
- Accepted by many across time and cultures

Ok

Things only for NIH:
- Many universes exist

Not quite. I am not making the positive assertion that many universes exist. I am just not ruling out the possibility that evidence might be presented which could convince me that there are multiple universes. Then again, I might equally well be persuaded that there is only one universe if compelling evidence were presented. I reject the notions "There is only one universe" and "there are multiple universes" for the same reason: insufficient evidence either way. I mean, if somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to guess, I'd guess there are multiple universes. But it would be just a guess. We used to think there is only one planet, and there turned out to be billions, we used to think there was one sun, and there turned out to be billions, we used to think there was one galaxy, and there turned out to be billions. Now we think there is only one universe. See what I mean? This is NOT a valid argument. This is just a curious line of thought that cautions me against assuming what we can observe is all that exists, because we've made that mistake in the past. I don't believe there is only one universe, I don't believe there are multiple ones. I don't know yet. We have empirical evidence that there is something outside the universe exerting a gravitational pull on inter-universal matter, but that is not to say that it's another universe doing that. It could be something else.

- Our universe was caused mechanistically

I am not 100% sure what you mean by this, but probably I agree. So lets say yes to this, and if it turns out we didn't mean the same thing by mechanistic, we can come back to this when the problem arises.

- Novel explanation (only proposed by Luca)

I disagree with the notion that I'm the only person in the world who's ever thought that the universe was caused to begin existing, but that the cause wasn't God. I think every atheist in the world who accepts the big bang agrees with me. But this is moot. We clearly established that arguments from popularity are logically invalid, so it doesn't matter one iota if millions of atheists including the overwhelming majority of members of the Academy of Science agree with me, or if I'm alone in this. If evidence and logic support my claim, then it's reasonable to believe it. If not, then it's not.

[no evidence no belief]

I really want to move on to fine-tuning, so I wanted to briefly reiterate what I wrote above, and nip in the bud this whole "miracle" thing, before it becomes another long distraction.

Merriam-webster defines "miracle" as "an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God". In other words, a miracle is an event that was possibly caused by God.

NIH is an event that definitely was NOT caused by God.

Possibly caused by God. Definitely not caused by God.

Do you see why these two concepts are fundamentally contradictory and incompatible? Do you see why you cannot use a word that means X to describe not-X?

"Fruit": Possibly an apple.
"Dairy product": Definitely not an apple.
The word "Fruit" CANNOT be used to describe a dairy product.

"Miracle": Possibly caused by God.
"NIH": Definitely not caused by God.
The word "Miracle" CANNOT be used to describe NIH.


Please let this go and lets move on to fine-tuning.