Fatal Flaw

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian beliefs and arguments suffer from a major defect of logic in assuming that God exists (Assuming the Premise is true).

God created the universe (assumes 'God')
God wants / says . . . (assumes 'God')
Billions believe (they assume 'God' exists)

Basing arguments on a premise that cannot / has not been shown to be true is nothing more than speculation. For example:

We shall prove that God exists:

1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
2. Therefore, we know that God exists.

Here, it is assumed that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's Creation" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Note the slight structural differences in the argument to simple circular reasoning " the order of the world isn't implied by God's existence, but trying to use it as evidence of God's existence must assume he exists in the first place.

Faith may be defined as belief unsupported by evidence. To justify his religious faith, that world-champion question begger, Saint Paul, offers the following rationale:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
"Hebrews 11:1

In other words, the argument boils down to this:

There are things we cannot see (God, Heaven, whatever).
There is no evidence these things exist.
We believe in them anyway.
Our faith (unsupported belief) is itself the evidence of these things not seen.
Therefore these things exist, because we believe they do.

Witnessed miracles

We know that the Bible is true because there was a miracle witnessed by 500 people.
We know that there was a miracle witnessed by 500 people because the Bible says so.

This argument has actually been made by several different people, one of them being Dinesh D'Souza. They tend to try to bolster these types of arguments by saying things like, "How could the Gospel writers have gotten away with claiming this if it didn't happen? Wouldn't someone have called them on it?" Oddly enough, pointing out that these accounts were written generations after the supposed miracles happened, in a time when ready communications weren't reliably available, has little effect on the bullshitter individual putting forth this argument.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Question for debate: Can ANY biblical argument be made that does not assume (without proof / evidence) that 'God' exists? If so, kindly specify the argument(s).

[Diagoras]

If direct scientific observation is all that is allowed as "verfiable evidence," then of course there is no "verfiable evidence" for God's existence. To expect that there would be or that the lack thereof means anything of significance is silly. Not only that, but to believe that scientific evidence is all that is allowed as "verifiable evidence" is itself a hopeless, self-defeating position.

Why is this silly, hopeless and self-defeating, exactly?

It's the cause of the universe. It's the cause of morality. It fine-tuned the universe. It resurrected Jesus. Some of those effects involve scientific data, logic based off of observations, historical data. I think those are "verifiable evidence" within the context of inferences to the best explanation.

So for the cause and fine-tuning of the universe, youre using scientific data and observations? And somehow this is verifiable evidence for god, when you had just said there wasnt any? I dont understand which position you are taking here.

[1213]

How do you know that? I don't even remember being born here on this planet, do you?

Because I know for example that I was not in year 1000, or 0, -1000. If I dont remember my birth, I would assume I would remember last few thousands of years, if I have existed always.

[The Tanager]

I'm not talking about opinion. What are you? It is an objective question. Unless we want to talk physical composition, the answer is your bonds and relationships with other things and other people. "You" is meaningless without "not you".

If I understand you correctly, then yes, there is an objective truth about what bonds and relationships we have. There is an objective truth to how we act in "moral" situations, too. But why do you think this is what the debate between objective and subjective moral values is about?

Even Christianity itself uses a human <> God bond as the basis for human value, right? We are His Divine Creation and "seeking a relationship" with him is literally the meaning of our existence.

If I understand you correctly, then yes, the relationship between God and humans (i.e., creator and creatures) is the basis for human moral value in my ethical theory. Moral value for humans comes from the creator. This source is independent of human thought/opinion and, therefore, is objective morality.

Human ideas of human identity are based upon human thought/opinion and differs some between groups. This is subjective morality.

Both premises need the change. It avoids risks of strawmanning and equivocation. It reduces confusion and misunderstandings.

Put another way, it's because an ex nihilo beginning is an extraordinary claim and what's actually being claimed, so why word it in such a way that passively appeals to common sense ex materia beginnings?

Are you saying that beginnings ex nihilo and beginnings ex materia must be treated differently? If so, why? If you can't show why they must be treated differently, then wouldn't your change of wording bring in unsupported assumptions into the argument? Premises should be formed to beg the fewest extra questions.

You are making a distinction without a relevant difference. The base assumption of science is that the natural laws are universal. Whether we are talking the laws' suspension or their creation is irrelevant to the point, since in either case science does not apply.

So, because science does not apply "how do you use scientific data to prove a 'miracle?' How is it even possible logically"? But none of the arguments are scientific arguments. Some work off of scientific data, allowing logic to take us further.

This "scientific data" that you speak of is based on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both of which completely defy common sense, in particular with regards to time. In other words, you have to adopt certain assumptions that redefine what "beginning" even means before you can claim science points towards one.

I'm not sure what you mean by them defying common sense and redefining "beginning". Could you explain this in more detail?

"Historical data" is just claims by people long ago. Do people always tell the truth? No. Do they always lie? No. So how do you evaluate it?"

Are you saying that no historical account can be trusted at all? Or are you saying that there are ways to tell whether historical claims are more plausibly true or not? Something else?

[The Tanager]

If direct scientific observation is all that is allowed as "verfiable evidence," then of course there is no "verfiable evidence" for God's existence. To expect that there would be or that the lack thereof means anything of significance is silly. Not only that, but to believe that scientific evidence is all that is allowed as "verifiable evidence" is itself a hopeless, self-defeating position.

Why is this silly, hopeless and self-defeating, exactly?

It would be silly for one to expect direct physical evidence for a non-physical being. How can you have direct physical observation of something that isn't physical? You can observe its effects (whether you can tell the cause of those effects is a different question, too). Therefore, it would also be silly for said person to then go around and claim victory over the non-physicalists since the non-physicalists' arguments for non-physical things do not contain direct physical evidence.

It would be hopeless and self-defeating to claim that direct scientific observation is all that counts as "verifiable evidence" since this very statement does not come through direct scientific observation. If the statement is true, then it is false. It defeats itself.

So for the cause and fine-tuning of the universe, youre using scientific data and observations? And somehow this is verifiable evidence for god, when you had just said there wasnt any? I dont understand which position you are taking here.

They are philosophical arguments that build off of scientific data. They are not scientific arguments. So, what I'm saying is that scientific data has a role in the argument, but is not the entire argument. Although the Kalam can be made regardless of one's scientific view on the beginning of the universe.

I'm also saying that "verifiable evidence" (to avoid being useless and self-defeating) should go beyond direct scientific observation into history, logic, introspective evidence, etc.

[FarWanderer]

Both premises need the change. It avoids risks of strawmanning and equivocation. It reduces confusion and misunderstandings.

Put another way, it's because an ex nihilo beginning is an extraordinary claim and what's actually being claimed, so why word it in such a way that passively appeals to common sense ex materia beginnings?

Are you saying that beginnings ex nihilo and beginnings ex materia must be treated differently?

Yes!

If so, why?

Because they mean different things! Even Craig acknowledges this!

If you can't show why they must be treated differently, then wouldn't your change of wording bring in unsupported assumptions into the argument?

The only way you can "bring in unsupported assumptions" by making an argument more specific to your actual belief is if your actual belief itself rests on those unsupported assumptions.

You are making a distinction without a relevant difference. The base assumption of science is that the natural laws are universal. Whether we are talking the laws' suspension or their creation is irrelevant to the point, since in either case science does not apply.

So, because science does not apply "how do you use scientific data to prove a 'miracle?' How is it even possible logically"? But none of the arguments are scientific arguments. Some work off of scientific data, allowing logic to take us further.

"Scientific arguments" are not some special kind of argument. Logic is logic, whether it's science or philosophy or whatever.

Now, you talk of "working off of..." to support premises of an argument. In regard to that topic, please look over these two deductive arguments.

Argument (A)
P1. Only Sally can eat a horse.
P2. A horse was eaten.
C. Sally ate a horse.

Argument (B)
P1. Sally ate a horse.
P2. Fred ate a horse.
C. Sally is not the only one who can eat a horse.

Would you say there might be a problem with "working off of" argument (A) in order to support P1 of argument (B)? I sure would!

"Historical data" is just claims by people long ago. Do people always tell the truth? No. Do they always lie? No. So how do you evaluate it?"

Are you saying that no historical account can be trusted at all? Or are you saying that there are ways to tell whether historical claims are more plausibly true or not? Something else?

I'm not saying any of those things. My question was not rhetorical. How do you evaluate historical claims? Again, not a rhetorical question. Actually asking.

[benchwarmer]

How do you know that? I don't even remember being born here on this planet, do you?

Because I know for example that I was not in year 1000, or 0, -1000. If I dont remember my birth, I would assume I would remember last few thousands of years, if I have existed always.

You are missing the point entirely. If you don't remember your birth that means you have no memory of some period when you were alive. There is a point before which most humans can't remember, yet we were alive.

So, if we are eternal souls, perhaps we just can't currently remember before a certain point either. i.e. sometime after we were born here.

Therefore I question your "Because I know". How exactly do you 'know'? It seems to me the proper wording should be "Because I can't remember ..." which of course leaves open the door to 'you' as an eternal spirit/soul being uncreated and 'eternal', but currently having a memory problem.

I also note that you never answered whether we are 'spirit' at our core. Perhaps because that would expose the flaw in your original premise?

[The Tanager]

Because they mean different things! Even Craig acknowledges this!

Do you have Craig's quote I can look over for this? To my recollection he does not think this difference matters when talking about beginnings.

"Scientific arguments" are not some special kind of argument. Logic is logic, whether it's science or philosophy or whatever.

There are arguments that have scientific premises or scientifically supported premises and arguments that don't contain any scientific data in support. I'm saying that some of the arguments I gave have scientific data to support it, but that they go beyond science into philosophy through the use of logic.

Now, you talk of "working off of..." to support premises of an argument. In regard to that topic, please look over these two deductive arguments.

Argument (A)
P1. Only Sally can eat a horse.
P2. A horse was eaten.
C. Sally ate a horse.

Argument (B)
P1. Sally ate a horse.
P2. Fred ate a horse.
C. Sally is not the only one who can eat a horse.

Would you say there might be a problem with "working off of" argument (A) in order to support P1 of argument (B)? I sure would!

Argument (A), P2 is "scientific data". P1 is a false premise (at least if B's P2 is true). So, while Argument (A) tries to work off of scientific data, it does so poorly.

I'm not saying any of those things. My question was not rhetorical. How do you evaluate historical claims? Again, not a rhetorical question. Actually asking.

You look at when the source was written, where it was produced, by whom, if multiple independent sources say the same thing or conflict, criterion of embarrassment, the genre of the source, intended audience, and that kind of stuff.

[1213]

You are missing the point entirely. If you don't remember your birth that means you have no memory of some period when you were alive. There is a point before which most humans can't remember, yet we were alive.

So, if we are eternal souls, perhaps we just can't currently remember before a certain point either. i.e. sometime after we were born here

This leads to question, what I am? If there would have been something that I dont know or remember, would it really be me? I dont think so. And actually, it is possible that the atoms I consist of today, may have existed very long time. I wouldnt call it me, because there is no me in it.

I also note that you never answered whether we are 'spirit' at our core. Perhaps because that would expose the flaw in your original premise?

The problem with that is, I dont think we are spirit at our core.

[Diagoras]

It would be silly for one to expect direct physical evidence for a non-physical being. How can you have direct physical observation of something that isn't physical?

I agree. You cant. We therefore can conclude there is as much verifiable evidence for an invisible pink unicorn in my garage (to take one example) as there is for any god.

the non-physicalists' arguments for non-physical things do not contain direct physical evidence.

So what do they contain? Im working on a definition of evidence as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Facts and information have to come from somewhere, and direct observation has proved itself pretty good at that thus far. Biblical stories - not so much.

It would be hopeless and self-defeating to claim that direct scientific observation is all that counts as "verifiable evidence" since this very statement does not come through direct scientific observation. If the statement is true, then it is false. It defeats itself.

Ill admit - thats a cleverly constructed paradox.

However, it ignores the relative strengths of direct scientific observation vs. conjecture and imagination.

For instance, Id imagine that if you were on a jury, youd consider the DNA evidence found at the scene of the crime more verifiable than the testimony of an astrologer who predicts the murderer must have been a Scorpio. Indeed, youd probably question why the astrologer was even brought in as a witness.

They are philosophical arguments that build off of scientific data. They are not scientific arguments. So, what I'm saying is that scientific data has a role in the argument, but is not the entire argument.

Is this just a fancy way of saying, Ah, but science doesnt know everything?

[FarWanderer]

Because they mean different things! Even Craig acknowledges this!

Do you have Craig's quote I can look over for this? To my recollection he does not think this difference matters when talking about beginnings.

Whether he thinks they matter is irrelevant so long as his audience does. As you said: Premises should be formed to beg the fewest extra questions.

"Scientific arguments" are not some special kind of argument. Logic is logic, whether it's science or philosophy or whatever.

There are arguments that have scientific premises or scientifically supported premises and arguments that don't contain any scientific data in support. I'm saying that some of the arguments I gave have scientific data to support it, but that they go beyond science into philosophy through the use of logic.

OK, but what I am saying is that using scientific data comes with logical baggage- that scientific data is the result of logical premises and conclusions just like anything else. And if your argument is going to appeal to scientific data, your whole argument is subject to its logic.

Now, you talk of "working off of..." to support premises of an argument. In regard to that topic, please look over these two deductive arguments.

Argument (A)
P1. Only Sally can eat a horse.
P2. A horse was eaten.
C. Sally ate a horse.

Argument (B)
P1. Sally ate a horse.
P2. Fred ate a horse.
C. Sally is not the only one who can eat a horse.

Would you say there might be a problem with "working off of" argument (A) in order to support P1 of argument (B)? I sure would!

Argument (A), P2 is "scientific data". P1 is a false premise (at least if B's P2 is true). So, while Argument (A) tries to work off of scientific data, it does so poorly.

"Poorly" is putting it lightly. This is strait up deductively invalid.

Your interpretation, while valid, was not exactly what I had in mind; but no matter. The point is that when you nest one argument into another (which is what you are doing when you appeal to scientific data to support Kalam), all premises in both arguments must be compatible.

And one of the core premises of science is that there is a natural explanation for everything.

How do you evaluate historical claims?

You look at when the source was written, where it was produced, by whom, if multiple independent sources say the same thing or conflict, criterion of embarrassment, the genre of the source, intended audience, and that kind of stuff.

That's a good start. So how exactly do you identify and interpret all these criteria? How do you weigh them against one another? I'll answer from here: it's logic all the way down. Everything ultimately comes from a combination of induction and deduction (and faith- but that's another story).

I bring this up because you mentioned "historical data" as opposed to "scientific data". In the context of philosophical arguments, there really isn't much difference.