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

[otseng]

Before I get into my argument: I never agreed that X "created" our universe. The word "created" implies intelligence. I would use the word "caused", because it's applicable both to IH and NIH. When describing "neutral territory" that we've both agreed to, please be careful not to use words that implicitly point towards your position.

I don't necessarily agree that created implies intelligence, but sure, caused can be used for created as well. My argument is the same whether the word caused or created is used.

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Charlie believes in and says it is not god?

Yes. Every non-deist on the planet.

Every non-deist on the planet? Go ahead and show how every non-deist on the planet accepts all that was stated (even replacing created with caused).

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Steve believes and says it is not Santa? I think you can. And I think you just realized the flaw in your argument.

Strawman argument. We're not discussing Santa here.

It's clearly an argumentum ad populum. "Most people who make assumptions about the universe having begun to exist by virtue of an external cause, also end up making the leap of faith that this cause was an intelligent one, therefore it is true that it was an intelligent one". Come on man!

If the idea of God has been accepted by countless people across time and cultures, whereas NIH is only presented by you, it's more than argumentum ad populum.

The reverse of your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. "I cannot personally imagine how the universe could have been caused to begin existing in the absence of intelligence, therefore God".

Well, you have not even defined what exactly NIH is. You'll have to show how it's something other than "it ain't God".

Irrespective of what we can or cannot measure from our position inside the universe, is it possible in principle for an object to be moving in a timeless environment. If not, why not?

I cannot make a claim if something can or cannot move in a timeless environment.

We are discussing whether it's possible or impossible, in principle, to ponder/understand/discover laws, facts, conditions that govern things outside of our event horizon.

You claim that it's impossible, I claim that it's possible.

I'm not claiming this. If I claim that it's impossible to understand (at least partially) something outside our universe, then our whole discussion is moot, since what we are talking about is outside this universe.

I'm referring specifically to a supernatural law, which you stated in post 53: "It could also be the result of some supernatural law (supernatural as in extra-universal)."

Sure, we can have theories that involve things outside our universe. My only point is that we cannot ever truly know if they are true, even in principle, because it could never be empirically verified, since it would require measurements from outside our universe. Thus, it would be unknowable if the theories can really be true.

I think where the mismatch lies is that I'm differentiating between a law and a theory. Sure, we can understand theories. But, theories do not actually describe how things really are until it becomes a law. They only are possible explanations of reality. To become a law, it requires empirical verification to confirm the theories. It is this lack of empirical verification that makes supernatural laws unable to be fully understood.

Please take note, because this is very important: Right now I'm not claiming that we HAVE understood/discovered extra-universal laws. I kinda claimed that we may well discover/understand these laws soon, and now I realize I misspoke. Right now I'm not claiming we may understand/discover them soon. Right now I'm not even claiming we may understand/discover them EVER.

OK.

You on the other hand seem to be asserting that something is categorically, eternally, irrefutably beyond our understanding, just because it's outside our event horizon.

I think things outside our universe can be understood to some level, but it cannot ever be fully understood. But, more importantly, we are unable to confirm theories empirically for things outside our universe.

In other words, the default position is one of neutral lack of belief both for the claim that something is, and for the claim that something is not. This position of initial neutrality is then shifted in one direction or the other on the basis of the strength of evidence and logic backing either claim.

Yes, I agree.

So, please demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that it's impossible, in principle, for us to understand/discover extra-universal facts.

I don't think it impossible to discover things outside our universe. Strange though that you'd be asking me this. Typically atheists do not ask this of Christians.

I do NOT agree that "natural laws do not apply" to conditions external or antecedent to the universe. Natural laws definitely apply outside the event horizon, they are just not necessarily the same as natural laws on our side of the event horizon.

It's more than an event horizon, it's outside our universe.

But, regardless, if the laws are different, then it would still fall under violations of the known laws of nature. So, my argument is still sound.

You already agreed that for events outside the event horizon, we would use the word extra-universal. Can you please stop using the word "supernatural" when the context calls for "extra-universal"? It's confusing.

It's not completely possible to eliminate the usage of the word supernatural. Since I'm using accepted definitions of miracle, it can't be expected for them to use words that you coin.

- We call the environment inside our event horizon "intra-universal" and the environment outside our event horizon "extra-universal".

Rather than outside our event horizon being extra-universal, I think things not in our universe would be extra-universal. It's possible for thing outside our event horizon to be in our universe.

- Although natural laws must of necessity exist outside our event horizon, extra-universal laws of nature need not necessarily be the same as intra-universal laws of nature.

Again, I think the term event horizon is misleading. We are discussing things not in our universe, not just simply beyond our event horizon. I would agree that natural laws exist outside our event horizon, if we are still talking about within our universe.

- We currently make empirical statements about intra-universal laws, and it is NOT, in principle, impossible for us to make empirical statements about extra-universal laws. In fact, you've made an empirical statement about extra-universal laws yourself. See below.

Extra-universal laws would have the same problem as supernatural laws in terms of lack of empirical verification.

Further, I reject the notion that "natural laws do not apply" outside our event horizon/universe. There are natural laws outside the event horizon.

So, you reject the idea of supernatural laws then that you had posited in post 53? Again, what's the difference between a natural law and a supernatural law?

For example you (not me, you) have posited based on deductive reasoning supported by evidence and logic, that one of the extra-universal natural laws involves timelessness.

I do not claim that they are laws.

If the definition of "miracle" is an event where natural laws do not apply, or an event which is in principle beyond our understanding (because supernatural in the religious sense), YOU have demonstrated that IH is not a miracle.

Please see again the definitions that I posted. None mention that it is "an event which is in principle beyond our understanding."

The beyond our understanding is in reference to supernatural laws, not to miracles.

So, my argument that both IH and NIH describe the origin of the universe as miraculous still stands.

Does your contingency argument posit that extra-universal natural laws cannot exist? If so, do you retract the claim that the extra-universe is bound by the natural law of timelessness?

The contingency argument would only apply if there are no such thing as supernatural/extra-universal laws.

Great. So you agree that the laws of logic apply both inside and outside our event horizon. In other words, you agree that that the laws of logic apply both intra-universally and extra-universally. Correct?

Yes, I agree that the laws of logic would apply everywhere, including outside our universe and even to God.

Is it possible or impossible, in principle, for movement to exist in a timeless setting?

I would say it is unknown. Now, I would agree that movement cannot exist in a no-time setting. By definition, if no time exists, then time cannot elapse, thus things cannot move.

When I say God is timeless, I'm not claiming that God resides in no-time. But, all I'm claiming is that God is outside our space-time. It does not necessarily mean God resides in no-time.

Since God is outside of our space-time, our concepts of time cannot be applied in any meaningful way to God. It would be as meaningless as asking, what color is God? How much does God weigh? Where does God live?

[no evidence no belief]

Before I get into my argument: I never agreed that X "created" our universe. The word "created" implies intelligence. I would use the word "caused", because it's applicable both to IH and NIH. When describing "neutral territory" that we've both agreed to, please be careful not to use words that implicitly point towards your position.

I don't necessarily agree that created implies intelligence, but sure, caused can be used for created as well. My argument is the same whether the word caused or created is used.

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Charlie believes in and says it is not god?

Yes. Every non-deist on the planet.

Every non-deist on the planet? Go ahead and show how every non-deist on the planet accepts all that was stated (even replacing created with caused).

I misspoke. Not every non-deist accepts ALL those assumptions, but many do, and ALL those who do, do not believe in god.

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Steve believes and says it is not Santa? I think you can. And I think you just realized the flaw in your argument.

Strawman argument. We're not discussing Santa here.

Well come on man! It's an analogy. It's a perfectly valid method of illustrating the faulty logic of your argument, by showing how the exact same argument structure can lead to false conclusions.

All I am saying is that if the exact same argument can equally well be used to derive conclusion X and derive conclusion Y, and we know conclusion Y is false, that shows that it's not a good argument for X either.

An argument for God that can equally well be used to demonstrate Santa, is not a very good argument for God.

I think it's unfair for you to regularly use analogies to illustrate your point (such as when you mentioned the radioactive decay as an example of a contingent event) but somehow claim strawman when I do so.

It would be a strawman if I claimed that YOU are arguing for santa. I am not claiming that. I am using Santa to illustrate how your argument can lead to absurd conclusions and therefore is flawed.

It's clearly an argumentum ad populum. "Most people who make assumptions about the universe having begun to exist by virtue of an external cause, also end up making the leap of faith that this cause was an intelligent one, therefore it is true that it was an intelligent one". Come on man!

If the idea of God has been accepted by countless people across time and cultures, whereas NIH is only presented by you, it's more than argumentum ad populum.

"Countless people accept IH, very few accept NIH, therefore IH is a more reasonable position to hold."

If that is not an argumentum ad populum, then I don't know what is. Seriously! "Many people believe X, few people believe not-X, therefore X". How is that anything short of exactly the text book perfect definitional example of an argumentum ad populum?

The reverse of your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. "I cannot personally imagine how the universe could have been caused to begin existing in the absence of intelligence, therefore God".

Well, you have not even defined what exactly NIH is. You'll have to show how it's something other than "it ain't God".

Please provide a summary of ALL the details for IH that you've provided thus far. If you have provided more details than I have for NIH, I will rectify that immediately. If not, please quit this line of argument.

Irrespective of what we can or cannot measure from our position inside the universe, is it possible in principle for an object to be moving in a timeless environment. If not, why not?

I cannot make a claim if something can or cannot move in a timeless environment.

1) A and B are logically necessary components of C
2) B does not exist
3) Therefore C cannot exist

Do you agree or disagree with this syllogism?

We are discussing whether it's possible or impossible, in principle, to ponder/understand/discover laws, facts, conditions that govern things outside of our event horizon.

You claim that it's impossible, I claim that it's possible.

I'm not claiming this. If I claim that it's impossible to understand (at least partially) something outside our universe, then our whole discussion is moot, since what we are talking about is outside this universe.

Well, yes. IF it's impossible. If you wish to assert that it indeed IS impossible, then you have to demonstrate it conclusively, because until it's certain that something is impossible, by definition it's possible.

If on the other hand you do NOT wish to assert that it "is impossible" to understand extra-universal realities, and instead just wish to express a milder opinion that "it's almost certainly impossible at least for now", for us to determine if IH is a more viable explanation than alternatives - given the lack of evidence and logic one way or the other, and that it's not worth for you and I to try to understand it at this time, that's something I might agree with.

It would mean that, given the the fact that evidence and logic do NOT support the Deistic God more than they support alternative explanations, it is NOT reasonable to believe in the Deistic God. Obviously this tentative conclusion can be subject to change if you think of something new.

If that's the direction you'd like to go, and wish to concede that there isn't sufficient logic and evidence to make it reasonable to believe in the Deistic god, I'd be then happy to allow the existence of the Deistic God just for the sake of argument, and discuss theism.

I'm referring specifically to a supernatural law, which you stated in post 53: "It could also be the result of some supernatural law (supernatural as in extra-universal)."

Sure, we can have theories that involve things outside our universe. My only point is that we cannot ever truly know if they are true, even in principle, because it could never be empirically verified, since it would require measurements from outside our universe. Thus, it would be unknowable if the theories can really be true.

I think where the mismatch lies is that I'm differentiating between a law and a theory. Sure, we can understand theories. But, theories do not actually describe how things really are until it becomes a law. They only are possible explanations of reality. To become a law, it requires empirical verification to confirm the theories. It is this lack of empirical verification that makes supernatural laws unable to be fully understood.

Please take note, because this is very important: Right now I'm not claiming that we HAVE understood/discovered extra-universal laws. I kinda claimed that we may well discover/understand these laws soon, and now I realize I misspoke. Right now I'm not claiming we may understand/discover them soon. Right now I'm not even claiming we may understand/discover them EVER.

OK.

You on the other hand seem to be asserting that something is categorically, eternally, irrefutably beyond our understanding, just because it's outside our event horizon.

I think things outside our universe can be understood to some level, but it cannot ever be fully understood.

Can anything ever be fully understood?

But, more importantly, we are unable to confirm theories empirically for things outside our universe.

Are you asserting that it's impossible to confirm things empirically outside our universe? If so, can you prove conclusively that this is true?

In other words, the default position is one of neutral lack of belief both for the claim that something is, and for the claim that something is not. This position of initial neutrality is then shifted in one direction or the other on the basis of the strength of evidence and logic backing either claim.

Yes, I agree.

So, please demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that it's impossible, in principle, for us to understand/discover extra-universal facts.

I don't think it impossible to discover things outside our universe. Strange though that you'd be asking me this. Typically atheists do not ask this of Christians.

Stranger things have happened

I do NOT agree that "natural laws do not apply" to conditions external or antecedent to the universe. Natural laws definitely apply outside the event horizon, they are just not necessarily the same as natural laws on our side of the event horizon.

It's more than an event horizon, it's outside our universe.

But, regardless, if the laws are different, then it would still fall under violations of the known laws of nature. So, my argument is still sound.

You already agreed that for events outside the event horizon, we would use the word extra-universal. Can you please stop using the word "supernatural" when the context calls for "extra-universal"? It's confusing.

It's not completely possible to eliminate the usage of the word supernatural. Since I'm using accepted definitions of miracle, it can't be expected for them to use words that you coin.

- We call the environment inside our event horizon "intra-universal" and the environment outside our event horizon "extra-universal".

Rather than outside our event horizon being extra-universal, I think things not in our universe would be extra-universal. It's possible for thing outside our event horizon to be in our universe.

Noted and agreed.

- Although natural laws must of necessity exist outside our event horizon, extra-universal laws of nature need not necessarily be the same as intra-universal laws of nature.

Again, I think the term event horizon is misleading. We are discussing things not in our universe, not just simply beyond our event horizon. I would agree that natural laws exist outside our event horizon, if we are still talking about within our universe.

- We currently make empirical statements about intra-universal laws, and it is NOT, in principle, impossible for us to make empirical statements about extra-universal laws. In fact, you've made an empirical statement about extra-universal laws yourself. See below.

Extra-universal laws would have the same problem as supernatural laws in terms of lack of empirical verification.

Are you saying empirical verification is impossible?

Further, I reject the notion that "natural laws do not apply" outside our event horizon/universe. There are natural laws outside the event horizon.

So, you reject the idea of supernatural laws then that you had posited in post 53? Again, what's the difference between a natural law and a supernatural law?

I would like to retire the term "supernatural law". All laws are natural. There are intra-universal natural laws, and extra-universal natural laws. Let me know if you agree with this terminology.

For example you (not me, you) have posited based on deductive reasoning supported by evidence and logic, that one of the extra-universal natural laws involves timelessness.

I do not claim that they are laws.

If the definition of "miracle" is an event where natural laws do not apply, or an event which is in principle beyond our understanding (because supernatural in the religious sense), YOU have demonstrated that IH is not a miracle.

Please see again the definitions that I posted. None mention that it is "an event which is in principle beyond our understanding."

The beyond our understanding is in reference to supernatural laws, not to miracles.

So, my argument that both IH and NIH describe the origin of the universe as miraculous still stands.

This is an argument on semantics. What I posit and what you posit is pretty well defined. Where we agree and where we disagree is pretty well defined.

Because I posit that the universe coming into existence is a purely mechanistic event, consistent with natural law (albeit extra-universal natural law), and NOT impossible for us to understand, I resist the term "miracle" - which carries a ton of theistic baggage and would be confusing. I could associate the phenomenon with words like "mystery", if you like.

You on the other hand are wedded to the term "miracle", apparently.

Since it's just a label, and we will agree where we agree and disagree where we disagree irrespective of the term we use to encapsulate the concepts, would you like to agree to disagree on the usage of the word "miracle"?

If you agree to disagree on this, I will accept usage of the word "miracle" for expedience's sake, if you in turn agree to always write it in red (miracle) to remind us both that it's a label I do NOT agree to, and which we're just using to bypass a fruitless debate on semantics, until we can think of a better word.

As long as you further guarantee that you're not trying to morph an argument on semantics into an argument on substantial concepts, and you're not going to turn around and say "Ah ah, NENB conceded that miracles happen", and that you're not going to make category errors later when we discuss theism, like "You already conceded that miracles can happen, so why not Jesus's resurrection?", then I'm ok with using "miracles" for now.

Does your contingency argument posit that extra-universal natural laws cannot exist? If so, do you retract the claim that the extra-universe is bound by the natural law of timelessness?

The contingency argument would only apply if there are no such thing as supernatural/extra-universal laws.

Ok, so we can abandon it, yes? Or do you wish to posit that laws of nature do not exist outside the universe (albeit possibly different from those inside it)?

Great. So you agree that the laws of logic apply both inside and outside our event horizon. In other words, you agree that that the laws of logic apply both intra-universally and extra-universally. Correct?

Yes, I agree that the laws of logic would apply everywhere, including outside our universe and even to God.

Is it possible or impossible, in principle, for movement to exist in a timeless setting?

I would say it is unknown. Now, I would agree that movement cannot exist in a no-time setting. By definition, if no time exists, then time cannot elapse, thus things cannot move.

When I say God is timeless, I'm not claiming that God resides in no-time. But, all I'm claiming is that God is outside our space-time. It does not necessarily mean God resides in no-time.

Well "existing outside our space-time" could mean two things.

It could mean existing in a DIFFERENT spacetime, or it could mean existing in no-time.

It's like the statement "Steve is not inside this house". That could equally well mean he is inside a different house, or not inside any house.

Now, if God is not in our spacetime, but is in a different one, then time, in some capacity, exists for God. That makes movement possible for God, but creates the problem of infinite regress.

Otherwise, if God is not in our spacetime, because he is in no time whatsoever, then the issue of infinite regress is solved, but movement is impossible, because time is a logically necessary component of movement.

So which one is it?

[no evidence no belief]

Hey Oliver. Brief recap:


Arguments for the deistic God
[strike]Argument from no internal contradictions
Argument from conformity with facts and laws
Argument from conformity with logic
Argument from consistency with what we know is true
Argument from falsifiability
Argument from number of universes
Argument from infinite regress versus timelessness[/strike]
Argument from contingency - defunct? (let me know if this is done)
Argument from lots of people believing in God - ongoing. (Please explain how it's not an argumentum ad populum)
Argument from more details for IH than NIH - ongoing (Please provide one detail you have posited for IH that I have not posited for NIH)


Arguments against the Deistic God
Argument from incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence - ongoing. (Currently discussing incompatibility of timelessness and movement as a precursor)

Semantics, terminology and other housekeeping issues
Use of the word miracle/miracle - ongoing (let me know if you're ok to agree to disagree on this)
Use of term "extra-universal natural law" rather than "supernatural law"

[otseng]

I misspoke. Not every non-deist accepts ALL those assumptions, but many do, and ALL those who do, do not believe in god.

OK. But, is there anybody that accepts all those assumptions and say that NIH is what caused the universe?

If you cannot produce anybody, then it's not simply argumentum ad populum. It's not like 60% believes in IH and 40% believes in NIH, therefore IH is correct. It's nobody except you believes in NIH.

It's a perfectly valid method of illustrating the faulty logic of your argument, by showing how the exact same argument structure can lead to false conclusions.

Certainly you are free to use analogies, but your analogy doesn't show how my logic is faulty. Without reference to Santa or anything else we're not discussing, can you be more explicit at the faulty logic of my argument?

Would you agree that we both accept all the assumptions that Charlie believes in?
Would you agree that only IH and NIH are the possible explanations?
Would you agree that many people throughout history believes all those assumptions leads to IH?
Can you demonstrate anyone who believes that those assumptions leads to NIH?

I've granted that both IH and NIH are symmetrical in the assumptions. But, this is an example of where the symmetry breaks apart. For most (if not all) people, those assumptions lead to IH.

The problems lies not in the conclusion, but in the assumptions. I think we'll have to revisit the assumptions because I don't think you really accept all of them.

Please provide a summary of ALL the details for IH that you've provided thus far. If you have provided more details than I have for NIH, I will rectify that immediately. If not, please quit this line of argument.

I'm arguing for a deistic god.

"God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deistic

"Deists believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As such, there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept."
http://altreligion.about.com/od/alterna ... /Deism.htm

"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

What exactly are you proposing?

1) A and B are logically necessary components of C
2) B does not exist
3) Therefore C cannot exist

Do you agree or disagree with this syllogism?

Sure.

Are you asserting that it's impossible to confirm things empirically outside our universe? If so, can you prove conclusively that this is true?

Yes. I am asserting that.

Would you agree that we cannot empirically measure things outside our event horizon?
Would you agree that things outside our universe is outside our event horizon?
If you agree, then things outside our universe cannot be empirically measured.

I would like to retire the term "supernatural law". All laws are natural. There are intra-universal natural laws, and extra-universal natural laws. Let me know if you agree with this terminology.

OK, I originally thought this would be the position you would have. We'll proceed then you will be assuming that all laws are natural.

Not going to have time to address the rest, got a lot of things going on now, but I'll pick the rest up later....

[no evidence no belief]

I misspoke. Not every non-deist accepts ALL those assumptions, but many do, and ALL those who do, do not believe in god.

OK. But, is there anybody that accepts all those assumptions and say that NIH is what caused the universe?

If you cannot produce anybody, then it's not simply argumentum ad populum. It's not like 60% believes in IH and 40% believes in NIH, therefore IH is correct. It's nobody except you believes in NIH.

It's a perfectly valid method of illustrating the faulty logic of your argument, by showing how the exact same argument structure can lead to false conclusions.

Certainly you are free to use analogies, but your analogy doesn't show how my logic is faulty. Without reference to Santa or anything else we're not discussing, can you be more explicit at the faulty logic of my argument?

Would you agree that we both accept all the assumptions that Charlie believes in?
Would you agree that only IH and NIH are the possible explanations?
Would you agree that many people throughout history believes all those assumptions leads to IH?
Can you demonstrate anyone who believes that those assumptions leads to NIH?

I've granted that both IH and NIH are symmetrical in the assumptions. But, this is an example of where the symmetry breaks apart. For most (if not all) people, those assumptions lead to IH.

Ok, can I take this last sentence as a renewal of your concession that, except for the issue of how many people believe in the deistic God (which I'll address below), Ih and NIH are indeed symmetrical?

The problems lies not in the conclusion, but in the assumptions. I think we'll have to revisit the assumptions because I don't think you really accept all of them.

Please provide a summary of ALL the details for IH that you've provided thus far. If you have provided more details than I have for NIH, I will rectify that immediately. If not, please quit this line of argument.

I'm arguing for a deistic god.

"God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deistic

"Deists believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As such, there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept."
http://altreligion.about.com/od/alterna ... /Deism.htm

"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

What exactly are you proposing?

Ok, let's dispense of this line of argument once and for all.

First, here is what we agree on, and what we disagree on:

We agree that the universe began to exist
We agree that something external to the universe caused the universe to begin existing
We agree that this something was timeless

We just disagree on this: You claim intelligence was involved in this event, I claim it was not involved in this event.

Period. That's it.

Now, let's talk about your argument. I believe it's most definitely a logically invalid argumentum ad populum, and I will hereby demonstrate it without use of any analogies.

This is the structure of your argument:

1) A, B and C are true
2) Everybody who believe A, B and C also believe D
3) Therefore D is true

It doesn't matter by what margin belief in D is more popular than disbelief in D. It doesn't matter if it's 51% for D and 49% against D, or billions for D and just one person against D. In fact, even if EVERYBODY believed D (as specified in the syllogism) and NOBODY disbelieved in D, it would STILL be of zero relevance.

In and of itself, the fact that people believe D is not a valid reason for asserting D is true.

I don't know how to make this clear. I find myself taken aback by the necessity to explain something I would have been willing to bet money you would have grasped immediately.

Can we consider this issue closed?

1) A and B are logically necessary components of C
2) B does not exist
3) Therefore C cannot exist

Do you agree or disagree with this syllogism?

Sure.

Ok. Do you agree or disagree that time is a logically necessary component of movement?

Are you asserting that it's impossible to confirm things empirically outside our universe? If so, can you prove conclusively that this is true?

Yes. I am asserting that.

Would you agree that we cannot empirically measure things outside our event horizon?
Would you agree that things outside our universe is outside our event horizon?
If you agree, then things outside our universe cannot be empirically measured.

I agree that stuff outside our universe is outside our event horizon.

I am not sure if I agree that we currently are unable to empirically measure things outside our event horizon. I don't know enough about cosmology, but I would imagine that we are able to use extrapolative methods to extract falsifiable empirical claims about conditions outside our event horizon (such as inside a black hole) from the way that its properties exert themselves on objects within our event horizon. For example, I think we are able to to measure the mass and diameter of black holes, aren't we? Those are empirical claims about an object outside our event horizon.

But the truth is I lack the qualifications to debate this line of argument (as probably do you - no offense).

My more down to earth argument is that even if we were currently unable to make justifiable and verifiable empirical claims about events, objects and conditions outside our event horizon, that does not mean that it's in principle impossible to devise a method to do so in the future.

Just spitballing here, but hear me out. We know that stuff can move faster than the speed of light. The universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light, thus distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than their photons can reach us, and literally trillions of cubic parsecs of universe are going outside of our event horizon every second. I don't see why a few billion years of technological development should not be able to yield the ability to harness super-luminal flight by the same mechanism by which distant galaxies are doing it. Therefore, by moving superluminaly by that method in the direction of an event horizon, we would actually be able to see beyond the place where the event horizon was at the time we started traveling.

I know this is far-fetched, but I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that in the future it may be possible to explore beyond our event horizons, including in principle the universe's event horizon.

In short, are we able to gather empirical data about stuff outside of our event horizons right now? I'm not sure. Maybe. But lets assume for the sake of argument that we cannot.

Will we be able to accomplish this feat soon? Probably not if we're not doing so now.

In the distant future? Hey you never know.

Maybe we will never obtain this technology, BUT, it is NOT in principle impossible for us to obtain empirical data about stuff outside our event horizon.

If we were having this discussion 1000 years ago, you'd be trying to convince me that it's impossible to explore the side of the moon that is always facing away from us, because... it's impossible to see that side... it's always facing away from us. And yet look at us now.

Just my two cents. And technically I'm arguing against my own interest here. Because if I concede that stuff outside event horizons is unknowable, then, by definition, logic and evidence CANNOT support IH because it involves something outside our event horizon. If no evidence or logic can be explored, no evidence and logic can be found to support IH, and thus, by your general principle, it is NOT reasonable to believe IH rather than alternative explanations. So tread lightly in your attempts to convince me of the "unknowability" of extra-universal phenomena.

I would like to retire the term "supernatural law". All laws are natural. There are intra-universal natural laws, and extra-universal natural laws. Let me know if you agree with this terminology.

OK, I originally thought this would be the position you would have. We'll proceed then you will be assuming that all laws are natural.

Not going to have time to address the rest, got a lot of things going on now, but I'll pick the rest up later....

ok

[no evidence no belief]

Updated recap as per recent clarification of your concession of symmetry:


Arguments for the deistic God
[strike]Argument from no internal contradictions
Argument from conformity with facts and laws
Argument from conformity with logic
Argument from consistency with what we know is true
Argument from falsifiability
Argument from number of universes
Argument from infinite regress versus timelessness[/strike]
Argument from contingency - defunct? (let me know if this is done)
Argument from lots of people believing in God - ongoing. (Please explain how it's not an argumentum ad populum)
[strike]Argument from more details for IH than NIH [/strike]


Arguments against the Deistic God
Argument from incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence - ongoing. (Currently discussing incompatibility of timelessness and movement as a precursor)

Semantics, terminology and other housekeeping issues
Use of the word miracle/miracle - ongoing (let me know if you're ok to agree to disagree on this)
[strike]Use of term "extra-universal natural law" rather than "supernatural law"[/strike]


To do:
- concede argumentum ad populum
- declare status on your contingency argument
- respond to my argument from incompatibility of timeless and intelligence
- agree to disagree on use of word "miracle"
- provide any new argument you wish

[otseng]

Because I posit that the universe coming into existence is a purely mechanistic event, consistent with natural law (albeit extra-universal natural law), and NOT impossible for us to understand, I resist the term "miracle" - which carries a ton of theistic baggage and would be confusing. I could associate the phenomenon with words like "mystery", if you like.

You on the other hand are wedded to the term "miracle", apparently.

I'm not necessarily wedded to the term. I'm just using standard definitions to show that the term miracle can apply to our explanations.

Why do I bring this up? Because we're going to discuss much more about miracles in the future. And though I didn't expect it to come up so soon, it's appropriate to discuss it now.

Sure, there is theistic implications with the term miracle. But, usage of the term does not necessarily mean that one is a theist. Someone can say, "It's a miracle!" and still be an atheist.

Further, just because it does have theistic implications, it cannot be rejected only because of where it would lead. That would be begging the question.

I think the only logical way you can argue that the term miracle does not apply is either:
- The definitions of miracle are wrong
- Your explanation does not match the definitions

If the definitions of a miracle are correct and your explanations match the definitions, then it is logical to then apply the term miracle to your explanation.

Since it's just a label, and we will agree where we agree and disagree where we disagree irrespective of the term we use to encapsulate the concepts, would you like to agree to disagree on the usage of the word "miracle"?

Since the term miracle is a vital part of the OP and that we're going to come back to this again in the future, we'll need to have some sort of resolution on this now.

"Ah ah, NENB conceded that miracles happen", and that you're not going to make category errors later when we discuss theism, like "You already conceded that miracles can happen, so why not Jesus's resurrection?"

If you can show either that the definitions are wrong or that NIH does not fit the definitions, then I'll agree that a miracle does not apply to NIH. Otherwise, even if you do not concede that it was a miracle, by definition, a miracle would apply to NIH.

Does your contingency argument posit that extra-universal natural laws cannot exist? If so, do you retract the claim that the extra-universe is bound by the natural law of timelessness?

The contingency argument would only apply if there are no such thing as supernatural/extra-universal laws.

Ok, so we can abandon it, yes? Or do you wish to posit that laws of nature do not exist outside the universe (albeit possibly different from those inside it)?

I think we'll need to explore first what exactly does it mean to have natural laws outside of the universe. I'll mention that more below on discussing empirical measurements outside our universe.

It could mean existing in a DIFFERENT spacetime, or it could mean existing in no-time.

I would disagree that it would only be this dichotomy. If dimensions were created, we would have no concept of what it means to be exist in a dimensionless setting. Concepts of space and time itself would be meaningless where there are no dimensions.

Ok, can I take this last sentence as a renewal of your concession that, except for the issue of how many people believe in the deistic God (which I'll address below), Ih and NIH are indeed symmetrical?

Another issue is being a miracle.

This is the structure of your argument:

1) A, B and C are true
2) Everybody who believe A, B and C also believe D
3) Therefore D is true

It doesn't matter by what margin belief in D is more popular than disbelief in D. It doesn't matter if it's 51% for D and 49% against D, or billions for D and just one person against D. In fact, even if EVERYBODY believed D (as specified in the syllogism) and NOBODY disbelieved in D, it would STILL be of zero relevance.

In and of itself, the fact that people believe D is not a valid reason for asserting D is true.

I don't know how to make this clear. I find myself taken aback by the necessity to explain something I would have been willing to bet money you would have grasped immediately.

Can we consider this issue closed?

OK, I'll consider it closed if likewise I can offer a novel explanation and don't need to show that anybody else considers it a valid explanation.

Ok. Do you agree or disagree that time is a logically necessary component of movement?

For our concepts of space-time, yes, time is necessary for movement. If outside our space-time, I cannot claim to understand how things operate.

I am not sure if I agree that we currently are unable to empirically measure things outside our event horizon. I don't know enough about cosmology, but I would imagine that we are able to use extrapolative methods to extract falsifiable empirical claims about conditions outside our event horizon (such as inside a black hole) from the way that its properties exert themselves on objects within our event horizon. For example, I think we are able to to measure the mass and diameter of black holes, aren't we? Those are empirical claims about an object outside our event horizon.

Black holes exist in our universe, so event horizons of black holes do not really apply. The event horizon I'm talking about is the cosmic event horizon. On the cosmic scale, things outside the observable universe is by definition unobservable. Since they cannot be observed, they are empirically unverifiable.

My more down to earth argument is that even if we were currently unable to make justifiable and verifiable empirical claims about events, objects and conditions outside our event horizon, that does not mean that it's in principle impossible to devise a method to do so in the future.

Yes, I do claim that it is impossible to make any observations outside our observable universe, even with advanced methods that might come in the future.

I also claim that it is impossible to make any observations for anything outside our universe.

The universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light

Actually, I disagree with this. At best, all we can say is that it is theorized that it is expanding faster than the speed of light.

thus distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than their photons can reach us,

How do we know they are moving faster than light if we cannot see them?

I don't see why a few billion years of technological development should not be able to yield the ability to harness super-luminal flight by the same mechanism by which distant galaxies are doing it.

It is theorized that it is the stretching of space itself that is causing things to move faster than light. Even assuming this is true, it is doubtful we can harness that to travel any faster.

I know this is far-fetched, but I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that in the future it may be possible to explore beyond our event horizons, including in principle the universe's event horizon.

We can't even get a person on Mars yet. Travelling at superluminal speed is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

In short, are we able to gather empirical data about stuff outside of our event horizons right now? I'm not sure. Maybe. But lets assume for the sake of argument that we cannot.

Yes, we have to assume this if we're not going to appeal to the future.

And technically I'm arguing against my own interest here. Because if I concede that stuff outside event horizons is unknowable, then, by definition, logic and evidence CANNOT support IH because it involves something outside our event horizon. If no evidence or logic can be explored, no evidence and logic can be found to support IH, and thus, by your general principle, it is NOT reasonable to believe IH rather than alternative explanations. So tread lightly in your attempts to convince me of the "unknowability" of extra-universal phenomena.

All I'm stating is that things cannot be empirically confirmed for things outside our universe. I'm not stating that things are unknowable outside our universe. We have to use indirect evidence to support claims of things outside our universe. We also have to assume that logic applies outside our universe. Without this, it's impossible to logically argue for anything, including both IH and NIH.

For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven.

[no evidence no belief]

Because I posit that the universe coming into existence is a purely mechanistic event, consistent with natural law (albeit extra-universal natural law), and NOT impossible for us to understand, I resist the term "miracle" - which carries a ton of theistic baggage and would be confusing. I could associate the phenomenon with words like "mystery", if you like.

You on the other hand are wedded to the term "miracle", apparently.

I'm not necessarily wedded to the term. I'm just using standard definitions to show that the term miracle can apply to our explanations.

Why do I bring this up? Because we're going to discuss much more about miracles in the future. And though I didn't expect it to come up so soon, it's appropriate to discuss it now.

Sure, there is theistic implications with the term miracle. But, usage of the term does not necessarily mean that one is a theist. Someone can say, "It's a miracle!" and still be an atheist.

Further, just because it does have theistic implications, it cannot be rejected only because of where it would lead. That would be begging the question.

I think the only logical way you can argue that the term miracle does not apply is either:
- The definitions of miracle are wrong
- Your explanation does not match the definitions

If the definitions of a miracle are correct and your explanations match the definitions, then it is logical to then apply the term miracle to your explanation.

Sorry Otseng, I have an insane amount of work. For today I'll only be able to respond to the above. Please standby for responses to the other issues you brought up.

So, lets explore whether my explanation matches the definition of miracles.

I'm not sure what your exact definition of a miracle is. You've quoted several different ones. You are absolutely correct that "miracle" is a very overused and hence vague term. So much so that an atheist could say "Wow, it's a miracle that you managed to finish all that cake". Indeed, the word miracle is so vague that it could be used and has been used for any of the following: Having sex and getting pregnant, having sex and NOT getting pregnant, getting pregnant without having sex, winning the lottery, moving a mountain, finding your way down from a mountain, parting the seas, learning how to swim, not having a car accident, having a car accident and surviving, having a car accident and dying, having a bowel movement, being able to control your bladder, narrowly escaping death, escaping death by a wide margin, flatulence not smelling, showing up on time, your sex partner maintaining an erection, your rapist losing his erection, finding your keys, meeting a deadline, etc, etc, etc.

Given the breath of different meanings and concepts that could be attached to the word miracle, it's REQUIRED that we narrow down the definition of miracle before we can determine what does and does not fall under its umbrella. Please provide your exact definition.

In the meantime, let me clearly present my explanation for the universe.

Explanation for the universe:
The universe began to exist. This was caused by forces external to the universe. The entire event happened in accordance with the laws of nature, which may or may not apply equivalently inside and outside the universe. Intelligence was not involved.

Explanation for a puddle:
A puddle began to exist. This was caused by forces external to the puddle. The entire event happened in accordance with the laws of nature, which may or may not apply equivalently inside and outside the puddle. Intelligence was not involved.

Structurally, my explanation for the universe beginning to exist and my explanation for a puddle beginning to exist are identical. Like, literally verbatim, with nothing other than the word "universe" being substituted with the word "puddle".

While I wait for your exact definition of the word miracle, I have two questions for you:

1) Given the extreme similarity between my two explanations above, do you agree that any word that can be used to broadly label my explanation for the universe beginning to exist, can also be used to broadly label my explanation for a puddle beginning to exist?

2) Do you agree that if, in order to include the universe beginning to exist, your definition of miracle is so wide that it also describes a puddle beginning to exist, then your definition of miracle is so wide that it becomes meaningless?

Bonus question: Do you agree that if your definition of "vegetables" is so wide that it can include bacon, then your definition of "vegetables" is, at a minimum, problematic?

[no evidence no belief]

I thought of a third question:

3) Could you please provide an example of an event for which, no matter what definition of the word is used, the word "miracle" would never apply?

[no evidence no belief]

Does your contingency argument posit that extra-universal natural laws cannot exist? If so, do you retract the claim that the extra-universe is bound by the natural law of timelessness?

The contingency argument would only apply if there are no such thing as supernatural/extra-universal laws.

Ok, so we can abandon it, yes? Or do you wish to posit that laws of nature do not exist outside the universe (albeit possibly different from those inside it)?

I think we'll need to explore first what exactly does it mean to have natural laws outside of the universe. I'll mention that more below on discussing empirical measurements outside our universe.

ok

It could mean existing in a DIFFERENT spacetime, or it could mean existing in no-time.

I would disagree that it would only be this dichotomy. If dimensions were created, we would have no concept of what it means to be exist in a dimensionless setting. Concepts of space and time itself would be meaningless where there are no dimensions.

Ok, would movement be possible in an environment where space and time are meaningless and there are no dimensions?

Ok, can I take this last sentence as a renewal of your concession that, except for the issue of how many people believe in the deistic God (which I'll address below), Ih and NIH are indeed symmetrical?

Another issue is being a miracle.

Awaiting narrow and precise definition of miracle before discussing this further.

This is the structure of your argument:

1) A, B and C are true
2) Everybody who believe A, B and C also believe D
3) Therefore D is true

It doesn't matter by what margin belief in D is more popular than disbelief in D. It doesn't matter if it's 51% for D and 49% against D, or billions for D and just one person against D. In fact, even if EVERYBODY believed D (as specified in the syllogism) and NOBODY disbelieved in D, it would STILL be of zero relevance.

In and of itself, the fact that people believe D is not a valid reason for asserting D is true.

I don't know how to make this clear. I find myself taken aback by the necessity to explain something I would have been willing to bet money you would have grasped immediately.

Can we consider this issue closed?

OK, I'll consider it closed if likewise I can offer a novel explanation and don't need to show that anybody else considers it a valid explanation.

Absolutely! A claim stands or falls on its own merits. As per your general principle, it stands on the basis of evidentiary and logical support, NOT on popularity. I promise that if you demonstrate that logic and evidence support a claim more than alternative claims, I will accept it irrespective of how popular that claim is.

I am not sure if I agree that we currently are unable to empirically measure things outside our event horizon. I don't know enough about cosmology, but I would imagine that we are able to use extrapolative methods to extract falsifiable empirical claims about conditions outside our event horizon (such as inside a black hole) from the way that its properties exert themselves on objects within our event horizon. For example, I think we are able to to measure the mass and diameter of black holes, aren't we? Those are empirical claims about an object outside our event horizon.

Black holes exist in our universe, so event horizons of black holes do not really apply. The event horizon I'm talking about is the cosmic event horizon. On the cosmic scale, things outside the observable universe is by definition unobservable. Since they cannot be observed, they are empirically unverifiable.

Bait and switch. "Observable universe" is different from "universe". The universe is a well defined entity, the product of a well defined event (the big bang). "The observable universe" is a much more fluid term, which changes with our ability to observe. 5000 years ago the "observable universe" was a few miles in diameter, with your village at the center of it. If we discover a way to observe outside our universe, then "the meaning of the observable universe" would change. The term would change too - we'd probably call it the "observable megaverse" or "observable multiverse", but the concept would remain this: "That which we are able to observe".

Of course, that which is beyond our ability to observe, is unobservable, but by stating the obvious (albeit sneaking the word "universe" into the concept), you have done nothing to address the fact that while difficult, it's not necessarily impossible to observe and make empirical claims about events outside our cosmic event horizon.

My more down to earth argument is that even if we were currently unable to make justifiable and verifiable empirical claims about events, objects and conditions outside our event horizon, that does not mean that it's in principle impossible to devise a method to do so in the future.

Yes, I do claim that it is impossible to make any observations outside our observable universe, even with advanced methods that might come in the future.

Here we go again. You are making a category error, man. I would almost say it's a play on words.

"Observable universe" simply means "that which we are able to observe". It's an abstraction. Not a physical object.

The universe is a physical object. By making this play on words, you do NOT demonstrate that our" observable universe" could not possibly encompass objects outside of the physical universe.

I also claim that it is impossible to make any observations for anything outside our universe.

Ok. Evidence? Remember, to demonstrate that something is impossible, you can't just show that it's more likely that it's impossible than it is that it's possible. You have to demonstrate it conclusively.

The universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light

Actually, I disagree with this. At best, all we can say is that it is theorized that it is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Logic and evidence support this claim more than they support alternative explanations.

thus distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than their photons can reach us,

How do we know they are moving faster than light if we cannot see them?

First we could see them, and then we could not. Kinda how somebody driving at 30 miles an hour, eventually will no longer be able to see a car driving on same highway at 60 miles/hour.

I don't see why a few billion years of technological development should not be able to yield the ability to harness super-luminal flight by the same mechanism by which distant galaxies are doing it.

It is theorized that it is the stretching of space itself that is causing things to move faster than light. Even assuming this is true, it is doubtful we can harness that to travel any faster.

Very doubtful. But what's that got to do with anything? Please provide conclusive evidence that it's impossible.

I know this is far-fetched, but I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that in the future it may be possible to explore beyond our event horizons, including in principle the universe's event horizon.

We can't even get a person on Mars yet. Travelling at superluminal speed is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

Agreed. But can we please stay on topic? We agree that all of this is very far-fetched. Can you please demonstrate that's 100% certain that it's impossible?

And technically I'm arguing against my own interest here. Because if I concede that stuff outside event horizons is unknowable, then, by definition, logic and evidence CANNOT support IH because it involves something outside our event horizon. If no evidence or logic can be explored, no evidence and logic can be found to support IH, and thus, by your general principle, it is NOT reasonable to believe IH rather than alternative explanations. So tread lightly in your attempts to convince me of the "unknowability" of extra-universal phenomena.

All I'm stating is that things cannot be empirically confirmed for things outside our universe. I'm not stating that things are unknowable outside our universe. We have to use indirect evidence to support claims of things outside our universe. We also have to assume that logic applies outside our universe. Without this, it's impossible to logically argue for anything, including both IH and NIH.

Why do you claim that of necessity indirect evidence cannot be empirical? Empirical simply means "verifiable by observation". I am able to verify indirect evidence by observation. I observe that your skin is darker than it was a week ago. This is indirect empirical evidence that you went to the beach. I observe that you are thinner now than you were 6 months ago. This is indirect empirical evidence that the balance between your caloric intake and caloric output has changed over the last 6 months.

I reject the notion that "indirect" and "empirical" are two mutually exclusive types of evidence.

For IH, things outside the universe can be knowable, but things can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith where we just accept things even though it cannot be ever proven.

I don't like the word "faith". Please don't introduce religious terminology into the discourse without clearly defining it first.

I will use the term "lack of complete certainty".

Of course there will be lack of complete certainty and we will never be able to prove conclusively things outside the universe. Indeed, there will always be a lack of complete certainty and we will never be able to prove conclusively things INSIDE the universe.

I don't understand why you bring this up now. We already agreed, as per your general principle, that it is not necessary to prove that an explanation is true, in order for it to be reasonable to believe it. One just has to provide better evidence and logic in support of it than in support of alternative explanations. (The exception is the claim that something is impossible, which does have to be proved conclusively, because something which is not definitely impossible is, by definition, possible.)

To say that faith is necessary for extra-universal claims is no more and no less meaningful than to say that faith is necessary for the claim "chicken lay eggs". Why? Because lack of complete certainty exists for both, and neither can be conclusively proved.