For debate:AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
Moderator: Moderators
For debate:AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 12 hereFor debate:AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
OF course, declaring this 'likely first cause' to be God is merely defining God into place. If the forces that were the 'cause' were just natural forces, nonsentient , without any intention then why call it God?bjs wrote:Obviously no one can prove anything in an ultimate sense. However, a basic argument could be:
1. Everything which we know of that exists has a beginning.
2. The world exists.
Therefore,
3. The world most likely has a beginning.
4. Everything which we know of that has a beginning has a cause.
5. The world most likely has a beginning (see 3).
Therefore,
6. The world most likely has a cause.
That cause, whatever it may be, can rightly be called God.
This does not tell us much about God – only that God is the cause of the world. Other reasons and revelations inform us more about the nature of God.
Then what caused this god?bjs wrote: Obviously no one can prove anything in an ultimate sense. However, a basic argument could be:
1. Everything which we know of that exists has a beginning.
2. The world exists.
Therefore,
3. The world most likely has a beginning.
4. Everything which we know of that has a beginning has a cause.
5. The world most likely has a beginning (see 3).
Therefore,
6. The world most likely has a cause.
That cause, whatever it may be, can rightly be called God.
If a god exists, then by your deal there this god must have a cause.bjs wrote: This does not tell us much about God – only that God is the cause of the world.
I contend these reasons and revelations are that we place within the god concept all that which we do not know.bjs wrote: Other reasons and revelations inform us more about the nature of God.
I find this intriguing. Exactly why is it that one can "know" things if they examine them through a theistic lens. Yet through the lens of the opposing worldview, well, nothing?EduChris wrote:The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 12 hereFor debate:AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.
We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life. The theistic lens allows us to believe that our inner mental lives are valid and true. The non-theistic lens tells us that our inner mental lives are illusory froth on the churning waves of unobservable quarks and gluons in one of an infinitude of other unobservable universes.
If the theistic lens provides true vision, then we have hope that our minds can truly know things. If the non-theistic lens provides true vision, then--in a very literal sense--who cares?
I'm so happy for 'em I could bust.EduChris wrote: The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses.
And here's your chance to show that "theistic lens" is better'n any of the other'ns.EduChris wrote: The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.
You seek to "justify" belief.EduChris wrote: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.
Sounds like a problem for the claimant.EduChris wrote: We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life.
So no hope of actually determining the truth then?EduChris wrote:The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 12 hereFor debate:AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.
We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life. The theistic lens allows us to believe that our inner mental lives are valid and true. The non-theistic lens tells us that our inner mental lives are illusory froth on the churning waves of unobservable quarks and gluons in one of an infinitude of other unobservable universes.
If the theistic lens provides true vision, then we have hope that our minds can truly know things. If the non-theistic lens provides true vision, then--in a very literal sense--who cares?
The interpretive framework provided by the theistic lens justifies our intuitive sense that our inner mental life is real and not merely an illusion.nejisan wrote:...Exactly why is it that one can "know" things if they examine them through a theistic lens...
The interpretive framework provided by non-theistic lenses very often are blurred, incoherent, and/or unarticulated. But to the extent that the non-theistic interpretive framework is examined, to the extent that its implications are followed through to their logical conclusions, it turns out that our inner mental life is just an illusion. We really don't have minds at all--we just imagine we do, when in fact we are nothing more than the absurd frothings of quarks and gluons which no one has seen or ever can see, within one of a multitude of other universes which no one has seen or ever can see.nejisan wrote:...Yet through the lens of the opposing worldview, well, nothing?...
It depends on what you mean by "evidenced." If you mean empirical observation, then strictly speaking we can't observe the infinity of other universes which are demanded by non-theism, given current scientific knowledge. Similarly, we can't empirically observe God. So logically, all we can do is examine each position and see where it leads. Non-theism leads to the evaporation of the only thing to which we have direct and unmediated access: our inner mental lives. Theism, by contrasts, leads to the conclusion that our minds are not illusory, but real.nejisan wrote:...when claims are made they should be supported. If they can't be shown to be at least evidenced they should be retracted.
Well, it sounds like atheists can't all agree on whether their inner mental lives are real or not. Since atheists have multiple views on the specifics of their respective non-theisms, does it thereby follow that they must be wrong regarding the common core of their respective non-theisms?Autodidact wrote:...I'm an atheist, and I don't believe my thoughts are an illusory froth.
Notice the opposing viewpoint is "blurred", "incoherent", "unarticulated". I contend such terms could only come about because one has a lack of knowledge regarding the proposition in question - whether claimant or challenger. I propose such is based on a lack of confirmable knowledge - right or wrong. Thus, the god concept is introduced.EduChris wrote: The interpretive framework provided by non-theistic lenses very often are blurred, incoherent, and/or unarticulated.
Our "inner mental life is just an illusion".EduChris wrote: But to the extent that the non-theistic interpretive framework is examined, to the extent that its implications are followed through to their logical conclusions, it turns out that our inner mental life is just an illusion.
I'd prefer to think the combination thereof indicates "here we are", but understand I may sitting here doing anything but.EduChris wrote: We really don't have minds at all--we just imagine we do, when in fact we are nothing more than the absurd frothings of quarks and gluons which no one has seen or ever can see, within one of a multitude of other universes which no one has seen or ever can see.
Typical theistic slander. Notice the unsupported implication that only 'with god' can we access our "inner mental lives". You ever wake up and think you weren't you - barring drugs and such, and on that, I'm here to tell ya I can commiserate.EduChris wrote: It depends on what you mean by "evidenced." If you mean empirical observation, then strictly speaking we can't observe the infinity of other universes which are demanded by non-theism, given current scientific knowledge. Similarly, we can't empirically observe God. So logically, all we can do is examine each position and see where it leads. Non-theism leads to the evaporation of the only thing to which we have direct and unmediated access: our inner mental lives.
Yet 'theism' is utterly incapable of showing the god in question is anything other than illusory.EduChris wrote: Theism, by contrasts, leads to the conclusion that our minds are not illusory, but real.