"God does not exist"

[Petyr Baelish]

I propose a debate between myself and Petr (or another theist) where I will argue that the God of Abrahamic theology does not exist. I will proceed with the debate only if the following conditions are met:

1. "God" is defined as the deity of Abrahamic theology, possessing the traits ascribed to him by Christian theologians, i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, perfection, free will, and ineffability.

2. The debate will be limited to two, or at most, three, formal participants (volunteers are welcome to chime in).

3. There will be no spamming. Participants will limit themselves to their own ingenuity, or, if they must appeal to other sources, they will rephrase the wording of the authors (to show that they understand the material) and give due credit.

Suggestions on how this debate should proceed are welcome. I will need approximately a week to prepare my materials; in the meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from whomever is willing to respond to my challenge.

[jcs]

I'm curious as to how you propose to disprove the existence of God. Reading your proposal, it seems as if you are trying to suggest that this can be proven through 'Abrahamic theology,' Christian theology. Is this the case? If yes, I'm tempted to participate, just because I'd like to demonstrate that through two millenia of Christian thought, theologians have looked into theology with enough consideration so as to not contradict themselves. If not, I'm interested in how you propose to do this, as some sort of knowledge of your proposed method would be useful toward the end of allowing your opponent ample time to familiarize himself with the relevant ideas.

[Petyr Baelish]

I'm curious as to how you propose to disprove the existence of God.

I will concentrate mainly on dealing with the fact that most, if not all of the traits traditionally ascribed to God are vacuous, self-contradictory, or mutually exclusive. It bears repeating that this debating will concern itself only with the traditional Christian concept of God; the meanings ascribed, or potentially ascribed to the term 'God' are infinite, and thus not subject to falsification.
Reading your proposal, it seems as if you are trying to suggest that this can be proven through 'Abrahamic theology,' Christian theology. Is this the case?

Correct.

If yes, I'm tempted to participate, just because I'd like to demonstrate that through two millenia of Christian thought, theologians have looked into theology with enough consideration so as to not contradict themselves.

One would assume that they would have had the intelligence and wisdom to do so, but it is not the case.

If not, I'm interested in how you propose to do this, as some sort of knowledge of your proposed method would be useful toward the end of allowing your opponent ample time to familiarize himself with the relevant ideas.

I will be drawing mainly on materials dealing with the philosophy of religion, which critique the Christian God-concept via Aristotlean logic.

[Petr]

I propose a debate between myself and Petr (or another theist) where I will argue that the God of Abrahamic theology does not exist. I will proceed with the debate only if the following conditions are met:

1. "God" is defined as the deity of Abrahamic theology, possessing the traits ascribed to him by Christian theologians, i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, perfection, free will, and ineffability.
I'm not interested to quibble about definitions with you (or even anyone else).


Petr

[Petyr Baelish]

I'm not interested to quibble about definitions with you (or even anyone else).


Petr


How can you believe in something that's undefined? To say that a concept has no definition is to render it vacuous.

[Ahknaton]

1. For the purposes of this argument, God is defined as whatever agency created the Universe (or compelled it into existence by virtue of logical or mathematical necessity), being itself eternal, self-contained and therefore not itself in need of creation, thus avoiding an infinite regression of causes.
2. The Universe exists

THEREFORE

3. God exists

Ta-da! :D

IMHO, the only real debate can be over the nature and definition of God, with the "atheist" position essentially being a conception of God as a set of impersonal mathematical laws and nothing more.

[jcs]

1. For the purposes of this argument, God is defined as whatever agency created the Universe (or compelled it into existence by virtue of logical or mathematical necessity), being itself eternal, self-contained and therefore not itself in need of creation, thus avoiding an infinite regression of causes.
2. The Universe exists

THEREFORE

3. God exists
This argument presupposes the existence of God (defined as a creator), in that it assumes that the universe was created.
Is the infinite regression of causes necessarily false? Why ought that be avoided?
[/atheist]

IMHO, the only real debate can be over the nature and definition of God
Which is what this debate would be about, I believe. Is God as Christian theologians believe he is?

@Utopian Pharmacologist:
I assume you're aware that many theologians dispute the claims of other theologians. The conceptions of God found in Christian theology are varied.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

What if a belief in God helps some people? What if it gives them peace, moral structure, and greater success? Why would you want to take that away from them? Do you want them to be dependent on drugs instead? What are you, a drug company representative?
jcs wrote: The conceptions of God found in Christian theology are varied.
That's why he needs to limit it to fossils like "the God of Abrahamic theology." Boring.

[jcs]

What if a belief in God helps some people?
Hardly a valid reason to believe in something.

What if it gives them peace, moral structure, and greater success?
Ah, the holy lie. What if it causes them to do things that I disagree with, on the basis that I, lacking their specific form of belief, have a different ethical system (or whatever) and their behavior seems to me unethical? For example, the Christian opposition to excessive drug use, or homosexuality, or abortion?

Why would you want to take that away from them?
I'm a big jerk who actually cares about truth.

[/atheist]

[Ahknaton]

This argument presupposes the existence of God (defined as a creator), in that it assumes that the universe was created.
We can assume the Universe was "created", because it exists. "Creation" doesn't necessarily imply a point in time, or a "personified" creator. Take pi for example. When was pi created? In what order were the digits decided? All at once or one at a time? Despite this lack of a temporal "creation event" it's still meaningful to say that the quantity of pi is created from the relationship between the circumference of a circle and the radius. Normally we would simply say that pi is the relationship between the circumference of a circle and the radius, but if we want to express the fact that the concept of a circle and the concept of a radius logically "precede" the concept of pi, then we can use temporal metaphors to explain this logical sequence. God precedes the Universe in the same sense that the circle and the line precede pi. The former "creates" the latter. It's all a manner of speaking.

This relationship is independent of whether the Universe is of finite or infinite age, since God is outside of time. It's also neutral on the question of whether God is a conscious being. Is pi conscious? Does the Mandelbrot Set have a consciousness? Who the hell knows? If it does, it's an eternal, unchanging consciousness that would be completely different to the temporal "moment to moment" consciousness that we experience as human beings. Also note that despite existing "outside of time", eternal quantities and essences can manifest themselves "in time", for example when transcendental quantities such as phi are manifest in physical structures such as crystals and DNA. Perhaps God can too, whatever He is?
Is the infinite regression of causes necessarily false? Why ought that be avoided?
Because the existence of an entity with an infinite regression of causes preceding the fact of its existence is undefined, and the existence of the Universe is definite (i.e. it is defined as true). (I could be bullshitting here, I'm not sure :D)

[Janus]

...I will argue that the God of Abrahamic theology does not exist. Do you possess the means to prove a "universal negative"?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

The post you responded to was one directed at the starter of this thread, but whatever.
Julian Lee: What if a belief in God helps some people? What if it gives them peace, moral structure, and greater success?
jcs: Hardly a valid reason to believe in something.
No, it's very much a valid reason for letting people have their beliefs, which are always evolving and changing anyway. And if it helps me to thrive, it's also a valid reason for me to hold a belief. No belief is ever perfected or finished. I am sure you don't believe exactly the same things, or in exactly the same way, that you did 10 years ago. Mental and verbal "truths" are always relative and evolving. Beliefs are strings of words. And even one simple word may be understood more deeply. or even differently, ten years from now.

'pharmacologist is going to provide me with the 'perfect and complete' belief today.' Ah, the unholy lie.

What if it causes them to do things that I disagree with, on the basis that I, lacking their specific form of belief, have a different ethical system (or whatever) and their behavior seems to me unethical? For example, the Christian opposition to excessive drug use, or homosexuality, or abortion?
Beliefs in drug use, homosexuality, or abortion do not bring greater peace, moral structure, or success. So these obviously could benefit from an upgrade in beliefs. I'm referring to people like Pharmacist, Die, et al who want to attack the belief structures of those whose ideas -- such as the belief in God -- do benefit them; whose beliefs do help them thrive. Abortion and drug use are not ways of thriving. Neither is homosexuality.

[Helios Panoptes]

What if a belief in God helps some people? What if it gives them peace, moral structure, and greater success? Why would you want to take that away from them? Do you want them to be dependent on drugs instead? What are you, a drug company representative?

What difference does that make? The proposed debate is whether the Abrahamic God exists or not. Whether someone likes it or not is irrelevant.

That's why he needs to limit it to fossils like "the God of Abrahamic theology." Boring.

I disagree. If it wasn't limited, someone could argue in favor of Spinoza's conception of God, for instance. There are simply too many different ideas of what God is to make it reasonable to debate all of them. Additionally, one might believe the Abrahamic God does not exist, but believe that God does exist(as Spinoza did) or that he might.

[Petyr Baelish]

Do you possess the means to prove a "universal negative"?


Can A not equal A at the same time, in the same respect, Janus?

[Petyr Baelish]

IMHO, the only real debate can be over the nature and definition of God, with the "atheist" position essentially being a conception of God as a set of impersonal mathematical laws and nothing more.

This is absolutely false. To call a set of laws "God" would be moronic and disingenuous - the only thing I can think of that would be equally idiotic is arguing about the nature of "God" without first defining the parameters of this concept or entity; as has been pointed out, something that is undefined is bereft of cognitive content and thus logically vacuous. It is not my intention to argue against the existence of all supernatural entities or a cosmic intelligence of some sort - I wish only to demonstrate the the Abrahamic concept of God is inconsistent, nonsensical, self-contradictory, and thus, logically fallacious.

[Petyr Baelish]

We can assume the Universe was "created", because it exists. "Creation" doesn't necessarily imply a point in time, or a "personified" creator. Take pi for example. When was pi created? In what order were the digits decided? All at once or one at a time? Despite this lack of a temporal "creation event" it's still meaningful to say that the quantity of pi is created from the relationship between the circumference of a circle and the radius.



Reification / Hypostatization


Explanation:
This is very similar to the Equivocation Fallacy, except that instead of using one word and changing its meaning through the argument, it takes a word with a normal usage and gives it an invalid usage. Specifically, it involves ascribing substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts. When human-like qualities are attributed as well, we also have anthropomorphization.

Examples and Discussion:
Here are some ways in which the fallacy of Reification can occur in various arguments:

1. The government has a hand in everybody's business and another in every person's pocket. By limiting such governmental pickpocketing, we can limit its incursions on our freedom.

2. I can't believe that the universe would allow humans and human achievement just to fade away, therefore there must be a God and an afterlife where all will be preserved.

In both of these arguments, we can see use of reification in two different ways. In the first, the concept of "government" is assumed to have attributes like desire which more properly belong to volitional creatures, like people. There is an unstated premise that it is wrong for a person to put their hands in your pocket and it is concluded that it is also immoral for the government to do the same.

What is ignored is the fact that "goverment" is simply a collection of people, not a person itself - it has no hands, therefore it cannot pickpocket. If the government's taxing of the people is wrong, it must be wrong for reasons other than a too-literal association with pickpocketing.

In the second example above, the attributes being used are more human, thus indicating that this example of reification is also anthropomorphization. There is no reason to think that the "universe," as such, really cares about anything - us included. If it is not capable of caring, then the fact that it does not care is not a good reason to believe that it will miss us after we are gone. Thus, it is invalid to construct a logical argument which relies upon the assumption that the universe does care.

Sometimes atheists create an argument using this fallacy which is similar to example #1, but which involves religion:

3. Religion attempts to destroy our liberty and is therefore immoral.

Once again, religion has no volition - it is not a person. No human-created belief system can "try" to either destroy or build anything. Various religious doctrines are certainly problematic, and it is true that many religious people attempt to undermine liberty, but it is muddled thinking to confuse the two.

Of course, it should be noted that hypostatization is really just the use of metaphor - but, as a fallacy, it is metaphor which has been taken too far. It can be very useful to employ metaphors and abstractions in what we write, but they carry a danger in that we can begin to believe, without realizing it, that our abstract entities have the concrete attributes we metaphorically ascribe to them.

How we describe a thing has a great influence on what we believe about it, which means that our impression of reality is often structured by the language we use to describe reality. Thus, this fallacy teaches us to be careful in how we describe things, lest we begin to imagine that our description has an objective essence beyond the language itself.

Source (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm)

I'd like to debate someone who has an understanding of elementary Aristotlean logic... I probably should have stressed that point when outlined the parameters for the debate.

[Starr]

Hardly a valid reason to believe in something.

No it is not, but this seems to be the major reason most people do "believe" in this case.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Originally Posted by Utopian Pharmacologist
This is absolutely false. To call a set of laws "God" would be moronic and disingenuous -
I thought I was reading Helios for a second there. No difference in dogmatic style. And why can't 'God' be a set of laws? It's one of the better, more ingenuous definitions out there. Oh yeah I forgot -- we're supposed to attack a fossilized paper bag here. (Which does seem moronic.)
What difference does that make? The proposed debate is whether the Abrahamic God exists or not. Whether someone likes it or not is irrelevant.
I understand. I just wanted to throw stones into the cryptlike minds of atheist agitators to see what kind of sound it made. My question was more along the lines of "What makes you tick?" As boring as atheism is, there is one thing that fascinates me: Why do some people feel driven to meddle with the evolving religous beliefs of people who are benefitted by them? But truly, this thread is not my cup of tea, so I will exit now. Except I want to share this photo my daughter just sent me:
http://sacredword.com/Images/CryptIthaca.JPG
Photographed last Tuesday by my daughter, who stuck her digital camera into the little portico of a sealed and darkened crypt on a hillside graveyard overlooking Ithaca, New York. I was there. Wonderful graveyard!
Bye now.

[Ahknaton]

This is absolutely false. To call a set of laws "God" would be moronic and disingenuous -
So when Steven Hawking said in "A Brief History of Time" that by investigating the origins and physical laws of the Universe we are trying to understand "the mind of God" he was being "moronic and disingenuous"?
the only thing I can think of that would be equally idiotic is arguing about the nature of "God" without first defining the parameters of this concept or entity; as has been pointed out, something that is undefined is bereft of cognitive content and thus logically vacuous.
I defined the parameters of my concept of God in the first sentence of my post - i.e. the agency that created the Universe.
It is not my intention to argue against the existence of all supernatural entities or a cosmic intelligence of some sort - I wish only to demonstrate the the Abrahamic concept of God is inconsistent, nonsensical, self-contradictory, and thus, logically fallacious.
Well fair enough, it's not my intention to defend the Abrahamic concept of God. I spelled out exactly what I meant by the term. What you want to do is tie down the theists to a straw man conception of their beliefs. You may as well ask us to defend the notion that God is a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Also, how does a "cosmic intelligence" not qualify as God? For the record, do you believe in a cosmic intelligence?

[Ahknaton]

I'd like to debate someone who has an understanding of elementary Aristotlean logic... I probably should have stressed that point when outlined the parameters for the debate.
Why, were you hoping they could teach it to you?

I specifically said this:

"Creation" doesn't necessarily imply a point in time, or a "personified" creator.

in order to avoid the fallacy of reification/anthropomorphization.

[Petyr Baelish]

Why, were you hoping they could teach it to you?

No, what I am hoping for is that I won't have to waste my time debunking reification fallacies if someone like yourself, who does not seem to grasp the logical distinction between the abstract and the concrete and why it is fallacious to treat one identically to the other, should chance to use them in an argument.

[Ahknaton]

No, what I am hoping for is that I won't have to waste my time debunking reification fallacies if someone like yourself, who does not seem to grasp the logical distinction between the abstract and the concrete and why it is fallacious to treat one identically to the other, should chance to use them in an argument.
I didn't treat them identically, in fact I made a clear distinction between them and stressed that temporal language such as "creation" is only used in a metaphorical/analogous sense with respect to abstract concepts.

[jcs]

Of course, it should be noted that hypostatization is really just the use of metaphor - but, as a fallacy, it is metaphor which has been taken too far. It can be very useful to employ metaphors and abstractions in what we write, but they carry a danger in that we can begin to believe, without realizing it, that our abstract entities have the concrete attributes we metaphorically ascribe to them.
Darn, I wanted to use the pataphor in debate. I guess that would be taking the too-far use of metaphor too-too-far. :( :( :(

[Petyr Baelish]

Why, were you hoping they could teach it to you?

I specifically said this:



in order to avoid the fallacy of reification/anthropomorphization.

Unfortunately, you didn't manage to avoid it. Abstractions, like pi, have no independent existence - they are merely convenient ways of expressing relationships. If I were to say "John is taller than Jay" would you launch into a huge debate over who 'created' the quality of being taller?

[Petyr Baelish]

So when Steven Hawking said in "A Brief History of Time" that by investigating the origins and physical laws of the Universe we are trying to understand "the mind of God" he was being "moronic and disingenuous"?

Again, with the reification. There is a difference between metaphorical and literal language (in case you didn't know, Stephen Hawking was an atheist). You'd be well-served to learn this distinction.

I defined the parameters of my concept of God in the first sentence of my post - i.e. the agency that created the Universe.

Could you please do so in logically cogent terms, preferrably without resorting to reification or the kind of semantical equivocation that allowed you to include mathematical relationships within your definition of "creation" (the word has an accepted definition, look it up in a dictionary)? A point that I have been making all along bears reiterating - whenever arguing about the validity of a concept or an entity, semantical accuracy is absolutely essential. If we define a concept to be all things to all people or engage in even less drastic ambiguation (such as your description of mathematical relationships as "creation") it will be impossible to establish the veracity of the concept.

Well fair enough, it's not my intention to defend the Abrahamic concept of God. I spelled out exactly what I meant by the term. What you want to do is tie down the theists to a straw man conception of their beliefs. You may as well ask us to defend the notion that God is a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

What I want to do is reduce ambiguation and reification to a minimum in my debates. Perhaps this misunderstanding is my fault - more accurately, my position in this proposed debate would have been "The God-concept espoused by most Christian theologians is invalid". "God does not exist" was more convenient.

Also, how does a "cosmic intelligence" not qualify as God? For the record, do you believe in a cosmic intelligence?

It may qualify as "God" under the "all things to all people" non-definition of the term, but when the vast majority of Westerners think of "God" they think of the concept established by Christian theologians - this is the concept that I wish to argue against.

[Ahknaton]

Thanks for the response. I've got a bit to say in reply but I'll save it for when I get home tonight, as I want to choose my words carefully to save all this semantic jerry-mandering.

[Kodos]

1. For the purposes of this argument, God is defined as whatever agency created the Universe (or compelled it into existence by virtue of logical or mathematical necessity), being itself eternal, self-contained and therefore not itself in need of creation, thus avoiding an infinite regression of causes.
2. The Universe exists

THEREFORE

3. God exists

Ta-da! :D

IMHO, the only real debate can be over the nature and definition of God, with the "atheist" position essentially being a conception of God as a set of impersonal mathematical laws and nothing more.

That assumes there is no infinite regression of cause, while I agree with you the causeless cause is less absurd our opinion does not disprove the infinite regression of causes and thus does not prove the existence of the causeless eternal cause "ie god".

[Jonathan]

I will concentrate mainly on dealing with the fact that most, if not all of the traits traditionally ascribed to God are vacuous, self-contradictory, or mutually exclusive.
I think the best thing for this arguement/debate would be for you to just go ahead and point out how the traits are "vacuous, self-contradctory, or mutually exclusive". That'd get things going

P.S.I know you're probably still getting your material together, but just don't get too sidetracked with the other issues in this thread.

[Banat]

How can you believe in something that's undefined?

That's the point, otherwise it wouldn't be called belief or faith, but a false or true attitude, since it would be theoretically possible to prove or disprove the existence of something that is defined, or at least to offer a highly possible hypothesis.

Believing in God isn't like believing in Nessy, Yeti or extraterrestrial aliens, where we at least have the idea what are we talking about. When it comes to God - we don't know precisely what are we dealing with. We only presume some of His attributes, but fail to define Him as a whole.

And if that seems irrational - that is what religion is. We believe that God exists. We believe that Jesus was born unto a virgin, and we believe that he died in flesh, resurrected in flesh, and raised to the skies in flesh from where he shall return. We're not interested in proving - those who were, failed. What's more important, we're not even interested in precisely defining what we believe in and therefore make it impossible to prove or disprove it.

'God exists' is an axiom, not a theorem - it could be accepted or rejected (or just ignored). The only way it could be proved or disproved is to previously define it as something that can or can't be disproved, but 'by definition' those definitions are condemned to be either incomplete or false.

For instance, a primitive can believe that the Sun exists, but he would define Sun as a heated ball of fire that rises and sets, that is smaller than Earth and moves above us, and it would be easy to prove that such a thing doesn't exist, but not that the Sun doesn't exist. A clumsy comparison since God isn't something everybody consciously experiences every day (or any time at all), but I think that it best describes my point.

A reputation point for the very serious approach and enthusiasm expressed to create such a debate, though. It would surely be very interesting to observe.

[CantRepeat]

Originally Posted by Utopian Pharmacologist
How can you believe in something that's undefined?


Can you defined space? People before 1000 years think that they cant fly on air, or go to space.

This answer is quite simple.

Let we do this on sience way and say that God is not exist.

You will live for 70-80 years and then die. You will live as you want, drinking, having many girls/boys, eat like pig.....

BUT

what if God is exist. If you do stuff what i write above then you will end in hell with big pain, and what is 80 years for infinity - nothing.

So talking in matematic (stastistic) you have 50% chance that you will mistake, so i think it is better to belive in God, because 50% chance is not worth a risk.:D

Isnt?

[Janus]

Can A not equal A at the same time, in the same respect, Janus? No; A = A.Do you possess the means to prove a "universal negative"? You did not answer my question.

[Der Sozialist]

So talking in matematic (stastistic) you have 50% chance that you will mistake, so i think it is better to belive in God, because 50% chance is not worth a risk. :D

Unfortunately, for you, there are many more options than the Christian version of God and the Atheistic version.

Are you aware of Quantum Mechanics? There is a chance, according to that theory, that I can walk through a wall and exit unscathed. Obviously this depends on my molecules rearranging just correctly to fit between the molecules in the wall.

Now take that decimal (the probability of me walking through a wall) and call it number x.

Prob = x
For I = 1; I <= n; n = 1/ x;
Prob = prob ^ (1/x)
I++;
Loop if I <= n

Now this number ‘Prob’ is the probability of the God existing as specified by the Bible—while, I don’t know about you, I prefer not to concern myself with a number next to zero.

[Roland]

CantRepeat was correct by invoking Pascal's wager, for it is as far as reason has taken the Christian world toward addressing the existence or non-existence of God.

In an uncertain world, a claim to certainty about God's non-existence is as absurd as a claim to have found a proof for God's existence. The Bible repeatedly states, up until the birth of Christ, that God is unknowable. Once Christ was born God became partially knowable through the mediator; the mediator made prophecies and thus became a redeemer. Therefore, in order to be redeemed, one must be bound to Christ.

Proving the existence of the Abrahamic God transforms into evangelizing. Pascal uses decision theory and maintains that if you lose nothing by believing in Christ's prophecies, and stand to win at least 3 lifetimes, then you must wager on God.

[Fade the Butcher]

Pascal uses decision theory and maintains that if you lose nothing by believing in Christ's prophecies, and stand to win at least 3 lifetimes, then you must wager on God.

So, you have lost nothing if you are delusional enough to make up your mind to live thirty-six years on a pillar like Simeon Stylites? You have lost nothing if you hideously mutiliate yourself, forego raising a family, or retreat to the desert to live your life in solitude? That's interesting. What if this life is the only one you have? What then? What if you spend years praying to a God who doesn't exist to cure the sick when you could be doing something useful with your time like developing a cure for cancer that will actually save lives? What have you lost if you jump off a skyscaper? What has a woman lost who spends her entire life waiting for the spaceship in the Hale-Bopp Comet to get here for she can make contact with the aliens who are onboard? We know this world exists. We don't know an afterworld exists, that is, unless you are willing to make a leap of faith and buy into the tall tales of long dead epileptics and schizophrenics.

[Roland]

That is certainly a point of concern that Pascal touches on only briefly in the Pensees. Considering his own immortal contributions to science and math, we can assume that he viewed his own scholarly behavior as consistent with a Christian Good-Life (even after his night of fire). He was an advocate of reflective asceticism, not self-flagellation or any of the other extremes you cited.

While some of his ideas are certainly hard to swallow (his Christ-centered philosophy), one can still cull wisdom from them. For instance, stopping, and reflecting on the limits of sufficient-reason can help put the vanity of the strong claims of rationalism and empiricism into perspective.

[Petr]

So, you have lost nothing if you are delusional enough to make up your mind to live thirty-six years on a pillar like Simeon Stylites? You have lost nothing if you hideously mutiliate yourself, forego raising a family, or retreat to the desert to live your life in solitude?
What shameless strawmanning. Fade is always creating false dilemmas.

Btw, as Rushdoony has pointed out, Simeon's spirituality was much closer to body-despising neo-Platonism than the Biblical ideal.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1373


"First, Rushdoony gives some examples of how ancient Christians mixed biblical Christianity with neoplatonism:

“For a Christian, the lives of ‘the saints’ are sometimes painful reading. Intelligence and faith are sometimes wedded to the most ludicrous practices and to ideas alien to Biblical religion ... When, after a very hot journey, Jovinus washed his tired feet (and hands) in very cold water, and then stretched out to rest, the ‘holy’ Melania rebuked him:

Melania approached him like a wise mother approaching her own son, and she scoffed at his weakness, saying, “How can a warm-blooded young man like you dare to pamper your flesh that way? Do you not know that this is the source of much harm? Look, I am sixty years old and neither my feet nor my face nor any of my members, except for the tips of my fingers, has touched water, although I am afflicted with many ailments and my doctors urge me. I have not yet made concessions to my bodily desires, nor have I used a couch for resting, nor have I ever made a journey on a litter.

We learn nothing about Biblical holiness from Melania, although we do begin to realize what ‘the odor of sanctity’ could have meant.” (pp. 1-2)

“. . . the sin of Adam [was] to be as God, to transcend creatureliness with all its limitations and become more than a man.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

For instance, stopping, and reflecting on the limits of sufficient-reason can help put the vanity of the strong claims of rationalism and empiricism into perspective.

It is irrational to assume that a given phenomena cannot be explained simply because we don't currently possess an explanation for it. To my knowledge, and correct me if I am wrong here, no one has yet to formulate the mathematics necessary to entirely predict the future behavior of a goldfish, a sparrow, or the family dog. Is it reasonable to assume that animals possess free will and immortal souls because of that?

[Fade the Butcher]

What shameless strawmanning. Fade is always creating false dilemmas, as Rushdoony has pointed out, Simeon's spirituality was much closer to body-despising neo-Platonism than the Biblical ideal.

Didn't Jesus know he was going to be crucified, Petr?

[Roland]

It is irrational to assume that a given phenomena cannot be explained simply because we don't currently possess an explanation for it. To my knowledge, and correct me if I am wrong here, no one has yet to formulate the mathematics necessary to entirely predict the future behavior of a goldfish, a sparrow, or the family dog. Is it reasonable to assume that animals possess free will and immortal souls because of that?

Can a mind constrained by laws of causation, space and time comprehend infinity?

[Kodos]

Can a mind constrained by laws of causation, space and time comprehend infinity?

No. Filler _______________________________________________

[Der Sozialist]

CantRepeat was correct by invoking Pascal's wager, for it is as far as reason has taken the Christian world toward addressing the existence or non-existence of God.

In an uncertain world, a claim to certainty about God's non-existence is as absurd as a claim to have found a proof for God's existence. The Bible repeatedly states, up until the birth of Christ, that God is unknowable. Once Christ was born God became partially knowable through the mediator; the mediator made prophecies and thus became a redeemer. Therefore, in order to be redeemed, one must be bound to Christ.

Proving the existence of the Abrahamic God transforms into evangelizing. Pascal uses decision theory and maintains that if you lose nothing by believing in Christ's prophecies, and stand to win at least 3 lifetimes, then you must wager on God.

Unfortunately, what I tried to point out is that there are far too many options to take this line of reasoning seriously. There are many religions where certain holy rituals preformed by Christians would damn the Christian to hell—should a Christian forego these rituals because there is an equal chance that religion b might be correct? The answer is no.

[Roland]

Unfortunately, what I tried to point out is that there are far too many options to take this line of reasoning seriously. There are many religions where certain holy rituals preformed by Christians would damn the Christian to hell—should a Christian forego these rituals because there is an equal chance that religion b might be correct? The answer is no.

I agree. While Pascal's argument is innovative and interesting, his Christ-centric theory is untenable.

[Ahknaton]

Utopian Pharmacologist:

I don't like atheism-vs-theism arguments because they go on forever and are always inconclusive, but hopefully I can make my position a little bit more clear below:
Unfortunately, you didn't manage to avoid it. Abstractions, like pi, have no independent existence - they are merely convenient ways of expressing relationships.
The implication of your argument is that belief in any form of "Platonic Realism" is some variety of reification fallacy. I dispute that abstractions like pi have no independent existence, in fact I would say that they are ultimately more "real" than material things. It is possible to imagine a universe where the speed of light is slower, or faster, or an alternate world that is similar yet different to our own, but it is not possible to imagine a universe where the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's radius is 2.7568468. It is eternal and transcendent, and not contingent on anything but itself and the eternal form of the circle. The properties of pi are not as they are because we arbitrarily defined them to be so. We could not have defined it such that it was a rational number, for example, or that the second digit after the decimal point in it's base 10 expression was a 5 rather than a 4. I am not implying that pi is "real" in the same way as the cup of coffee on your desk is real. It is an eternal rather than a temporal existence. Abstractions such as the transcendental numbers and Platonic solids exist outside of time and are discovered, not invented. Questions like "How many prime numbers are there less than 1,000,000?" are questions with real, objective answers that cannot simply be trivially inferred from the definition of "prime" or "number". They require an exploration of integer number space.

Note: I am not equating the mathematical meaning of "transcendental" with the spiritual/metaphysical meaning of "transcendent". Although I do happen to believe that transcendental numbers are "transcendent" in the sense of having their own independent existence, the two words do not mean the same thing.

The "Equivocation fallacy" is a valid criticism of theists who defend the existence of God based on a definition of an impersonal God, but then go on to infer that the "God of the Bible" is literally true, as are all the prophecies within. That's not what I'm doing however.

Invoking the "Reification fallacy" is more convincing when constructs like Marx's "engine of history" are treated as having an objective reality. I don't buy it in the case of pure mathematics (i.e. I believe in Platonic realism).
If I were to say "John is taller than Jay" would you launch into a huge debate over who 'created' the quality of being taller?In that case you would be invoking the concept of "being taller" not creating it. I would point out however that the quality of "being taller" is logically dependent on the concept of "tallness", which is logically dependent on the concept of "quantity". It is meaningful to say that one precedes the other, because there is a dependence in only one direction. One is created from the other.

Again, with the reification. There is a difference between metaphorical and literal language (in case you didn't know, Stephen Hawking was an atheist). You'd be well-served to learn this distinction.It would depend on your definition of God as to whether this is metaphorically or literally true. If you view God as a personal being who "talks to Jews about their genitals" (as Fade would say), then you are correct, it is true only in a metaphorical sense. However if God is identified with eternal, transendent mathematical or metaphysical truths, (or rather, the ultimate "Source" from which these eternal forms and abstract "truths" emanate) and is personified with human-like qualities only as metaphor, then equating the laws of physics with the "mind of God" is closer to a literal equivalence according to that definition, although of course describing it as a "mind" is still a figurative expression.

FYI, Steven Hawking is not an atheist. He merely does not believe in a "personal God".

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=12

At a physicist's conference Hawking was attending after his book A Brief History of Time was published, a reporter approached him to ask if he did in fact believe in God, given the "mind of God" reference near the end of the book. Hawking responded quickly (suggesting his answer was pre-prepared) "I do not believe in a personal God."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:xvNtpkjbqXkJ:www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/lecture_pdf/1099874611879bb_hawk.NCL.pdf+question+of+the+existence+of+a+Supreme+Being+completely+open+hawking+quote&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7

Now, lest any reader be uncertain, let me emphasize that Hawking strenuously denies
charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of atheism, he is affronted and says
that such assertions are not true. For example, Hawking has stated "I thought I had left
the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be
perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible
for all the laws of physics." Stephen Hawking is probably an agnostic or a deist (a
believer in an impersonal god) or something in between these two positions, his recent
church attendance notwithstanding.

Could you please do so in logically cogent terms, preferrably without resorting to reification or the kind of semantical equivocation that allowed you to include mathematical relationships within your definition of "creation" (the word has an accepted definition, look it up in a dictionary)?The definition I have provided is perfectly logically cogent as it is. My usage of the word "create" is valid in the sense of "to cause to come into being". Obviously it does not match the everyday usage of the term, because we are describing something for which words are often clumsy and imprecise, since it is so far removed from everyday experience. I tried to explain exactly what I meant by the word in that context. Sorry if I was not concise enough.
A point that I have been making all along bears reiterating - whenever arguing about the validity of a concept or an entity, semantical accuracy is absolutely essential. If we define a concept to be all things to all people or engage in even less drastic ambiguation (such as your description of mathematical relationships as "creation") it will be impossible to establish the veracity of the concept.
This is of course correct, and this is exactly what I tried to do by explaining the metaphorical sense in which I was using the term "create". For some reason you are being deliberately obtuse about this, and accusing me of mixing up metaphorical and literal meanings or being unclear about what I meant, when in fact I took pains to spell it out for you. Perhaps you are unhappy with any definition of God that doesn't permit you to slam-dunk it with some stand-by atheist argument about "immovable rocks" or the like?

I accept that for the purpose of clarity, God cannot be defined as whatever one chooses. It would be ridiculous for me to say that I believed in God because I define Him as the force of gravity, or the Eiffel Tower, and then claim that I had "proved" his existence. But positing God as the "causeless cause" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe, and remaining neutral on whether He is personal or impersonal is not a ridiculous proposition.

What I want to do is reduce ambiguation and reification to a minimum in my debates. Perhaps this misunderstanding is my fault - more accurately, my position in this proposed debate would have been "The God-concept espoused by most Christian theologians is invalid". "God does not exist" was more convenient.
Since this is the debate proposal thread, I assumed it would be okay to suggest an alternative definition.

It may qualify as "God" under the "all things to all people" non-definition of the term, but when the vast majority of Westerners think of "God" they think of the concept established by Christian theologians - this is the concept that I wish to argue against.Fair enough. I'm not interested in defending that conception of God. Perhaps someone else can.
In an uncertain world, a claim to certainty about God's non-existence is as absurd as a claim to have found a proof for God's existence. The Bible repeatedly states, up until the birth of Christ, that God is unknowable. Once Christ was born God became partially knowable through the mediator; the mediator made prophecies and thus became a redeemer. Therefore, in order to be redeemed, one must be bound to Christ.This is true, especially for a personal God. We can however debate whether a particular conception of God is compatible with our knowledge of the Universe, and argue over which conception of God is more likely to exist.

Edit: Here's an interesting article I found about Einstein, Gödel, Platonism, God and Universals:

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?050228crat_atlarge

[Helios Panoptes]

I agree. While Pascal's argument is innovative and interesting, his Christ-centric theory is untenable.

Why would "God" necessarily punish you for not worshipping him, anyway?

[jcs]

Why would "God" necessarily punish you for not worshipping him, anyway?
Have you ever read the Gospels?

[Helios Panoptes]

Have you ever read the Gospels?


I was referring to Pascal's wager. It implies that whether or not you worship God will have an impact on the way God treats you after you die. This is a baseless supposition.

Obviously, I am discussing this from the perspective of a person who does not already believe that the Bible contains the word of God and is only considering belief probabilistically. If you think the Bible contains the word of God, then the wager is unnecessary.

jcs, are you planning to oppose UP in this debate?

[jcs]

I was referring to Pascal's wager. It entails that whether or not you worship God will have an impact on the way God treats you after you die. This is a baseless supposition.

Obviously, I am discussing this from the perspective of a person who does not already believe that the Bible contains the word of God and is only considering belief probabilistically. If you think the Bible contains the word of God, then the wager is unnecessary.
Pascal's wager: ought I or ought I not believe in Christian truth?
God doesn't punish those who do not worship him. Read your Dante.

jcs, are you planning to oppose UP in this debate?
I'd rather not, but if no one else steps up, I just might.

[Helios Panoptes]

Pascal's wager: ought I or ought I not believe in Christian truth?

Amend my statement to "whether or not I choose believe in God impacts the way he will treat me in the afterlife" if you'd like. You are presupposing that one conception of God is more accurate than others without any basis. That is not based on probability. That is faith.

God doesn't punish those who do not worship him. Read your Dante.

The writings of Dante are the inerrant word of God? I had no idea. Don't interject irrelevancies, please.

[jcs]

You are presupposing that one conception of God is more accurate than others without any basis.
No I'm not. I was clarifying what, precisely, Pascal's wager was. His wager is about whether or not someone should believe in Christianity.
When it comes to a given belief, things are binary: one either believes in x, or one does not. When it comes to what one believes in, things are not binary. Pascal's wager is valid when one looks at a particular belief, but not when one looks at all beliefs.
And his wager is furthermore about Christian belief. One's destination in the afterlife is part of this. I originally responded to your post when you wrote, 'Why would "God" necessarily punish you for not worshipping him, anyway?' You said you were refering to Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a wager about Christian belief: Christians do not necessarily believe that God punishes people for not worshipping him.

The writings of Dante are the inerrant word of God? I had no idea.
You seem unfamiliar with the Divine Comedy, and the fact that much of it is based on Catholic dogma. In the Divine Comedy, the first circle of Hell is the domain of those who were otherwise good people, but who did not believe in God. They aren't really punished at all, save that they shall never know God.

"You must wager; it is not optional... Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God exists... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."
-Blaise Pascal, Pensees
It should also be noted that the wager deals mostly with the prospect of Heaven, not of Hell.

[Fade the Butcher]

What if you die and God turns out to be the sadistic fuck in the Old Testament and he decides to punish you by reincarnating you as an amoeba? Let's accept that God created the universe. How do you there is a Heaven or a Hell?

[Fade the Butcher]

Ahknaton,

Have you read Hawking's God Created the Integers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0762419229/104-5083650-0527952?v=glance&n=283155)? It sounds like something you would be interested in. I personally haven't read it myself. Dawkins claims that Hawking is just as much an atheist as he is and is simply using metaphorical language or so I have read.

[jcs]

What if you die and God turns out to be the sadistic fuck in the Old Testament and he decides to punish you by reincarnating you as an amoeba?
When did God do this in the OT?

Let's accept that God created the universe. How do you there is a Heaven or a Hell?
Are there any other premises? especially any regarding God and God's nature?

[Petyr Baelish]

No; A = A. OK. It's good that your grasp that particular analytical truth. Now, hypothetically speaking, if I were to suggest a concept that was self-contradictory, such as a square circle, would you agree with me that self-contradiction would render it vacuous?

You did not answer my question.

I did, in an indirect way. When I say that I propose to disprove the existence of God I do not mean that I wish to literally prove a negative by systematically looking for God in every corner of the universe and refuting his existence by the process of elimination; this would requie lending credence to the possibility that God can exist hypothetically. Rather, I shall demonstrate that due to its logical inconsistencies, the Christian concept of God is quite literally as vacuous as a "square circle", and that logical vacuousness excludes the Christian God from even hypothetical reality.

In any case, the old cliche that "one can't prove a negative" is erroneous.

Proving a Negative (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html)

[Hippias]

Suggestions on how this debate should proceed are welcome. I will need approximately a week to prepare my materials; in the meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from whomever is willing to respond to my challenge.

I'm game. But why do you need a week to begin debating theists on this subject? Why can't you state what is illogical about the Christian God now?

[Petyr Baelish]

I'm game. But why do you need a week to begin debating theists on this subject? Why can't you state what is illogical about the Christian God now?

I am a stickler for accuracy. I can immediately hink of at least ten arguments (e.g. self-contradictions in the omnipotence attribute, mutual contradictions between omniscience and freedom, the problem of evil vis-a-vis benevolence, contradction between divine perfection and divine creation, etc.., etc...) which refute the Christian God through self-contradictory and mutually-contradictory attributes, but I'd like to have reference materials nearby so as to avoid making errors and overlooking useful arguments.

[Hippias]

....I'd like to have reference materials nearby so as to avoid making errors and overlooking useful arguments.

I can understand that. I'll keep an eye on this thread until you have your sources handy.

[Fade the Butcher]

I'm willing to participate.

[jcs]

Be sure to include in your research the study of apologetics, such as this (http://www.ex-atheist.com/) kind of mediocre site, if not better stuff, such that you don't repeat awful arguments.

[Petyr Baelish]

Be sure to include in your research the study of apologetics, such as this (http://www.ex-atheist.com/) kind of mediocre site, if not better stuff, such that you don't repeat awful arguments.

I tend to avoid the problem of evil argument like the plague, not because the atheist position on it lacks merit, but because it is essentially the only logical inconsistency in the God-concept that theologians have given any thought to, and as such, any atheist who mentions it is innundated in a delluge of unmanageable spam. I could argue the PoE successfully, but it would take far too long to respond to every theist criticism; I will instead focus on other logical inconsistencies.

[Ixtab]

FYI, Steven Hawking is not an atheist. He merely does not believe in a "personal God".
I read part of a Biography of Hawking a months ago, and in it he claimed to disbelieve in every sort of G-d. I do not recall the title of this Book. It was red; the relevant passage was on page six. I will find-out the name of this Book the next time I see it in the local Bookstore, where I read the Introduction (that is, if it is still there).

[Helios Panoptes]

No I'm not. I was clarifying what, precisely, Pascal's wager was. His wager is about whether or not someone should believe in Christianity. When it comes to a given belief, things are binary: one either believes in x, or one does not. When it comes to what one believes in, things are not binary. Pascal's wager is valid when one looks at a particular belief, but not when one looks at all beliefs.

Assuming that what you do will impact God's treatment of you, who's to say that God will not punish you for believing in him? Perhaps, he intentionally has given no reason whatsoever for humans to believe in him and observes all of the charlatans who proclaim themselves to be his prophets or messiahs, and he punishes them and the gullible fools who believe them. I am well aware that the wager is about whether or not someone should believe in Christianity; I am agreeing with Roland that it is too "christ-centric."

And his wager is furthermore about Christian belief. One's destination in the afterlife is part of this. I originally responded to your post when you wrote, 'Why would "God" necessarily punish you for not worshipping him, anyway?' You said you were refering to Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a wager about Christian belief: Christians do not necessarily believe that God punishes people for not worshipping him.

Pascal's wager supposes that God will judge people based on their belief or lack thereof and treat them accordingly. If some Christians do not think God judges in such a way, it is not relevant to the discussion.

I originally stated god will judge people based on whether or not they worship him or not and will treat them accordingly, which has allowed you to engage me in a debate because it could more precisely be stated believe in him. Additionally, I stated that God it is supposed to reward believers with heaven and punish non-believers with hell. However, you pointed out that according to Catholic dogma, God will send "good" non-believers to level of hell at which they are denied knowledge of God, but nothing further. Perhaps, you want to debate whether or not this is "punishment" or not, but I could not be less interested. I hereby amend my statements to resolve the minor difficulties that you have raised.

FYI, the Divine Comedy is also irrelevant. Pascal's wager could easily be discussed if neither of us had ever heard of Dante. All that is necessary is that we are aware that the wager supposes that god will reward people differently dependent upon their belief or lack thereof.

[Ahknaton]

Ahknaton,

Have you read Hawking's God Created the Integers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0762419229/104-5083650-0527952?v=glance&n=283155)? It sounds like something you would be interested in. I personally haven't read it myself.
I picked up a copy in the bookstore today. It's actually more of a mathematical reference work, edited and with an introduction by Hawking, covering the major mathematical breakthroughs of the last couple of millenia.

Interestingly, the full text of the quote is: "God created the integers. All the rest is the work of Man" - Leopold Kronecker, 19th century mathematician.

This has a slightly less Platonic ring about it.
Dawkins claims that Hawking is just as much an atheist as he is and is simply using metaphorical language or so I have read.Hawking's atheism (or lack of) seems to be the subject of a lot of debate. Perhaps a worthwhile question is "When cosmologists such as Hawking use words like 'God', what is 'God' a metaphor for?"

From my understanding, in context, 'God' is often used to refer to the laws of physics, eternal mathematical truths, or as a symbolic placeholder for whatever caused the Universe to come into being. Personifying these things as a deity is certainly metaphor, but the underlying message that is being communicated via metaphor is that there are eternals i.e. something that closely fits the definition of an "impersonal God".

[Die]

I accept that for the purpose of clarity, God cannot be defined as whatever one chooses. It would be ridiculous for me to say that I believed in God because I define Him as the force of gravity, or the Eiffel Tower, and then claim that I had "proved" his existence. But positing God as the "causeless cause" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe, and remaining neutral on whether He is personal or impersonal is not a ridiculous proposition.

God can be defined as whatever one chooses because the highest definition of god is nothing at all. Every atheist understands this. This is why we do not believe in it, and ultimately find 'belief' to be our luxury.

A paradox is not 'responsible' for the existence of the universe, it is the universe, and to call it 'god' breeds idiocy.

Just so you know. :D

[Ahknaton]

God can be defined as whatever one chooses because the highest definition of god is nothing at all. Every atheist understands this. This is why we do not believe in it, and ultimately find 'belief' to be our luxury.

A paradox is not 'responsible' for the existence of the universe, it is the universe, and to call it 'god' breeds idiocy.

Just so you know. :D
I'm not in the business of converting atheists. If you want to call me an idiot for using a different word to you for something that's your prerogative. You can call the existential paradox/eternal truth/unknowable mystery/whatever at the crux of the existence of the Universe whatever you want. I call Him "God".

[Die]

Him?! Is He you?! And if not, who?! "God" Who? "God" Who? rofl

I am not calling you an idiot. I wouldn't converse with you if you were.

[Ahknaton]

Him?! Is He you?! And if not, who?! "God" Who? "God" Who? rofl
In a limited sense "God" is identified with my higher "Self" (recall the conversation with Julian we had the other day) insofar as the human mind is capable of (imperfectly) perceiving the eternal or merging with it through meditation etc. But I don't identify my individuated "self" with God obviously.

Is the issue that you object to the use of the third-person singular pronoun? Personifying "God" as a diety (i.e. a conscious being) is mostly metaphor, but of course we don't have all the answers, so God's nature is ultimately a matter of faith and speculation. Personally I think of God as a conscious being, but I recognise that's a matter of faith. If it's not the case, and God is "impersonal", then it works fine as a metaphor. Perhaps my understanding will improve if/when I spiritually advance as an individual. When advancing a "public" argument (as opposed to my own private thought processes) I try to remain neutral on the personal/impersonal God question, since it's essentially unknowable and therefore indefensible except as a possibility.
I am not calling you an idiot. I wouldn't converse with you if you were.Likewise.

P.S. What was the reason for your temporary absence, if you don't mind me asking?

[Die]

My main objection to the word 'god' is that it is predominantly used to confound the more natural, classical distinction of self, whereby the highest may be found. A matter of taste. For instance, I perceive nothing with which I could differentiate my "individuated self" from my "higher self" unless of course my higher self was not my self, but anothers. Distinction.

My temporary absence was due to my being banned for reposting something that had been deleted.

[Ahknaton]

My main objection to the word 'god' is that it is predominantly used to confound the more natural, classical distinction of self, whereby the highest may be found. A matter of taste.
Yes, a matter of taste and therefore not worth arguing over. Discussion can be worthwhile though, of course.
For instance, I perceive nothing with which I could differentiate my "individuated self" with my "higher self" unless of course my higher self was not my self, but another. Distinction.
Is your subconscious part of your self, or another? That's not a perfect analogy, but it does illustrate how the "self" may be divisible.

I think of my "higher self" as that part of me capable of perceiving or experiencing "essential eternal truths". It's like the "divine spark" in your mind. That's a kind of pretentious sounding and imprecise definition, but it's the best I can come up with. When you strip away all your temporal experience and memories specific to your individuated identity, that's what's left.

[Die]

Is your subconscious part of your self, or another? That's not a perfect analogy, but it does illustrate how the "self" may be divisible.

It is both. Selves have self in common.


I think of my "higher self" as that part of me capable of perceiving or experiencing "essential eternal truths". It's like the "divine spark" in your mind. That's a kind of pretentious sounding and imprecise definition, but it's the best I can come up with. When you strip away all your temporal experience and memories specific to your individuated identity, that's what's left.

Which is why I do not distinguish between 'higher self' and 'individual self'

[Fade the Butcher]

Welcome back, Die.

[Die]

Thanks, Deconstructionist.

[Helios Panoptes]

UP, are you preparing material for this debate? I was looking forward to observing it.

[Ahknaton]

Has anyone volunteered to argue the theist point of view?

[Helios Panoptes]

Has anyone volunteered to argue the theist point of view?

Carl Rylander

[Micaelis]

Higher-self and individual-self as you call them are separated by the cleft of idea as opposed to appearance, the latter a falsity in relation to the former, the purer and, therefore truer being. We can thank Plato for this abomination of being.

The idea is dubbed 'true', because it is perpetually in permanence, in unconcealment. The latter, appearance, conceals and changes to a degree that renders it potentially inapprehensible. To not apprehend is to obtain not-being!

[Petyr Baelish]

UP, are you preparing material for this debate? I was looking forward to observing it.

I've unfortunately run into some unforseen problems; namely, my library currently lists the materials that I would have been using as "lost" - my guess is that these books were stolen and subsequently destroyed by a crazed religious fanatic. I am now forced to purchase these materials with my own money. I will start the debate as soon as I receive them.

[Janus]

Do you possess the means to prove a "universal negative"?You have not answered this question.

[Petyr Baelish]

You have not answered this question.

See here (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=77888&postcount=53)

filler filler filler

[Hippias]

I've unfortunately run into some unforseen problems; namely, my library currently lists the materials that I would have been using as "lost" - my guess is that these books were stolen and subsequently destroyed by a crazed religious fanatic. I am now forced to purchase these materials with my own money. I will start the debate as soon as I receive them.

Do you have the materials now?