Since formal debate involves a positive and a negative position, I will be happy to oblige you on the following conditions:

1) You must take the positive position, and argue: "It is reasonable to believe in God."

2) Before the debate begins, you must coherently define "God" such that there is no ambiguity about what we are debating.*

3) Before the debate begins, we must agree on a definition of "reasonable."  No shifting the goal posts!

4) Before I do anything in the debate proper, you must present a coherent and logically valid defense of the position "It is reasonable to believe in God."

 

If you're unfamiliar with the rules of formal debate, I've outlined them in the following essays:

Argument and Debate: Forms and Techniques, Part 1

Argument and Debate: Forms and Techniques, Part 2

Argument and Debate: Forms and Techniques, Part 3. Issues

Part 4: Evidence

Part 5: Evaluating Evidence

Part 6: Reasoning

Part 7: The Structure of Reasoning

Part 8: Language problems and Logical Fallacies

 

Provided that what you really want is a formal debate, and that you are able to provide a clear defensible position with clear, valid definitions, I'll be happy to take the side of negative, arguing that it is not reasonable to believe in God.

 

* In your definition, it will be absolutely necessary that every word be properly and coherently defined.  For instance, if you define God using the word "supernatural," you must positively define supernatural.  There will be no shifting the definition around in a circle of nonsense words.  Full, philosophically valid, positive definitions including a universe of discourse must be provided for all words in the definition of god.

 

You haven't offered a definition.  I have nothing to argue against.

That's why we agree on definitions.  If we use language properly, we can convey the idea coherently.  If someone doesn't get it, it's because of their lack of skills, not our failings.  That's all we can ever do.

If, on the other hand, you're worried about being able to coherently state your position, why are you asking for a formal debate?

I'm going to retract my offer to debate you based on this sentence.  You don't even know the basics, so how can we debate?  Validity applies to statements as well as deductive formulas.  A statement is valid if it is consistent with previous statements, or if it is true in all cases, (a tautology).  If we agree on a definition of God, we have a premise which can then be included in a deductive line of reasoning, and validity can be established.  This is basic stuff, dude.

The reason we must agree on definitions is precisely because validity applies to the internal and external coherence of statements.

Well, this is easy then.  My rebuttal follows:

 

"The claimant has offered only a naked assertion.  Because he has failed to produce a defense for the assertion, the Burden of Proof has not been met, and the only reasonable conclusion is siding with the negative position."

Debate over.  Thanks for the challenge.

Do you understand the concept of positive and negative claimants?

Geez.  I've already got you talking in circles and you haven't even gotten your assertion straight.  Like I said, you give me something to refute, and I'll do my best.  As of yet, there would be literally nothing for me to do in a debate with you.

 

 

 

This depends on your understanding of definition. There is more than one type of definition and what I said about God fits at least some of those types.

 

I don't agree with your interpretations of language and whether the utility of language can be aptly labelled as proper in any sense other than conventional. Yet, I suppose that's not a large issue here.  God can be described as an ultimate being; perhaps a creator or a sustainer of the world.

 

 

This is called the fallacy of equivocation. In the post that I replied to, you spoke only of what is logically valid. Yet here you speak of another type of validity in addition to logical validity.  I don't see this as a big deal and I'm willing to drop the point.

 

 

 

There is a difference between asserting something to be true and offering only a naked assertion.  Where you got this "only" and "naked" comment is beyond my ken.

 

Even if that were true, the bold is non-sequitur

 

I have an understanding of what it means to make postive and negative claims.  ~B:~G, B:G, B:~G, ~B:G are examples of negative (~B:~G) & (~B:G) and positive claims (B:G) & (B:~G).

 

  I thought you didn't want to debate me because I don't understand the basics. (Even though I'm trained in several logics)

 

 

 

 The "ontological necessity" concerning the burden of proof? Oh, man. I am going to refrain from further squabbles. 

I'm afraid that I cannot offer much more to the definition of "ultimate" and "being" than the rough concept we have of it. Think of such a being as something like the Abrahamic conception sans the attributions of omni-traits. If that's not good enough for you, then this debate is not suitable for you.

first who is "we"

define: Abrahamic conception

if you want an argument vs. a debate then this will be a lot easier for you.

Especially if you want to use inductive logic. {if then = maybe.}

 

As a note: there is no logical formula for the burden of proof and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was not "very good" at applying logical formulas to"reality". It seems as though you pulled that claim out of thin air. 

I understand that it is a justifiable to put the burden of proof unto those who make positive claims such as "It is rational to believe that God exists" and "It is not rational to believe that God exists".  (As opposed to negative claims such like lacking the belief that such and such) What I was ridiculing was your use of the words "ontological necessity" when speaking of the burden of proof.  You spoke as if the principle itself was an ontological necessity. Do you even know what that would mean for the principle? I'm reminded of the creationists who use fancy words to sound as if they are erudite but only end up looking foolish. 

I'm not interested in debating you. Anyone else?

Hah. Translation: "Oh crap, Hambydammit is not going to let me assert vague bullshit unchallenged, my argument is doomed! Anyone out there who will let me make shit up? Please?"

Mick, out of patience, I'm still talking to you.  You haven't been here long, and you obviously haven't read any of my work, or you would know the lengths that I go to to be factually accurate, philosophically correct, and logically valid.

I'm not sure how old you are, or what your education is, but you're acting as if you think an undergraduate level understanding of symbolic logic is going to carry the day here.   You've been talking in circles here because you don't want to have to define the thing you wish to debate, and I've called you out on it.  You're not making things better by insulting my intelligence or insinuating that my command of language is affected for the purpose of intimidation rather than accurate conveyance of meaning, particularly when your quotes contain such grammatical gems as this:  "(As opposed to negative claims such like lacking the belief that such and such)."

My response was clearly intended to allow you to back off of your ridicule.  If you had simply spoken in haste, and realized the error of ridiculing one of the foundations of ontology, I felt it fair to give you a chance to admit your gaff and move on.  It is obvious that you have no such intention, and that you are unaware of the glaring philosophical error you have made.

Perhaps you are equivocating two meanings of identity, namely the logical and ontological.  In logic, as I'm sure you're aware, identity is simply the relation that holds only between a thing and itself.  In ontology, however, an identity statement has no material referent unless it has a positive definition, which includes qualities, limits, etc, within a given universe of discourse.  The axiomatic validity of logical identity does not affect the material truth value of a given proposed existence.

As I'm also sure you're aware (or should be) there is a difference between the symbolic notation of logic and the thought processes it describes.  If you were not aware that my statements regarding the logic of the Burden of Proof referred to "logic" with a lowercase "l," then shame on you.

In short, the Burden of Proof must be on the claimant, for any other alternative leads to a paradox in which knowledge becomes unknowable, and literally undefinable.   This becomes obvious when we simply assume that a thing must be proven false before we are allowed to disbelieve it.  Three immediate problems become apparent:

1) The set of "Things we can imagine that might be true" includes numerous paradoxes.  This is not possible in material reality, for the axiom of identity disallows a thing from both existing and not existing.

2) The set of "Things we can imagine that might be true" includes the proposition that everything we perceive is always subjectively different from what is objectively true.  Disproving this is impossible, for obvious reasons.

3) It is logically impossible to disprove a negative.  (EDIT: It is logically impossible to prove a negative claim, i.e. X entity does not exist.)

From any of these problems, we can deduce that the only way to gain knowledge of a thing's existence is to prove it true.  For example:

* A thing must be proven false before being disbelieved.

* Proof requires deductive logic.

* "Deductive Logic does not work." is a statement, which is a thing, which must be disproven before being disbelieved.

* The statement, "deductive logic does not work" cannot be proven false, for proof requires deduction, which cannot be proven valid.  (Since I must believe "deductive logic does not work" until I can disprove it.)

C1: Proof is impossible.

C2: C1 is arrived at through deductive logic, and is therefore invalid.

C3: It is impossible to know if proof is possible, due to the invalidity of C1.

ad nauseum.

This is really simple stuff, Mick.  I'm not putting it into formulas because I'm not interested in trading symbols with you.  I'm interested in the untrained readers knowing what's going on.  Any assumption that disproof of a negative is necessary ends in paradox.  Therefore, it must be a false assumption.

I've just proven to you that it is absolutely necessary to establish the burden of proof before knowledge can be gained.  That is the foundation of ontology.  In short, I cannot hope to approach epistemology if ontology is nonsense.  If there is no philosophical necessity to positively identify that which is real, and the burden of proof to demonstrate its reality, there is no possibility of knowledge (justified true belief).

That doesn't surprise me.  I'm taking that as a compliment, whether you like it or not.  I suspect that you're not going to get many offers if you're not willing to follow the fundamentals of ontology or epistemology.

 

 

Mick, still here?

...You want to argue that a magical deity created the world? DONE! I'll totally take that shit on.

 

Just so we're clear:

Your Position: There is strong evidence that a magical deity created the world

My Position: There is no evidence that a magical deity created the world, and evidence contrary to such a positive claim.

 

Sound fair to you?

Hamby wrote:

...any assumption that disproof of a negative is necessary ends in paradox.  Therefore, it must be a false assumption.

Hamby, I agree you can't disprove a negative. But does a paradox always imply a false assumption? The einstein twin paradox showed that we needed a bigger framework: general relativity. The schroedinger cat paradox or regular wave/particle duality shows we need a bigger framework. In another post you said "paradox" implies your logic is bad so I have been wanting to ask if thats always the case.

The way I see it, we can get a contradiction of 2 statements that are contradictory but both apparently true. Sometimes it gets resolved and we call it a paradox (connoting truth) or we dont ever get it resolved and call it an antinomy. Some think the word antinomy is different than paradox but I think its just the connotation.

I think paradox connotes "cool, good, we will learn something new eventually."

Antinomy connotes "bad logic, stear clear, you must be wrong"...

They're both the same until you get a bigger framework.

(But I still think the statement x is true and x is false is not a paradox, just a regular 'ol contradiction)

 

Coincidentally, Larry Holmes was from south Georgia, a few hours from where I live.

 

Hamby, I'm puzzled that you would be perpetuating this myth, due to your apparent command of logic and philosophy. One can easily prove even a universal negative by contradiction (eg., there are no married bachelors, no square circles, no invisible pink unicorns, no omnipotent & omniscient gods, etc.). So if "X" is not coherent, it is a simple matter to disprove it.

Every proof could be turned into a negative. Indeed, the very assertion that you cannot prove a negative could be turned into a negative: "There are no negative proofs." That would render the claim itself unprovable! I have even heard Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer claim this as well, so it's very common, but untrue:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html

Ironically Michael Shermer is the editor of Skeptic, in which that last article was published, yet he still perpetuates the myth.

Grrr... I can tell it's time to start drinking...   If someone postulates that a contradictory being can't be empirically disproven anywhere in the universe, that's different, because you don't need empirical proof.  You can do it logically.

 

Then you've come to the right place! Most of us are familiar with most (if not all) apologist arguments by now, so your audience has a strong background knowledge.

Okay, shoot. I'm not doing formal debate - I find it ridiculous. Tell me why you think a belief in something you struggle to define reasonably exists.

Definition's

Believe: intransitive verb, 1. to have firm religious faith. b: to accept as true, genuine or real. 2. to have a firm conviction as to the goodness efficacy, or ability of something. 3. To hold an opinion : think.

transitive verb, 1.a: to consider to be true or honest. b:to accept the word or evidence of. 2: to hold as an opinion : suppose.

Belief: noun, 1. A state of habit or mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. 2. something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group. 3. conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Proof: noun, 1. The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact. 2. Something that induces certainty or establishes validity.

Opinion: noun, 1.a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. b: approval, esteem. 2.a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. b: a generally held view. 3.a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert. b: the formal expression of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

 

Your opening premise: Is it reasonable to believe god exists? There are grounds of justifiable belief that god exists. and ... illustrate some of those grounds.

1. Is it reasonable to believe god exists?     Yes, it is reasonable for a person to have the psychological state that allows for them to think a god exists.  

2. There are justifiable belief that god exists.     I'm not sure what a "justifiable" psychological state is? Anyone?

3. Illustrate some of those grounds.     An opinion "god exists" cannot be Illustrated without proof and none exists. If you have some "proof" you will be the richest person on earth.

Plus, You would have proven an opinion, which is not possible.

 

 

I may be incorrect Bodhi.. but.. using the definition provided by you.. the statement "without proof and none exists" is just wrong.

The definition does not require that a certain person be compelled to accept.. nor be induced to certainty.  Therefore, to offer a counterexample to your "without proof and non exists" comment.. I may merely suggest that many people have been "induced to certainty" by evidence (1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter), i.e., many people have proof.  The evidence, i.e., "outward sign," may be enough for you and therefore not constitute proof for you.. but that doesn't really matter.

Now.. the statement "an opinion 'god exists' cannot be illustrated without scientific proof and none exists,'" I think would be more what you wanted to say.. but I'm not semantic-itian.   Although.. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "illustrated"--and I suppose that's an important word in that sentence.

Er.. I don't understand.

*Although.. I am surprised to find that "illustrated" was defined by you earlier on.  Good form. I don't know how I missed that.   Still.. the rest of the point still stands I think. 

Ah Bodhi.. you kill me with you subtle logic humor.