If two debating opponents are asked to make rules, the debate will never end over what rules to make and how to apply them. — god must be atheist

What about when that doesn't happen, like when rules are agreed upon and then there's a debate?

I'll accept your decision as long as you danced around a fire all night long with a rattle. — frank

Your requirement is unorthodox, but reasonable.

Well, we could put something like that to a vote. I'm not married to a number, 2 is what I'm used to as a lawyer and if life and death situation can be decided in 4 rounds...

Another idea could be to have debaters submit their opening positions blindly and then have them start a debate. But this has benefits and disadvantages. Main benefit will probably be that differences in definitions and usage of terms will be laid bare early on. — Benkei

I do like the judicial approach of submitting an argument, a response then filed, and then a final reply. The judge (or, better yet, a panel) then holds a hearing, peppering both sides with questions, followed by a ruling. If not a unanimous ruling by the judges, the dissenters may also file their opinion.

This, of course, will result in a decision that isn't entirely determined by the debaters, bit also by the objective strength of the position.

That decision is then appealable to me, at which time I'll let everyone know who was actually right.

If God is a necessary being, his existence is entailed by the rules of logic. Such is the meaning of "necessary." The statement "God is a necessary being" therefore defines God as subservient to logic and caused by logic. Such entails logic preexisting God. Under such a definitional framework, God's inability to violate logic is entailed. The OP sets the stage for this logic puzzle, by defining God from the outset as logically entailed.

For that reason, we read:

Hey, my OP, my god. — Banno

With that demand, the puzzle remains in the knot intended.

The theist would hold that God is dependent upon only himself as the uncaused cause, with the term "cause" including not just physical causes but logical causes. He is not a necessary being. He is contingent upon himself, not logic.

A math puzzle more than a God puzzle.

Is giving someone the "opportunity" to succeed through stressful trial-by-fires and work a good thing? Why? — schopenhauer1

This is a different question that what's in the heading. In the heading, you ask if subjecting someone to unnecessary stress is wrong. I think "unnecessary" stress is a bad thing, but stress is not necessarily a bad thing. Stress is a motivator and it provides an added sense of accomplishment when you're successful. I don't know what it would be like to take center stage for some major performance and be completely unfazed, as if you were sitting on your couch watching TV

The problem with this thread is that the articles you posted don't conclude that intelligence and happiness are inversely related. Point out specifically what you're saying those articles say that supports your thesis that intelligent people are unhappier than dumb people. I read them to say that intelligence and happiness are not correlated, whether that intelligence be high or low.

Your clever reply would have been to quote Genesis 11:1 to 11:9 to me. Should we speak the exact same language, directly without confusion among speakers, our power would challenge God's. All fiction. All symbolic. All true.

The epistemology of the theist doesn't rely upon facts, but upon fiction. Unapologetically. For me at least.

Wittgenstein says if the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. Proposition 6.5. See,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#:~:text=So%2C%20God%2C%20by%20nature%20logical,object%20and%20an%20unstoppable%20force . Particularly the section "Language and omnipotence."

I don't find it particularly helpful, but you might, considering your affinity for the source.

Might there be a difference between a theist, an atheist, an anti-theist, and an anti-atheist?

Would you add to the burdens of the forum moderators?

Or the forum moderators commit to enforcing judgements of debater moderators while removing themselves form judgement? — Banno

I can ask the mod team.

Yep. That's what this shows. — Banno

Not now that you said it. Can you please ignore truth instead of agreeing and thereby falsifying it?

Mine's an unapologetic cluster fuck.

Looking at the Republican Party philosophically, my question is this: what do they stand for, at bottom? I’m talking about the leaders. For years it’s been tax cuts and claims of wanting smaller government.

What about today? — Xtrix

It would be difficult to distill a consistent Republican philosophy from Nixon to Reagan to Bush Sr., to GW, to Trump, domestically or in foreign policy.

Today, it's a party of cult, with absolute allegiance to Trump required.

When not in power, it's an opposition party with little affirmative plans.

I'm not in favour of mandating a standard set of rules, but instead, keeping track of issues that might arise and providing precedent rather than legislation. Guidelines for future debates. — Banno

This is a legalistic suggestion, demanding a procedure of its own. Typically precedence doesn't begin ground up from just pure judicial rulings (except in very ancient common law examples), but from statute or rule and then prior judicial interpretation matters.

That is, step 1, we pass rules, step 2, we interpret those rules, step 3, we use past interpretations for future cases. To skip step 1 makes original decisions interpretations from the judge"s view of personal fairness and it binds all future decisions. Under such a system,, the first judges become legislators as opposed to a more democratic method of original rule passage.

You method also defeats your confidentiality concerns because precedent must be fully public under such a system.

But what is that truth? The moment you say what it is, you are wrong. — Banno

Then that's wrong because you just said it, right?, and that was wrong, right?...

Truth as we can best say is the best I can say. The noumenal is not knowable.

I don't think that the contents of PM's ought be divulged without consent. I was seeking to keep the discussion here impersonal, but that seems to have gone by the way. — Banno

Well, I believe in transparency, especially as it relates to public matters. The comments weren't of a personal nature. So we disagree there. It is common that private moderator conversations are quoted publicaly by other moderators when disputes arise. Sunshine rules are a good thing, not a violation of confidence.

don't actually disagree, so much as puzzle over this mode of expression. The way "truth" is being used here is not the way it is used in, fir instance, "It is true that 1+2=3". — Banno

1+2=3 is a deductive logical construct, obviously differing from empirical truths. Do you not mean that true is what corresponds with reality?

But you agree, so we're in agreement.

If fiction is the path to truth, you've lost at least one basis to abandon religion. You don't have to believe the sea parted, just that there is a truth being told there.

Take a look at the latest thread on abortion. The second post - by Bartricks, as it turns out - invokes theistic notions of soul.

Here's the rub; the assumed link between god and what is we ought do. This is what must be broken. — Banno

You're too sensitive here, almost a political correct language you're demanding. He uses ensoulment where secularists would refer to it as the moment a fetus gains personhood. His post was pro-choice, with limitations not unlike most pro-choice advocates.

Along these lines, I'd point out that the most important truths we learn are through fiction. What then of this fiction that speaks the truth? A paradox of biblical proportions.

@frank

For full disclosure, the issue regarding procedure arose in the PMs between 180, me, and Banno, especially as it related to who got last close. The other procedural issues I brought up in the debate itself. My concern regarding procedure was made known in my not so subtle way in PMs.

In the debate, I did argue that 180"s style wasn't acceptable, but since no specific rules were prearranged, those objections could only be evaluated by the observers and not the mediator. All was to be considered fair game except to the extent a spectator might disagree. It's a chaotic approach to be sure, sort of like letting the players do whatever they want to get the ball in the goal and the spectators can decide if they think fouls, handballs, and moving the goal off the field ought to count. An exaggeration of course, but just to make the point.

Moving forward, and I say this from sitting in debater chair (not an observer nor a moderator), it's frustrating when you really are present in the moment, trying to develop your thoughts, get meaningful feedback, respond, become more educated, and provide something of value in exchange for having been granted the spotlight to feel you're not being given a meaningful chance to do that.

I'm not chastising anyone here. Banno did reliably as asked and 180 honored what rules there were, but I expected something different, reasonably or not. I do believe our closings were on point, so I do think eventually we got there.

I'm wondering if there is just a standard set of debate rules that can be adopted for future use, with the moderator having the duty to know them and enforce them. Just saying "play fair" has been proved to have its limitations.

@Banno

Until the diverse preachers indoctrinators proselytizers chill out, they should expect others asking them to justify their claims. In case they impose their faiths on others, politics, have their faiths interfere in other peoples' lives, whatever social matters, etc, then they should expect all the more. (Incidentally, Leviticus 20:13 came up recently elsewhere; responses varied.) — jorndoe

I do agree with you here, but don't see this as peculiar to religion and it's not a dispute over theology. You're talking about the violation of others imposing their beliefs on you and your taking reasonable efforts to protect yourself from ideas you disagree with.

You also have to be sensitive to stereotyping by assuming that those who wear the theistic label are in favor of proselytizing and force feeding their beliefs on others. If you're not, you will inevitably attack a theist who was content leaving you alone and will just see you as some irrationally angry atheist with some odd bone to pick.

I get that bad apples exist in both baskets.

How better to show that it is blather than to drag it out for hundreds of posts? — Banno

There are really solid empirical and scientific reasons not to believe in God. There are also really good personal reasons to believe in God.

The syllogisms that appear to prove God or deny God's existence seem unperausive to me, contrived attempts to prove something indubitably, in a way nothing else (other than the self maybe) is proved. We don't need an epistemology that renders certainty in other contexts, so I don't know why we reach for it with God.

That is to say, it's not hundreds of posts this argument has lasted, but thousands of years and neither side will lay to rest the issue with a few word mental puzzle.

Let the believers believe and the nonbelievers not. If the question bothers you, ask yourself what you're lacking that leaves it open in your mind.

Silence is a choice, but I'm not certain what you're getting at. It's too cryptic for me.

EDIT: This conversation about God with an odd interplay with linguistic philosophy. As if a theist sees any meaning in this. Yes, silence, but largely because nothing you raise means anything remotely relevant to the theist. It's as much blather to him as his God is to you.

Maybe that's what you're getting at, beats me

You're saying omnipotence limits God's omnipotence because he's limited in that he can't be limited.

We can either say omnipotence is a self contradictory term or that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to defy logic.

I go with choice B.

Indeed; so if there is a possible world in which god does not exist, than god did not create everything. — Banno

Oh. I get what you're asking. Can God create a rock he cannot lift? It's the "Is God subject to the rules of logic" question. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

There is a possible world in which god does not exist. — Banno

The unstated premise is "God created everything. "

Your statement above is a contradiction of that premise.

OK gang, this thread is to inform of recent bans and to allow discussion, including disagreement, of it. Nothing is gained from taunting and insult.

The conclusion was that agnosticism is valid, not that it is reasonable. — Banno

Do you think it reasonable?

Nor I think is pragmatism to do with happiness so much as mere utility. — Banno

Could be both. Utility can be measured by happiness as well. That's how that often works.

Were we having this conversation in 15th century Europe, we would doubtlessly both be avowedly and devoutly Catholic, regardless of what we might believe. Because there is more to what one does than just what one thinks. — Banno

Nah, I'd be a persecuted Jew. Anyway, today we don't labor under such religious oppression and persecutions. Secular governments have now assumed that role.

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

This sets up an argument for being a theist from a pragmatic point of view.

What is learned from considering the various "proofs" for the existence of God is that none of them succeed and that they're all largely contrived. They don't succeed because there is no force of logic alone that will force god into existence and they are contrived because I've really not met anyone who was convinced there is a god by relying upon those arguments. I do think some hold more sway than others to theists (like the teleological argument), but I just don't know that an atheist ever changed his stripes after reading Paley.

So, if your argument is correct that agnosticism is reasonable, then it would hold that theism is reasonable as well as long as you acknowledge that your belief in God is not necessitated, but instead chosen. In other words, if I sit here, the helpless agnostic, not knowing if God is or is not, then I can choose to believe if that choice better serves me. A pragmatist doesn't have to claim the agnostic or the atheist is factually wrong, and in fact, he can honestly claim he has no real idea what the Truth is, but that doesn't restrain him from acting and deciding and seeing how things turn out based upon what belief he has chosen.

The value of a belief relates to how it affects your life, your happiness, your sense of meaning and those things personal to you. A life lived and died with a lesser degree of happiness is not superior because you demanded a rigid fidelity to the indecision that agnosticism entailed or because you insisted upon choosing atheism because it seemed more consistent with contemporary norms. This isn't to say there aren't happy agnostics and atheists, and, if there are, they get no judgment from me. But, if we accept your premise that atheism, agnosticism, and theism are all reasonable beliefs, I would question why someone would choose, from a pragmatic perspective, one that yields less meaningful results and would wonder why anyone or any society would criticize a theist whose beliefs offer meaning to him.

I wonder if an answer to this is even needed at this stage. Can the debate be reframed as "is the mind a property of the brain or a separate entity that is causally connected to the brain?" We might not then need to worry (yet) about substance or physical or non-physical. — Michael

That seems like a pretty different question that then original debate. My position was of "substance" dualism, so how can we avoid the question of what substance is?

Most theists ignore this forum altogether.
— Hanover

You have evidence for this? — Banno

Total number of theists / total membership of TPF = Really low number

Run your eye down the list at https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/7/philosophy-of-religion and show me I'm wrong. — Banno

Maybe the religious ramble on a bit. They are a passionate bunch, not motivated by simple academic curiosity, but by heavenly concerns. Religious ferver maybe. It's hard sometimes to get them off your front porch, why would you think they'd leave easily here?

I've repeatedly espoused silentism — Banno

I ddn't know that, but we're in agreement in that regard then.

This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely that those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads. — Banno

Most theists ignore this forum altogether.

I'd say the general sentiment of the atheist is probably apathy toward religion, not really spending much time thinking about it or caring to form a complex position on it. That's not just atheism, but pretty much the case with all sorts of complex intellectual positions.

In any event, I'm a theist. I spend zero amount of time worrying about proofs for God's existence. Faith just doesn't work that way. I live under no illusion that I could change your mind and really don't care to. I actually find your need to peddle atheism as annoying as I do those peddling theism, as in thank you for your pamphlet, but I'm good right now. I'd think that unless someone just happened to be at a terribly vulnerable point in their life would they be open to reconsidering their fundamental worldview.

But to your general observation, I agree. The theists ignore certain threads and the atheists ignore others. Everyone preaches only before their own choir. That's how it should be. But of course everything is exactly as it should be.

the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist — Banno

If you're not critical of the agnostic who believes this way, why would you be critical of the theist who believes this way?

I agree generally with what you said, but I think you underestimate the significance of bargaining power and that complex interactions involve complex agreements that go far beyond the four corners of a contract, especially when that contract is a highly complex and politically sensitive issue like a treaty.

Consider your father told you that if you do the wash, he'll pay you $10. You do the wash, but he doesn't pay. Next week he asks you to do the wash, you protest over your outstanding debt, and then he explains how your debt to him is far greater than his to you and that the repercussions of your not doing the wash will far outweigh the relief of not having to do that wash. And so what do you do? You do the wash.

So your dad in this example isn't the greatest of role models, is perhaps a bully, and you'd have more appreciated him just insisting you do the wash as part of being a good family member as opposed to dangling a carrot out there that he never intended to give you.

But one day (and you can mark the days on your bedpost for that glorious day to arrive), your dad will grow weak and frail, he will need a lift to the doctor for his medicine, but his failing health will leave him homebound, and you'll be able to respond to his request for aid by saying "where's my fucking $10 with interest old man." The consequence of taking advantage of position is that the winds inevitably shift and paybacks are hell. I do agree that the benefits of good citizenship in treating all as equals avoids the real problem of karmic justice eventually bitch slapping you.

As to whether you and your father had a contract prior to reneging, did you? What about subsequent times, would those be contracts, now knowing he doesn't honor his agreements? Could you see a reason to enter into subsequent agreements with him, maybe out of sense of requirement, maybe out of the hope this time he'll give you something, or maybe to gain a better relationship with him for other reasons? Like I said, the contract isn't just that concise spoken agreement, but it's a small part of a very complicated interaction.

Yeah, wow. Not a close call there. Good riddance.

Great, no longer in the Shoutbox. I can't digress and talk about my goats and shit anymore.

But I suspect that's not your position. What about murder in far of places where there's no police to investigate? I don't think "don't murder" only becomes a recommendation as a result but is still the law. If for whatever reason 10 years from now there's plenty of police to investigate, all the murders committed during those 10 years would result in charges and possible convictions without the necessity to pass any "law" to do so. As you can see, I have trouble understanding exactly what such a rule would still mean to you. — Benkei

And I see @Ciceronianus the White has joined us. We did have a similar debate previously. His position, and I don't mean to misstate it if I do, is that he recognizes only positive law as being the law, meaning only those formally passed laws are to be considered. This is in opposition to natural law, which would arise regardless of what our legislatures do.

Our current debate, on the other hand, doesn't really delve into what is natural law (except to a limited degree, which I'll point out), but more so asks what is a meaningful positive law. That is, if a law is passed illegalizing murder but it imposes no consequence and no means of enforcement, then does the fact that it's toothless deem it no longer a law?

As to you question above, I would say that if there is a law with no means of enforcement, I'm comfortable saying it's not a positive law. If there is a means of enforcement, but it's rarely enforced, it's still a law. It's just not used often. An interesting example are the marijuana laws in the US and to some degree the immigration laws. The Code is abundantly clear that pot is illegal and immigration without proper documentation is illegal, but public policy is such that these laws are formally unenforced. I think it is a reasonable question to ask what the state of the law is regarding pot, for example, in Oregon where the federal law clearly declares it illegal but it is formally declared not to be enforced.

Back to the natural law angle here: You continually quote the ancient Latin "pacta sunt servanda", suggesting that there is some higher law that applies always. It would be like me quoting ancient Hebrew law that declares "thou shalt not lie." Are these axioms something that exist in every system and must be adhered to. They sound like higher principles to me, and this does seem at least a partial nod to natural law, which explains your questioning how could anyone really believe it's ok to agree to a treaty, but then declare it null and void because there's no way you can get the signor to abide by it.

Boy, I'm pretty disappointed with the debate so far — T Clark

Well, I can't have that! I'll actually try to respond to the concerns here within the context of the debate. It's good feedback.

I was responding to the idea that enforcement is a criteria between whether something is the law or isn't. I guess we agree then it's not enforceability per se? — Benkei

I don't know. I think a law without a remedy is only a recommendation. It reminds me of the exclusionary rule declared by the US Supreme Court for unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution doesn't say illegally seized evidence is to be excluded, but without fashioning that remedy, it's not much of a law.

Based on your comment then if the US promises to do something and puts that in writing then that promise doesn't bind it because there's no court to enforce it? Seems an interesting take on treaties, to say the least. — Benkei

I'm describing reality, not what ought to be.

That's why pacta sunt servanda is considered customary law. The argument that the US can afford to break the law without repercussions is not an argument against the law in my view (especially when whenever they do it, they appeal to the rules they signed up to). It becomes an issue of politics and not law. — Benkei

What you're describing is what ought to be. If the House of Hanover passes a law that it never follows and it never enforces and no one gives a shit about it, I wouldn't call it a law. Its something, not sure what, but not much of a law.

Have you given any more thought to my idea for GPS tracking for Dutch bikes?

That would mean that bike theft would be legal in the Netherlands because 99% of them are not followed up and remain unresolved. — Benkei

There's a difference between an inept police force and an intentional decision not to enforce the law. There's a significant difference, for example, in California now that they've legalized pot and the feds have indicated they won't enforce the federal law than there was 20 years ago when the law was laxly enforced.

If the US doesn't view the UN resolutions as truly binding and there's no way to get them to obey them, then in what meaningful way are they "law."?

You guys need to put GPS finders on your bikes. Just an idea.

you agree by treaty that your won't go to war except in self defence or with UN security counsel approval then not abiding by those rules makes the law illegal. If you want to argue you aren't bound by treaties then you shouldn't sign them in the first place — Benkei

Just as observation. You're not going to convince an American that they are subject to world opinion or international law to the extent it violates its personal opinion of what it ought to do. Domestically, opposition to the war had little to do with the various UN procedural violations, but more so with the concern there really were no WMD and that the war would only make things worse. The UN really isn't seen here as having a whole lot of authority, which I can see as frustrating to European nations because it really is the only avenue for smaller nations to have a say on the world stage.

If the UN had all the authority you want it to have, then there would be some court enforcing it, but there's not. In fact, if the UN somehow took an aggressive stance against the US, the casualty would be the UN, not the US.

When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure". — Manuel

As to whether I'm certain the part I just bought for my ac will fix it? No. I think it will. Will everything work out of it doesn't? Yes. I'm certain it will. That has nothing to do with deductive logic.