I sincerely hope you're kidding.

There is a debating feature on this forum. It does not get sufficient use. — Banno

True. The debates were quite fun on old PF. And for some reason we've let it slip here.

:up:

Good to see you again.

Your posts have been interesting. The trouble is that they are merely speculation. We cannot talk sensibly about things prior to the BigBang; it is not just a barrier to sensory knowledge, but to any knowledge. This is because our language has nothing to grasp, nothing to work with. The best we can do is silence.

Timeless existence must support change but the only type of change we know of is within time. This is the issue I am roadblocked on. — Devans99

We note that things change, of course, but this implies some kind of thingness about things. Well, perhaps that apparently worthless sentence is a clue.

Let me try harder. We think that some semblance of an object continues on to now from before, as if there is a form behind substance. Maybe a clue to extrinsic/intrinsic.

I'll try more. It's still that no fixed object is identical with itself over time, so, well, it's not really a fixed object, or it would still be the same, so, maybe, um, the object goes away and gets replaced with object that has progressed a bit. Enfoldment/infoldment?

In conclusion, I seem to have kept time as it appears to us, but have gotten rid of true motion.

NICE. What causes consciousness? Was it you, or Hume that figured that one out !?

Put in a quarter and try again! Lol — 3017amen

What has that got to do with it? Do you actually want to know what causes consciousness or was that just a rhetorical question?

Locked down, I have ample time at present. It's a format I enjoy, and which would overcome the obvious shortcomings of general forums, well-shown in this thread.

Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation- William James — 3017amen

Philosophy is communicated in words, that is all.

I think the argument in the OP needs to be defined more precisely or simply.

It's something alone the lines of "God more than likely exists because XYZ". Right? I'm glad I learned, thanks to you, about the "god of the gaps" ideology as in some ways more or less most if not many of my attempts to logically rationalize my own belief may fall into that category. I always understood it and its flaws and counterpoints but, it is nice to know. That followed by what the OP has said in several forms essentially how and this is a poor argument as is but how everything seems so perfect in such a chaotic system. No not humanly perfect as in happiness just how every living and non living thing seems to come together and have a purpose. There is nothing that just "exists for no reason". Even things we despise like mosquitos and creepy crawlers play a part.

My fallback rationalization as I'm sure you've read from me before are things like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Things, ideas, theories rather that got people laughed at, ridiculed, mocked, and sometimes even killed are now things every person uses, has used, or wants to use, etc. I got plenty.

I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP. — Banno

Debates only decide who's boss, not who's correct. Besides, the opposing opinions in this thread are using different criteria : scientific empirical vs rational theoretical. God is not an empirical fact, but a theoretical opinion. Note that the OP says "almost certainly". So, we could debate until the gods come home, and never reach a final truth.

That's why we are merely sharing various opinions on the God topic, not trying to convert unbelievers. We are also using primarily inductive (scientific) reasoning, not deduction from scriptural authorities. Yet, as Hume noted, the Inductive process is open-ended. So, speaking for myself, I don't take my "probable" opinions on faith, but merely as steps to get closer to Truth. :cool:

Induction - closer to truth : the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Hume on Causation : since empirical evidence if always partial and incomplete, he advised skepticism toward provisional scientific "facts".
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/#H5

Closer to Truth : https://www.closertotruth.com/

I think the argument in the OP needs to be defined more precisely or simply. — Outlander

Indeed; and indeed, in doing so one find that the argument falls apart. Particularly, as we find out about causation, the causal chain breaks.

One curiosity here is the use of "...almost certainly...", and the introduction of the notion of probability. It hints at the introduction of a Bayesian approach. One might take as the prior that there is a 50/50 chance of God, and then seek evidence and re-calculate one's beliefs. While it might be interesting to have someone attempt such a defence, it might be apparent that what is to count as evidence here would be contentious.

This is because our language has nothing to grasp, nothing to work with. The best we can do is silence. — Banno

No. That's why philosophical speculations on ultimate truths and causes are always couched in metaphors. Plato's Forms are not real things, but ideas that we can grasp by analogy. Professional philosophers would be out of a job, if your assertion was true. Even hard-nosed scientists speculate on ideas without hard evidence (e.g. Dark Matter), and their theories are presented in metaphorical language : Dark Matter is like . . .

Stuff like this post is what I mean as far as "don't you think it all fits together a little too well?"

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/415955

Anyhow as far as debates I think it should be where there are two ideas, or one and naturally the proving or disproving of it. Naturally and this was my point some "ideas" are not speaking of irrefutability... if that's a word. Rather that, depending on the confidence of the speaker you have the three following ideas: The existence of X cannot be disproved, X is just as likely as Y, or even as I think the OP claims X is more likely than Y.

Also for debates I think it should be like tag team wrestling. Two or more people who use relatable enough logic and ideas on each "side" .. one gets stuck or tired he can "tap out" :grin:

We do know that time has a start - how could the past possibly be longer than any finite number of days?

No, we know no such thing. The fact that past-eternal and cyclical cosmological models remain viable is of course due precisely to the fact that we know no such thing. And the past could possibly be infinite, apparently, because there is nothing logically contradictory about an infinite past or infinite causal sequence- at least, not so far as you or Craig or anyone else has hitherto been able to rigorously demonstrate. Nor is there any compelling body of empirical scientific evidence establishing a finite past (and again, thus the viability of past-eternal models).

So this premise is an article of faith no less than the existence of God itself, rendering this entire exercise pointless (since presumably the point of an argument or proof of God's existence is to establish that conclusion on firmer epistemic footing than mere faith).

Debates only decide who's boss, not who's correct. — Gnomon

As opposed to, say, what happens here?

The discussions in these general forums rarely achieve any depth. There are simply too many interjections and divergences for that to happen. A debate allows detail, and participants can be held to account for their conjectures.

In previous debates - not in this forum - there was a parallel general discussion, which, given the presence of folk who actually know their stuff, served to moderate the discussion. Philosophers are quite good at spotting and dissecting rhetorical strategies.

@Baden might tell us if this is so here. Is there a standard format?

Plato's Forms are not real things, but ideas that we can grasp by analogy. — Gnomon

Plato certainly thought they were real.

I'm running the simple Wittgensteinian line that such metaphysical speculation is senseless. But... one must also entertain the notion that what it cannot say, it might show. It might be treated as reaching beyond language, even as music and art show us how to live without telling us. If @Devans99 OP were presented as poetry, I might have no beef with it.

But it is presented as argument.

And so far as your discussion of Spinoza shows what we don't know, I have no objection to it. But as soon as it claims to tell us something, it becomes nonsense.

Now here we have the outline of an interesting discussion.

You've raised the topic of evolution a few times.

Two things are worth noting about evolution.

The first is that it happens.

The second is that it is not directed; it has no teleology.

Some folk, on first questioning their theism, seek purpose in evolution. But purpose isn't found, it is chosen.

It's curious how often the purveyors of fractured ceramics lack a grasp of the mathematics of infinity.

@Isaac, have you noticed this? Meta suffers a blindness not dissimilar to @Devans99, in that both seem unable to grasp the mathematics of Limits. Could this be a litmus test for nutjobs?

In a modern microscale it can be proven. Genetic variance. Perhaps a particular variance makes you smarter, stronger, or just more attractive. It gives you an edge. And so, you're more likely to reproduce. Perhaps another makes you any of the inverse of the aforementioned. It gives you a burden, that can be turned into a motivation to improve yourself. Whereas, someone who has no need to improve may become complacent, docile, and ignorant. It's a real catch 22.

However tiny changes between characteristics of modern humans do not prove you evolved from some slimy fish frog that was essentially a retarded mutant that was born with freak appendages that allowed it to crawl on land. Does it? How so. Why aren't people born with extra hands or legs today. For example.

There is a debating feature on this forum. It does not get sufficient use.

I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP. — Banno

(y) Invite @Devans99 right over.

I see ...
Debate Proposals
Debate Discussion
But not in the more formal format.

I'm not going to defend evolution here. It would be too far off-topic, in a thread where the main issue from my perspective is holding the theists to account for the claims they have already made.

But I will say that evolution is the very basis of biology, and that the only folk who question it do so with a religious motivation. Rejecting evolution is symptomatic of an inability to reason.

Alright alright. We'll put a pin in this for later. Though, I can reject ones specific definition of law and order without rejecting law and order. Again we should come back to this.

What are the claims being made? God of the gaps, essentially?

(y) Invite @Devans99 right over. — jorndoe

A debate with @Devans99 would probably be a reenactment of the objections all ready voiced here; that his OP is based on an inaccurate understanding of causation and that his adoption of it derives from his religious predilections rather than an honest appraisal; in other words that it is self-serving twaddle. Th advantage would be in holding him to developing his argument instead of merely repeating it, as he does here; or at least it would be easier to show that this is what he is doing.

A debate with @3017amen would be too much like kicking a puppy. He has no obvious capacity in this area.

@Gnomon would be more interesting philosophically, since they show a decent grasp of the issues at hand and some erudition.

You'd think someone would like to put this smug, arrogant Boomer in his place.

We'll put a pin in this for later. — Outlander

No; experience teaches me that such discussions are pointless, since those who pretend to argue against evolution are really only afeared for their conservative religious views.

As opposed to, say, what happens here? — Banno

Yes. What happens here is philosophical dialogue. Many of us on this forum have no formal philosophical training, but are autodidacts. It's way of learning about other people's ideas on topics of interest. Did you think the OP was making a formal argument, or inviting a contentious debate? Are you learning anything new? :smile:

Dialogue : As a narrative, philosophical or didactic device, it is chiefly associated in the West with the Socratic dialogue as developed by Plato, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue

Debate : A debate is seldom a learning device, but merely two preachers pontificating to different choirs.

The discussions in these general forums rarely achieve any depth. — Banno

That's why I have put my personal scientific & philosophical worldview into the form of a non-academic thesis : Enformationism. I am not content to hold unscientific beliefs or emotional feelings on important matters.

Since I am now retired, I have followed up that step-by-step exposition, supported with references and side notes, with topical essays on a variety of related subjects. The basic theory has been expanded in recent years, into a personal philosophy, on my Blog, and in a Forum. In my posts, I also offer suggested reading tips for further exploration. My original primitive views have evolved over the last 12 years.

So, if you want more "depth" on my briefly expressed opinions it is readily available on all digital media. Anyone who is interested in a different perspective on the god question, and many other topics, can continue this dialogue on the BothAnd Forum. :nerd:

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

BothAnd Forum : http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=3

Let me know I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one!!

If you're scared, say you're scared . LoL

If no one else will take on the task, then lets to it.

Sounds good just so you know the rules will be wide open: all philosophical domains will be argued. But I will mainly focus on existentialism and phenomenology. Just let me know!!

I've learned plenty in previous debates - in a previous incarnation of this forum. Two aspects stood out to me; an improvement in the articulation of my own argument, and a better understanding of the approach taken by my partner.

I'm not much in to systematising philosophical positions; explication what you call a worldview. Nailing one's flag to a blog tends to set one's feet in mud... (that was dreadful!)

The fun for me is in the exploring, not in the mapping.

all philosophical domains will be argued. — 3017amen

That's your fault; a failure to follow through. Your posts jump form topic to topic with gay abandon. No, if we are to debate, it will be on the argument in the OP, or a rendering of it that suits you better. That is what I requested.

If you are not up to that task, and since @Gnomon has no interest, we will wait on @Devans99.