The motion is the title, and I will be taking the affirmative. By "god," I mean a god like the one in the three main monotheistic religions: omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I'm open to the format, and I'd be willing to restrict the topic somewhat to discuss specific arguments for or against god (i.e., "The cosmological argument gives us good reason to believe in god.") I have tried several times to get a formal debate going, and I have yet to have any luck. In other words, I'm flexible!
The belief that "There is a god" lacks sufficient justification
- Thread starter Conscious Z
- Start date
- Status
You gave your definition of a god. If you are also the one to provide the definition of "sufficient justification", you're likely to predetermine the outcome.
Upvote
0
What constitutes sufficient justification is part of the debate. Nothing I've said here constitutes begging the question.
Upvote
0
Shrug. OK. Your OP felt as if you were asking why no one will debate you. I was trying to explain how your potential opponents might view what you've posed. To me it seems common to have drastically different paradigms between believer and unbeliever, and so people spend a lot time talking at each other without ever understanding each other.
Upvote
0
You are a piece of furniture asking why has my creator made me thus? If you believe that you are a random chance of atoms gathered together as you , then fine. I do not. I believe that as a child and descendant of Adam, I am a begotten son of God (Yahaveh) and I will return as such. The total answers you seek, will be unveiled the instant you leave this flesh body. To believe otherwise, is folly. Death from the flesh, is truth.
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
As noted, the requisite of "justification" or "lack therof" needs to be outlined.
"God" needs to be more precise. Those three religions idea of God is still somewhat vague. However I'm assuming if one is Christian we'd talk of the Christian idea of God. Which of course renders God all three attributes, yet still, the very definition of each would need to be established and agreed upon before debate.
Since you are taking the affirmative position, generally you would make the first opening argument. In which case you would have to pick an issue to cover, whether that be the cosmological argument, or some philosophical argument, I think may have to be hased out as well. Did you have something in mind?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes! Since one cannot "prove" there is or is not a God by many peoples standards (or any one person's standard) then we first must know what constitutes "sufficient justification"? For some they would settle for no less than His appearing and audibly speaking to all, some would accept if even just to them, others would immediately demand miracles....and so on....
Are we talking materialistic measures? Rational? Empirical? Resha has presented a very important consideration as I may accept empirical evidence and you may not, God may have spoken to me but not you, etc. So what do you have in mind when you use the term "sufficient" and "justification"? Thanks
Paul
Are we talking materialistic measures? Rational? Empirical? Resha has presented a very important consideration as I may accept empirical evidence and you may not, God may have spoken to me but not you, etc. So what do you have in mind when you use the term "sufficient" and "justification"? Thanks
Paul
Upvote
0
Define benevolent
Thoroughly good.
This forum is to propose debates, not have debates.
I defined "god": omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent. Those three traits are sufficient. I will be arguing that no such being exists. Those terms are all pretty well defined. I'm not pulling any tricks here.
I'm not going to get into what I'm going to say in my first argument -- that isn't necessary.
What constitutes sufficient justification is part of the debate.
Why are there so many people here who are willing to quibble about irrelevant details of the proposal yet so few people willing to actually have a debate?
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
Those traits are not defined though, and would need to be prior to debate so there is no confusion or talking past each other. So, you haven't clearly defined God.
Im not saying you are pulling tricks. I just want to clearly define the terms of said debate. None of what has been brought up is irrelevant rather crucial to this. The outlines of a debate are probably more vital than thr actual deabte itself, so you should be a little more open and willimg to plot this out if you truly want a legitimate debate...
Upvote
0
Are you actually interested in having the debate? If you are, we can hammer out details. In my experience, this forum has a lot of folks who are quick to point out the insufficiency of a proposal without any desire to actually have the debate.
Anyway, here's a definition of these terms:
Omnipotent: Having the power to do anything that is logically possible
Omniscient: All-knowing. I'm fine with conceding the possibility of an omniscient being not having knowledge of future facts about the actions of free beings.
Omnibenevolent: Thoroughly good
All of these words are used with great regularity in philosophy of religion. In my opinion, you are pinching on the details before even expressing interest in the debate. It is like going to a car dealership and asking about floor mats if you aren't even interested in buying the car. If someone is interested, then say so, and we can hammer out any details desired.
However, I'm sticking to my point on "sufficient justification": This is an epistemological phrase that is part of the debate.
Also, there is no reason why I need to outline anything about what my argument in my first post will be. That isn't necessary in order to agree to the debate.
Upvote
0
I do not want to pigeon-hole definitions too much because I do not want this debate to be about technicalities in definitions. I want it to be relevant to the question of whether a god, as traditionally conceived in the three monotheistic religions, exists. I agree that the basic outlines need to be described, but I want to intentionally leave room for some debate about the salient aspects of what belief in god entails, such as what sort of justification level we should seek to attain when adopting such a belief.
Obviously my initial post is not all that needs to be said prior to the debate beginning. But that isn't the purpose of a proposal. I would rather wait for someone to express genuine interest, and then we can hammer out the details together. Too many people on this forum are ready to put the cart before the horse.
Obviously my initial post is not all that needs to be said prior to the debate beginning. But that isn't the purpose of a proposal. I would rather wait for someone to express genuine interest, and then we can hammer out the details together. Too many people on this forum are ready to put the cart before the horse.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
elopez
Well-Known Member
It depends on if we can come to terms. Im not just pointing out, if that means anything to you.
With omnipotence Id like to say although I do not disagree with tbat definition, I would add that is more of an implication of the actual definition which is simply "all-powerful" which equates to nothing being more powerful than God. Omniscience is knowledge of all things, which includes the future.
Are these the only definitions and concepts of God you wish to define?
And all of those words are vigorously debated on within philosophy of religion. Also, IMO, even if Im asking about floor mats, you're job regardless is to sell the car, in which case you better have knowledge of those floor matts. Though, I am not really sure what you're comparing "floor matts" to as definitions of words within a debate are not so miniscule.
I am just trying to figure out how we are going to determine what is justification and what is not. What type of "justifiers"are we aiming to demonstrate? Strictly an evidence type (if then what kind of evidence?) or some other type like facts of our environment, etc? Sometimes beliefs are justifiers less they do not stand to reason.
Well, what are we debating then? What if my belief why the existence of God is justified, is not something you argue against. What if you argue some point I already agree upon, that wouldn't, even to me, count as justification? You see what I am saying?
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
So are you wanting to debate an actual theological issue, or to debate a theory of justification for the belief in God? Or both? I think either way youd have to make clear of your intentions, and state your position on a theological issue as well as your position on a theory of justification.
Upvote
0
I'm fine with both of your definition adjustments, as they are actually more exclusive than the ones I gave. There are no other terms that I think need clarification. We all know what "justification" means, although we may disagree on what constitutes justification.
The floor mat example was simply to demonstrate that, without knowing whether you were actually interested in doing the debate, hammering out details like definitions is putting the cart before the horse. My initial post was not intended to be entirely sufficient. It was simply designed to see if there was anyone with interest in doing the debate. When that person presents himself or herself, we can then further hit the details.
Let me clarify the issue of justification. We probably agree that knowledge requires belief, justification, truth and some sort of anti-luck trait to cover Gettier-type cases. Not all beliefs, however, have any sort of justification. So, for example, I may believe that the President's favorite color is blue even if I've never learned anything about the President's color preferences. There is nothing inherent in belief that requires justification -- we can believe whatever we want for any reason at all. However, in order have a justified belief, we must have come to hold that belief via a process that is likely to produce true beliefs and not produce false beliefs. For example, if I were to flip a coin and determine that it is currently raining in Canada because the coin landed on heads, even if it is raining in Canada, I don't have justification for that belief. A coin flip is not a method that is likely to produce true beliefs and not produce false beliefs. On the other hand, if I call up a meteorologist in Toronto and he tells me that Canada is experiencing strong rain in multiple provinces, my belief that it is raining in Canada is suddenly justified. As a third example, if I were to drive to Canada and witness the rains myself, my belief would have even stronger justification. These examples represent three different points on the spectrum of justification.
Perhaps a good metric for what counts as "sufficient justification" would be the following: Smith's justification for belief P is sufficient in the case that, if P were true, Smith would have knowledge of P (excluding Gettier cases). In other words, the standard for "sufficient justification" is essentially the standard for justification as it pertains to knowledge, although here we are obviously excluding considerations such as truth and Gettier-type anti-luck factors.
We aren't looking at a specific argument in isolation. We are looking at the totality of considerations, just as we do when evaluating whether we should believe any proposition. We wouldn't say that any belief is justified simply due to their being a certain argument for it if there is an even stronger argument against it. Again, there is no reason why I need to lay out my initial argument here. No debate requires participants to do that. I agree that there are many arguments for god and many arguments against god, but it is my job to show that either the arguments against god are compelling enough to overcome any merit of the arguments for god or that the arguments for god fail to constitute sufficient justification.
The existence of god is not a theological issue. It is a philosophical issue. Theology presupposes the existence of god.
I'm wanting to debate the philosophical issue of whether belief in god is justified. That involves debating the arguments for and against god as well as what our standard of justification should be when evaluating such arguments.
The floor mat example was simply to demonstrate that, without knowing whether you were actually interested in doing the debate, hammering out details like definitions is putting the cart before the horse. My initial post was not intended to be entirely sufficient. It was simply designed to see if there was anyone with interest in doing the debate. When that person presents himself or herself, we can then further hit the details.
Let me clarify the issue of justification. We probably agree that knowledge requires belief, justification, truth and some sort of anti-luck trait to cover Gettier-type cases. Not all beliefs, however, have any sort of justification. So, for example, I may believe that the President's favorite color is blue even if I've never learned anything about the President's color preferences. There is nothing inherent in belief that requires justification -- we can believe whatever we want for any reason at all. However, in order have a justified belief, we must have come to hold that belief via a process that is likely to produce true beliefs and not produce false beliefs. For example, if I were to flip a coin and determine that it is currently raining in Canada because the coin landed on heads, even if it is raining in Canada, I don't have justification for that belief. A coin flip is not a method that is likely to produce true beliefs and not produce false beliefs. On the other hand, if I call up a meteorologist in Toronto and he tells me that Canada is experiencing strong rain in multiple provinces, my belief that it is raining in Canada is suddenly justified. As a third example, if I were to drive to Canada and witness the rains myself, my belief would have even stronger justification. These examples represent three different points on the spectrum of justification.
Perhaps a good metric for what counts as "sufficient justification" would be the following: Smith's justification for belief P is sufficient in the case that, if P were true, Smith would have knowledge of P (excluding Gettier cases). In other words, the standard for "sufficient justification" is essentially the standard for justification as it pertains to knowledge, although here we are obviously excluding considerations such as truth and Gettier-type anti-luck factors.
We aren't looking at a specific argument in isolation. We are looking at the totality of considerations, just as we do when evaluating whether we should believe any proposition. We wouldn't say that any belief is justified simply due to their being a certain argument for it if there is an even stronger argument against it. Again, there is no reason why I need to lay out my initial argument here. No debate requires participants to do that. I agree that there are many arguments for god and many arguments against god, but it is my job to show that either the arguments against god are compelling enough to overcome any merit of the arguments for god or that the arguments for god fail to constitute sufficient justification.
The existence of god is not a theological issue. It is a philosophical issue. Theology presupposes the existence of god.
I'm wanting to debate the philosophical issue of whether belief in god is justified. That involves debating the arguments for and against god as well as what our standard of justification should be when evaluating such arguments.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
For me there is justification in everything that is around us, creation itself reveals God to us. I do not believe that we came about by chance , after decades of research in virtually all branches of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting life.
“His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”—ROMANS 1:20.
That evidence is all around us. It is not hidden in nature but is “clearly seen.” From the largest to the smallest, creation clearly reveals not only that there is a Creator but also that he has wonderful qualities.
“His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”—ROMANS 1:20.
That evidence is all around us. It is not hidden in nature but is “clearly seen.” From the largest to the smallest, creation clearly reveals not only that there is a Creator but also that he has wonderful qualities.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
