The belief that "There is a god" lacks sufficient justification

[Resha Caner]

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?

It's a fair question, and one I was trying to answer earlier. If elopez decides to accept the debate, I'll be interested in following along. With regard to my own participation, I'm conflicted. I'd like to do it, but I have done it in the past and it always ended unsatisfactorily. As soon as things tip in favor of one side, the other side retreats into arguing technicalities of definitions. That's why all the veterans here are so particular about nailing down definitions.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a fair question, and one I was trying to answer earlier. If elopez decides to accept the debate, I'll be interested in following along. With regard to my own participation, I'm conflicted. I'd like to do it, but I have done it in the past and it always ended unsatisfactorily. As soon as things tip in favor of one side, the other side retreats into arguing technicalities of definitions. That's why all the veterans here are so particular about nailing down definitions.

Us? Technicalities?

Resha speaks the truth. If there is a lot of leeway then that leeway will be taken.

One of the problems I foresee is that people will confuse justification with beliefs they find compelling. In my experience, some people become Christians for very personal and emotional reasons, and it is those emotions that compelled them to be a Christian. For them, they may view that as a sufficient justification.

On the other hand, you may be compelled by something more objective and impersonal.

These are some of the general things I have noticed in these types of discussions.

 

[Conscious Z]

It's a fair question, and one I was trying to answer earlier. If elopez decides to accept the debate, I'll be interested in following along. With regard to my own participation, I'm conflicted. I'd like to do it, but I have done it in the past and it always ended unsatisfactorily. As soon as things tip in favor of one side, the other side retreats into arguing technicalities of definitions. That's why all the veterans here are so particular about nailing down definitions.

My grief with that concern is that "justification" is not something that can be defined in the same way that "god" can be defined. I laid out what I mean by "god," and anything that meets that criteria is sufficient for me to call "god." However, justification doesn't work like that. Any definition that is given is still open to interpretation. For example, if I said "Justification is having sufficiently good reason to believe p," someone might question what "sufficiently good" means. The same would be true for any definition of "sufficiently good." That is why a discussion about justification in the context of belief in the supernatural is part of the debate. However, I've laid out as good of a definition of justification as I can.

Again, I don't see the point in hammering out all of the details when there is no one who is actually willing to debate. I'm flexible on the details -- if someone is interested in debating whether god exists, we can probably work something out.

 

[Conscious Z]

Us? Technicalities?

Resha speaks the truth. If there is a lot of leeway then that leeway will be taken.

One of the problems I foresee is that people will confuse justification with beliefs they find compelling. In my experience, some people become Christians for very personal and emotional reasons, and it is those emotions that compelled them to be a Christian. For them, they may view that as a sufficient justification.

On the other hand, you may be compelled by something more objective and impersonal.

These are some of the general things I have noticed in these types of discussions.

I have no doubt that some people will think certain things constitute justification -- but the purpose of the debate is to persuade the audience of that position.

I had hoped to have a debate with someone who was interested in the topic and wanted to have an actual discussion about it, not a person who was willing to dodge the salient points in favor of finding a loophole in a definition.

Does anyone here ever actually have a debate?

 

[Resha Caner]

My grief with that concern is that "justification" is not something that can be defined in the same way that "god" can be defined. I laid out what I mean by "god," and anything that meets that criteria is sufficient for me to call "god." However, justification doesn't work like that. Any definition that is given is still open to interpretation. For example, if I said "Justification is having sufficiently good reason to believe p," someone might question what "sufficiently good" means. The same would be true for any definition of "sufficiently good." That is why a discussion about justification in the context of belief in the supernatural is part of the debate. However, I've laid out as good of a definition of justification as I can.

What you describe can be done with any word. My thoughts on the issue of definitions has changed over time. So, I'm no longer looking for bullet proof definitions. Rather, I use it as a test of sorts. How reasonable is the person going to be? Do they use definitions to aid communication or to dodge accountability?

I had hoped to have a debate with someone who was interested in the topic and wanted to have an actual discussion about it, not a person who was willing to dodge the salient points in favor of finding a loophole in a definition.

That would be nice.

Does anyone here ever actually have a debate?

I suppose that depends on how you define it.

I don't mean to torture you. I suppose I should bow out.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

Closing thread as it has turned into a discussion, not a proposal.

Mark
CF Admin