Before I begin I wanted to thank Knight for hosting. I'm new to this forum, and have already put my feet in the water by raising hell in the religion area. As you all can see after one day I managed to receive enough votes to my reputation at -95057. That's ok! I also want to mention this is my first formal debate, I've had many discussions and informal debates in the past but it's always been counter-point coffee table discussions. So we'll see how i do! :think:
I do for a moment want to comment on the title "Does God exist?" - Now I am under the impression we are debating "Does Jealous exist?" (Jealous is the bible-god exodus 34:14) in which case the title should be that. The title "Does God exist" implies that we're debating a specific god, rather than whether or not gods exist. The question on whether a specific god or set of gods exist is a different question as to whether there is supernatural minds behind existence. As an atheist, I have no belief in any super-minds/gods, so Jealous is on equal terms as other gods such as DANU, and WOGAN. So the fact that we may be discussing a specific god does not imply that the god at hand is more worth debating than Wogan.
Based on that assumption, the god at hand is traditionally believed to have the following attributes / qualities:
- Supernatural
- Omnipresent (in all places at all times)
- Omniscience (knows all things)
- Eternal (exists for ever)
- Omnipotent (infinite power, can do all things)
- Omni benevolent (all good)
- Transcendent (above nature / beyond)
- Disembodied (no physical body)
This debate is whether or not such a being exists. We can summarize this debate very simply. Frank believes the following proposition is true (G) [God exists] and I do not. I will be defending my position is two ways: A) Negative Atheistic arguments - demonstrating that there are no good reasons to believe (G) and B) Positive Atheism - there are good reasons to doubt (G) or positively deny (G) is true.
NEGATIVE ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS
Negative, or weak atheistic arguments usually go as follows:
p1) There is no good evidence / reason to believe (G)
c) Therefore we are justified in doubting the truth of (G)
However, these arguments put Frank on the defensive since he has the burden of proof. I will simply wait to hear this arguments before I use any negative arguments (refutation of theistic arguments).
POSITIVE ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS
Positive or strong atheistic arguments usually go as follows:
p1) (G) can't be true for reasons [xyz]
c) Therefore (G) is not true
or
p1) There are good reasons to believe (G) is false
c) Therefore we are justified in believing (G) is false
-----------------------------------------------------------
1) The Inductive argument for metaphysical Naturalism (IAFMN)
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.
for example:
All examples of water have been wet
Therefore: It is reasonable to conclude all water is wet
At the horse race, horse number 8 has always been 1st place.
Therefore: It is reasonable to assume that the next race he will win.
It is by definition rational, logical, and scientific to make certain conclusions based on specifics. To see how this is, imagine a horse race between 2 horses. Horse (A) & (B) have raced everyday for 25 years, and every single race horse A has won horse B. Never has B even come close to winning. Now imagine two men who have sat in on every race, and each day David bets on horse (A) and Frank bets on (B). Frank's judgment would be highly questioned if he continued to bet on the horse that never ever won. He would be considered irrational or probably insane or making such horrible bets given the history of these horses.
Now consider the following fact in the history of science
1) Every explanation that has been confirmed and met the test of time has been naturalistic
2) Super naturalistic 'explanations' have always been replaced with naturalistic ones, never vice versa.
The rational conclusion is that all future explanations will be naturalistic, and a logical extension of this would be that all of existence is natural.
"Thus, all metaphysical naturalists believe that if anything exists in our universe, it is a part of nature, and has a natural cause or origin, and there is no need of any other explanation. This belief is not asserted or assumed as a first principle, but is arrived at from a careful and open minded investigation of all the evidence and reason [...].
As we see it, the progress of science and other critical methods has consistently found natural causes and origins for everything we have been able to investigate thoroughly -- for so long, so widely, on so many subjects, both disparate and related. Indeed, it has never once failed in this regard whenever a problem or question could be properly investigated. So it is a thoroughly reasonable inference that this shall continue unabated. We have every reason to believe that the results of future investigations will most probably be the same for every subject once we have access to sufficient evidence to decide on the matter.
So whenever we have a vast body of evidence, we find nothing else but a very strong basis for belief in naturalism, and since this is never observed to be the reverse, naturalism is the most sensible conclusion. Should any change in this pattern occur in the future, we may be justified in changing our worldview. But until then, this is the most reasonable view to take. Why? Because with a complete system of Metaphysical Naturalism it is possible to offer a plausible hypothetical answer to every question science can't get at yet, which means it is a very robust and useful worldview. It means we are on to something.
Now, by "nature" we mean a non-sentient universe, with all it's properties and behaviors. Basically we mean nothing more than space, time, material, and physical law. There my be other dimensions besides space and time, but these would still be nothing more than mindless extensions of the same physical being, much as time may be a mere extension of space, and all three dimensions of space a mere extensions of one."
- Richard Carrier: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - pg. 67
Metaphysical Naturalism, at its most fundamental level is simply the view that all reality is natural. Which is to say the cosmos is non-sentient. All minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely caused by natural [i.e. fundamentally nonmental] phenomena.
The argument therefore can be summarized as follows:
p1) All that exists is natural or an extension of nature
p2) God is something 'non-natural' or 'supernatural'
c) Therefore God does not exist
To refute this, provide one example where any super naturalistic explanation has ever, ever been confirmed.
2) The inductive argument for mind-body physicalism
p1) All known minds are dependent or the result of a physical brain or machine
c) Therefore it is reasonable to believe all minds depend on brains
It is commonly assumed by theists that somehow connected to the body is an immaterial soul. It is this soul that receives credit for our higher mental capacities such as the ability to make free choices, think rationally, and even continue living after the death of our body; in short, we identify our soul as the source of our mind. But is there any evidence that such a soul exists? Unfortunately, there is not. The idea that our mind exists independently of our physical body is directly contradicted by everyday observations--like the fact that alcohol and other physical substances can change our conscious states, that degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's or physical injuries can seriously impair or even destroy conscious states, and the fact that we don't expect young children to be capable of the types of abstract reasoning that require more fully developed brains. As Owen Flanagan, Professor of Philosophy at Duke University, has stated, "advances in … the sciences of the mind, cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience, in particular" have led to the rejection of the "belief that that the mind or the soul interacts with--but is metaphysically independent of--the body [1]." And as Marvin Minsky, professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has stated, "minds are what brains do [2]." Indeed, extensive evidence suggests that all of our conscious mental states correspond to some physical brain state. Since it appears there is no way that a mind can exist apart from a functioning physical brain to generate it, we are justified in drawing the inductive conclusion that disembodied minds do not exist [3]. However, this implies a serious difficulty for theism: If disembodied minds don't exist, since God is supposed
to be a disembodied mind, this would strongly suggest that God does not exist. Therefore, the physical dependence of minds on the brain is evidence for atheism and against theism.
The argument can go as follows:
p1) All minds require brains
p2) God is defined as a being with a mind with no brain
c) Therefore God does not exist.
I have more to say but I think I'm over my limit!
Kbye. :banana:
[1] Owen Flanagan, The Problem of the Soul (New York: Perseus, 2002).
[2] Marvin Minsky, Minds are Simply What Brains Do.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth03.html
[3] In other words, because all of the minds we have ever encountered are dependent on physical brains, and because it further seems that this must be the case, induction would suggest that all minds that exist are dependent on physical brains. Even substance dualism holds that our physical brains are a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for our having a mind. However, it is logically possible that God exists as some other kind of mind, but what this could mean is quite unclear (if it means anything at all). So, while it is true that God could exist as an ontologically different kind of mind, this only rules out a deductive argument from the physical dependence of minds on the brain; the inductive version of this argument still stands.
,