Achwienichtig

This is the Peanut Gallery for the formal debate between punkforchrist and Deschain on the existence of God. Here's where you can cheer or jeer, add your own insights, and/or make your own counterarguments.

The debate is found here.

Important: Punkforchrist and Deschain are not allowed to post in the peanut gallery until the formal debate is over.

HelpingHand

Reading the opening posts I fear that Punkforchrist and Deschain are going to talk past each other.
A few paragraphs would make Deschain's post more readable.

Slice O Pie

Sweet Jesus, Deschain need to learn to use paragraphs and sentence structure. I can't even read that mess

wundermonk

Ya. Deschain should put in a bit of effort to make his/her posts more readable.

In any case, the very fact that both the theist and the atheist are going to provide arguments in support of their claim shows that neither side is going to seal the deal.

For e.g. I do not have to put in arguments to show that a highest prime number does not exist. One proof/argument is enough.

The very fact that more than one argument (hence arguments) needs to be brought in support of a hypothesis shows that each argument in itself is weak.

Philo_66

RE: "I. The Argument from Motion"

Cosmological arguments are so ironic. They appeal to our intuitive notion of what is best called "laws of nature" to show that...drum roll please...there must exist something that does not follow the "laws of nature". Why is that so? I wonder how many folks buy these arguments on the basis of "because of the laws of nature". That would be a rather shallow understanding of the argument and obviously contradictory (if you go just a little deeper to see the contradiction). I think, though, that as long is you accept the argument, even on such a basis, that's ok. It's your faith that matters, not your reasoning.

To think that this argument proves an "Unmoved Mover" is quite a stretch. Even the concept itself is a stretch. Describe it please! And, in particular, please stay away from our intuitive notions of "laws of nature" because clearly this entity is some thing to which such notions do not apply.

At best, what this argument does show is that our intuitive notions of "laws of nature" are inadequate. That's it. That's all it shows (if that).

Poppycock! Ask around if you don't believe me. Ask theists if they understand God to be an "unmovable (and unmoving) being" or "pure actuality". In fact, notions such as Tillich's "ground of being" are even refuted by many Christians. God is a "person", not some abstraction (according to most Christians). CAs are commonly refuted by saying that even if they do show that there is something "otherly" they do not show that this entity is God.


RE "II. The Modal Third Way"

A similar argument that relies on our intuitive understandings of "exist" and what can and cannot "cause" existence. Again, at best there is an N, but it does not follow that N is God. Also it seems likely that our intuitive understandings are inadequate and possibly flawed.


RE "III. The Argument from Order"

Isn't this question-begging? IOW, aren't you simply assuming your conclusion (3) here?

There is an important difference between exhibiting regularity and resulting from regularity, and this premise seems to ignore that difference.

Well, being we define them that way, I guess they do. That is, we describe the "laws of nature" according to the regularities that we observe. You think this is not controversial, but it actually is. The question is, are the "laws" proscriptive or descriptive? Are these "laws" really ingrained in nature as causal forces, or are they merely description of regularities (whatever might cause them) that we observe? That might seem irrelevant to you, but actually such questions are the very essence of this argument, that is, what actually "causes" regularities in the first place?

On the face of it, the conclusion seems valid. I don't see the premises as being necessary, though.

The thing about a counterfactual conditional is that, since the antecedent is false, you can put whatever you like for the consequent. I submit that if you abandoned classical theism you would much more likely be atheist. I also wonder what your notions of "classical theism" and "pantheism" are. "Pure actuality" is not what I consider "classical theism". It's too abstract, too general. An instance, such as a particular person or being is actual, and abstractions are general descriptions of characteristics. At any rate, in all the Catholic Catechism classes I had, I never heard God described as "pure actuality". Not to mention that it's not clear how this non-mover sets things in motion without moving or changing in any way. So God has no memory of creating the universe, since it does not yet exist. Then he creates it and still has no memory of creating it?

Also, pantheism is much closer to atheism than classical theism. Both pantheism and atheism have one very important thing in common -- they both are beliefs in "nothing distinctly god". Atheism says there is nothing that is god, pantheism says that all things are god.

RE: "IV. The Conceptualist Argument"
Showing that a proposition is self-defeating is not the same as showing the proposition to be false. Simply put, you've got a lot more work to do to show that absolutes "exist" (whatever that might mean). And then the non sequitur about how something that does not exist cannot possess the attribute of indispensability, and therefore, must exist, is downright comical. Anselm's Ontological argument comes to mind. It's a fascinating argument. Intuitively I immediately know it's wrong, but admittedly it is a challenge to put describe it precisely. But it comes down to this -- what we can and cannot conceive is no proof of what actually exists.

Unicorns "exist as mental concepts". And these concepts have effects, some of them very positive such as smiles and warm feelings of snuggliness. The thing is, if your notion of "exist" does not distinguish between actuality and what we can conceive, then your notion is pointless. Everything we think of "exists" in your sense of the term.


Re: "V. The Argument from Desire"

First problem, not the only and perhaps not the greatest, what is "perfect happiness?" And why on earth 1 must be true it is not clear. Lots of work needed here. (I can think of evolutionary reasons why there are certain characteristics of humans. But I would guess you're looking for a different reason. Maybe God would never create beings with desires that are unobtainable as that would be cruel. But that would be obvious question-begging.)

Philo_66

The closest that Punkforchrist even comes to attempting to show that there is a "God who is specially and locally concerned with us" is the bit of prestidigitation by the Angelic Doctor who states that this is what “everyone understands to be God.” To show that "pure actuality" has any sense of concern whatsoever is work yet to be shown.

Jolly_Penguin

Indeed. I read through the first post and then got to Deschain expecting a good retort (like the one you guys posted above), but found instead a word salad I dare not try to read.

Achwienichtig

The opening statements were posted at the same time, so no retort was possible.

HRG

More than that: it is false. A Galton board is based on chance alone, but its result exhibit a regular Gaussian distribution.

HRG

1. This argument is based on the idea of "potentiality" - which is problematic. An acorn is also pig food in potentiality, part of my herbarium in potentiality etc.

2. An unstable nucleus decays without any sustaining movers.


This is another failed attempt at excluding an infinite regress. An infinite regress has always already been running, and thus contains at all times an unbounded number of predecessors to any particular event. It doesn't have to "start anew" at each point; it never "began counting".

In addition, it is quite possible to count to infinity. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + .... = 2.

Finally, there is a general problem with unmoved movers: under detailed analysis, we find out that it is not the "mover" which moves, but it is its own "motion". In order to change anything else, it has to move/change itself - but what is the cause of that motion/change ?