The problem with debating Theism

[thrashee]

As a relative newcomer to volconvo, and as a theist, I've read through a lot of threads regarding atheism, theism, and the logical debate of both.

Over and over I've seen the same thing: theists are challenged to "prove" their beliefs under the system of logic and reasoning, or theists claiming that they can use logic to prove the same, and it is consistently demonstrated that this usually cannot be done.

My question is simply this:

Is it logical to apply logic to theism, or use logic upon it, for the purpose of attempting to prove or disprove it?

My argument, therefore, will be this:it is not logical to use logic in attempts to prove this existence (or in attempts to disprove it).
In constructing my argument, I'm using the following key premises in an attempt to hit upon notions from both the theistic and atheistic camps: God exists, and evidence for this existence exists.

I'll start by defining definitions:

God: An omniscient, omnipotent entity that is responsible for the creation and design of the universe, life, and all natural laws.

Science: "1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation." --Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology

Logic: " a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning " --Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Now the formal argument:

Premises:

1. God exists.
2. Evidence that God exists can be obtained through the observance and understanding of natural/physical law (science).
3. Such evidence does not exist today.
4. Humans gain understanding of natural/physical laws through the use of science.

Inferences:

1. Because God exists, and evidence exists of Its existence, and because we have not discovered this evidence (yet), there exist natural laws beyond those which we currently understand.
2. Because laws exist beyond our understanding, science is limited, and the evidence for God lies beyond those limits.
3. Because logic is a formal science itself, this evidence is beyond logic's limits as well.

Conclusion:

1. Therefore, logic cannot be used to prove (or disprove) God's existence.

Again, this argument is meant to demonstrate the futility of asking theists to provide evidence that God exists, or to use formal logic to discredit or disprove theism. Conversely, it's also meant to be a warning for theists to avoid using logic in attempts to prove their claims (and I'm guilty of this).

[Yasa]

Quote by: thrashee My argument, therefore, will be this: God does exist

Quote by: thrashee Now the formal argument: Premises: 1. God exists.

Quote by: thrashee 1. Because God exists, and evidence exists of Its existence,

Quote by: thrashee Again, this argument is meant to demonstrate the futility of asking theists to provide evidence that God exists, or to use formal logic to discredit or disprove theism. Conversely, it's also meant to be a warning for theists to avoid using logic in attempts to prove their claims (and I'm guilty of this).

There is a problem here. You use logic to prove the conclusion that God can't be disproved/proved, yet you have assumed God's existence in your premises, making your argument invalid. This is kind of a case of Begging the Question because by using one of your premises (that god exists, etc) you conclude that your premise that god exists can't be proven. It's also called circular reasoning.

Any proposition or claim can be evaluated logically. The first premise is no different and without evidence or support, accepting it is just as useless as accepting any claim proposed (think Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel's Teapot, etc the list goes on as long as you can make up unsupported claims).

[thrashee]

Quote by: Yasa There is a problem here. You use logic to prove the conclusion that God can't be disproved/proved, yet you have assumed God's existence in your premises, making your argument invalid. This is kind of a case of Begging the Question because by using one of your premises (that god exists, etc) you conclude that your premise that god exists can't be proven. It's also called circular reasoning. Any proposition or claim can be evaluated logically. The first premise is no different and without evidence or support, accepting it is just as useless as accepting any claim proposed (think Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel's Teapot, etc the list goes on as long as you can make up unsupported claims).

Actually, not true. Reread the purpose of my argument: it's not to claim that God can be proved/disproved, it's stating that logic cannot be used to prove/disprove said existence. The difference is subtle, but still valid.

[Morality Games]

Atheists are normally are uninterested in using logic to speculate on the existential status of God (they only talk about God at all because theists keep him in the cultural discourse, not out of personal interest). That's not a universal, some have tried to demonstrate how particular concepts of God are impossible in actuality, but for the most part atheists only tell theists to prove the existence of God in order to make a point, that being they have no well-substantiated (physically tangible, sensually fathomable, scientifically observable) grounding for their faith.

Actually, not true. Reread the purpose of my argument: it's not to claim that God can be proved/disproved, it's stating that logic cannot be used to prove/disprove said existence. The difference is subtle, but still valid.

That's not a revolutionary insight, and it can be misleading. Logically, pretty much anything is possible. Logically, everything we know about science or history could be false by virtue of some absurd, overlooked fact. Thing is, science and history as they currently operate work for us, so no one is interested in devising complex logic arguments for how all scientific and historical knowledge might be false.

You see, a 'logical possibility' is anything that can be expressed in formal language that humans are willing to at least feign (pretend) could be true. It's not a very strict standard, ergo, pretty much anything is logically possible. Anything I can express in formal writing or speech and pretend could be true is logically possible. I just can't get sick of saying that.

Believe it or not, from a number of different perspectives, it is logically possible all men have six penises.

For example, if I feign the chance that there is a very powerful alien whose only interest for the last million years has been obscuring the existence of the other five penises from primeape's view without weird sense-distorting magic, then it is possible for men to have six penises.

Logic is virtually unlimited in its application. The limit of logic is a contrived one, aka, the desires of the person using logic.

But I guess I'll take a closer look at your argument.

God: An omniscient, omnipotent entity that is responsible for the creation and design of the universe, life, and all natural laws.

I can't definitely (once and for all) prove there isn't a omniscient, omnipotent being which transcends existence with logic, even utilizing current scientific knowledge, but I can do this:

1. Show how all claims of the being's character conflicts with the moods and actions attributed to him in various religions.

In effect, whenever anyone from any religion forwards one of their claims (aka, God is morally just), I can show how this conflicts with his omniscience and omnipotency. Therefore, I can show how their notion of God, which is what they place faith in, doesn't make logical sense (is false).

So, I can't prove God doesn't or does exist, but I can prove religions are wrong about him, or that theists with or without a religion are irrational for believing in him (and that irrationality is a bad thing).

[thrashee]

Morality Games,

I'm not claiming it's revolutionary: I agree with you. And it's precisely because of how obvious I feel this is, that I wrote the debate. I can't tell you how many threads I've stumbled in, only to witness atheist after atheist using logic to "disprove" theists' claims.

And conversely, how many theists try to use logic to "prove'. I've been guilty of it as well.

The argument is really an attempt to put an end to the atheist/theist debate.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: thrashee As a relative newcomer to volconvo, and as a theist, I've read through a lot of threads regarding atheism, theism, and the logical debate of both. Over and over I've seen the same thing: theists are challenged to "prove" their beliefs under the system of logic and reasoning, or theists claiming that they can use logic to prove the same, and it is consistently demonstrated that this usually cannot be done. My question is simply this: Is it logical to apply logic to theism, or use logic upon it, for the purpose of attempting to prove or disprove it? My argument, therefore, will be this: God does exist, and it is not logical to use logic in attempts to prove this existence (or in attempts to disprove it). In constructing my argument, I'm using the following key premises in an attempt to hit upon notions from both the theistic and atheistic camps: God exists, and evidence for this existence exists. I'll start by defining definitions: God: An omniscient, omnipotent entity that is responsible for the creation and design of the universe, life, and all natural laws. Science: "1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation." --Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology Logic: " a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning " --Merriam-Webster Dictionary Now the formal argument: Premises: 1. God exists. 2. Evidence that God exists can be obtained through the observance and understanding of natural/physical law (science). 3. Such evidence does not exist today. 4. Humans gain understanding of natural/physical laws through the use of science. Inferences: 1. Because God exists, and evidence exists of Its existence, and because we have not discovered this evidence (yet), there exist natural laws beyond those which we currently understand. 2. Because laws exist beyond our understanding, science is limited, and the evidence for God lies beyond those limits. 3. Because logic is a formal science itself, this evidence is beyond logic's limits as well. Conclusion: 1. Therefore, logic cannot be used to prove (or disprove) God's existence. Again, this argument is meant to demonstrate the futility of asking theists to provide evidence that God exists, or to use formal logic to discredit or disprove theism. Conversely, it's also meant to be a warning for theists to avoid using logic in attempts to prove their claims (and I'm guilty of this).

1) As thrashee has proven, the existence of God cannot be proven with logic.
2) As a rational person, I ought only believe what is logically justifiable.
3) Therefore, I ought not believe in God.

Next.

TC

[thrashee]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal 1) As thrashee has proven, the existence of God cannot be proven with logic. 2) As a rational person, I ought only believe what is logically justifiable. 3) Therefore, I ought not believe in God. Next.

Aww, TC is demonstrating that he takes things personally

The problem with your logic is the very problem this debate was meant to demonstrate: not that logic doesn't have its place, but that logic has limits.

Consider this:

Set A is the set of all existing natural/physical laws as created and designed by God.

Set B is the subset of Set A, where exists all laws observed by man.

Man's capacity of logic is limited by subset B. Does that mean that because that logic is limited to set B, that man should therefore conclude that whatever lies outside of set B, yet still inside set A, should be ignored and is invalid?

To put it another way: as a rational person, you have the humility to recognize that your current framework of reason is limited, and therefore you ought not make any presumptions.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: thrashee Aww, TC is demonstrating that he takes things personally The problem with your logic is the very problem this debate was meant to demonstrate: not that logic doesn't have its place, but that logic has limits. Consider this: Set A is the set of all existing natural/physical laws as created and designed by God. Set B is the subset of Set A, where exists all laws observed by man. Man's capacity of logic is limited by subset B. Does that mean that because that logic is limited to set B, that man should therefore conclude that whatever lies outside of set B, yet still inside set A, should be ignored and is invalid? To put it another way: as a rational person, you have the humility to recognize that your current framework of reason is limited, and therefore you ought not make any presumptions.

Yes, but until we can provide evidence, there is little reason to assume it was created by a deity. It's like me saying "Well, theres a giant flying invisible spaghetti monster that made everything, but some people say it's not logical, Well, their logic is limited, and they shouldn't presume that just because they don't see the logic in it, they should just discard it"

Look, if we do find evidence, fine we'll believe. But until we do, i just don't see why we should.

[thrashee]

Quote by: Halofan48 Look, if we do find evidence, fine we'll believe. But until we do, i just don't see why we should.

My argument has nothing to do with providing evidence that God exists; that's why one of the premises is that evidence does exist.

My sole intent here was to demonstrate the futility of trying to use reason/logic in matters of debating theism, not to claim that theism in any way can be proven.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: thrashee My argument has nothing to do with providing evidence that God exists; that's why one of the premises is that evidence does exist. My sole intent here was to demonstrate the futility of trying to use reason/logic in matters of debating theism, not to claim that theism in any way can be proven.

Really now, then provide evidence for the existance of god. If you can't provide evidence of any kind, then wouldn't it be logical to dismiss what you are saying until you do have evidence?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: thrashee Aww, TC is demonstrating that he takes things personally The problem with your logic is the very problem this debate was meant to demonstrate: not that logic doesn't have its place, but that logic has limits. Consider this: Set A is the set of all existing natural/physical laws as created and designed by God. Set B is the subset of Set A, where exists all laws observed by man. Man's capacity of logic is limited by subset B. Does that mean that because that logic is limited to set B, that man should therefore conclude that whatever lies outside of set B, yet still inside set A, should be ignored and is invalid? To put it another way: as a rational person, you have the humility to recognize that your current framework of reason is limited, and therefore you ought not make any presumptions.

Yes, logic is very bad at helping you make excuses for a preposterously false belief. That's why people have to indoctrinate defenseless children and pressure them with guilt, threats and an endless endorsement of irrational belief.

Real humility starts with not making claims you can't even begin to support. Try it sometime.

TC

[Jack]

Set A is the set of all existing natural/physical laws as created and designed by God. Set B is the subset of Set A, where exists all laws observed by man. Man's capacity of logic is limited by subset B. Does that mean that because that logic is limited to set B, that man should therefore conclude that whatever lies outside of set B, yet still inside set A, should be ignored and is invalid?

Yet there's no evidence, physically or logically, that "set A' exists. Just suggesting it does isn't enough. There's no reason to think there is an "outside" to set B.

[ThoughtCriminal]

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. - Christopher Hitchens

[thrashee]

Ok, you are all severely missing the point.

Let me state it one more time.

I AM NOT debating the existence of God. I AM NOT debating that the existence of God can be proven.

Reread those statements.

And then reread them again.

This entire debate is meant as a response to theists being challenged over and over again to provide proof of God's existence, and also of theists trying to use logic to prove that very same claim.

If you're really paying attention, you'll notice that my argument is clearly stating that this cannot be done.

Please make sure you grasp the argument at hand before trying to turn this into the very type of debate about which this argument is addressing.

[thrashee]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Yes, logic is very bad at helping you make excuses for a preposterously false belief. That's why people have to indoctrinate defenseless children and pressure them with guilt, threats and an endless endorsement of irrational belief.

TC, I have presently a very formal, very well laid out argument. If you want to debate the soundness of that argument, then I ask that you do so in the same fashion. Otherwise, any comments that you make, such as those above, look like they're merely incendiary, and thus my esteem for you as a debater decreases.

Real humility starts with not making claims you can't even begin to support. Try it sometime.

Again, if you have a bone to pick with my argument, which has been laid bare for you to examine or counter, then why don't you simply do so?

[Jack]

Any debate which presumes the existence of gods will result in that presumption being challenged.

Perhaps it would do more good to clarify what this debate is about instead of what it isn't.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: thrashee Ok, you are all severely missing the point. Let me state it one more time. I AM NOT debating the existence of God. I AM NOT debating that the existence of God can be proven. Reread those statements. And then reread them again. This entire debate is meant as a response to theists being challenged over and over again to provide proof of God's existence, and also of theists trying to use logic to prove that very same claim. If you're really paying attention, you'll notice that my argument is clearly stating that this cannot be done. Please make sure you grasp the argument at hand before trying to turn this into the very type of debate about which this argument is addressing.

Right, I got that. Hence my conclusion is that we ought to disregard all claims of God's existence. Could I be any clearer?

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: thrashee TC, I have presently a very formal, very well laid out argument. If you want to debate the soundness of that argument, then I ask that you do so in the same fashion. Otherwise, any comments that you make, such as those above, look like they're merely incendiary, and thus my esteem for you as a debater decreases. Again, if you have a bone to pick with my argument, which has been laid bare for you to examine or counter, then why don't you simply do so?

No.

TC

[thrashee]

Quote by: Jack Any debate which presumes the existence of gods will result in that presumption being challenged. Perhaps it would do more good to clarify what this debate is about instead of what it isn't.

If you are unclear of what this debate is about, then I merely ask that you reread the first post. It spells it out clearly enough.

[Jack]

Premises: 1. God exists. 2. Evidence that God exists can be obtained through the observance and understanding of natural/physical law (science). 3. Such evidence does not exist today. 4. Humans gain understanding of natural/physical laws through the use of science.

For instance, where's your support for your very first premise? If physical evidence doesn't yet exist (according to the OP, not a point I agree with) and you agree with atheists that theism cannot be supported with logic, what does that leave as a reason to posit premise #1?