Stefan Molyneux debate

[Diogenes The Cynic]

No--it goes beyond just the problem of evil. The conception of God includes a whole mass of contradictions and absurdities. God is able to travel faster than light, for instance, and is able to resolve contradictions. He can be both heavy and light at the same time (or so concluded Middle Ages clerical scholars).

Aside from this, the lack of any evidence FOR something is good enough grounds for rejecting that proposition. If I were to say to you, "There's a dragon in my back yard," you might take a look and, seeing nothing, reply, "I don't see a dragon."

"Well, that's because it's an invisible dragon. You can't see it, or touch it. In fact, you can't sense it in any way. I just know it's there!"

Saying that a thing that cannot be detected in any manner at all is the same thing as saying that it does not exist. Something that cannot be detected by any of the senses is the very definition of "nonsense."

I wont sit here and defend Christian scholars from the Middle Ages. If they said anything to the effect that G-d is corporeal, they're wrong.

If your conception of a G-d you don't believe in is made of "stuff" or takes up physical space, you're wrong too.

If you were to argue that something doesn't exist because you can't sense it, you're wrong on that issue as well. You can't sense radiation, so according to your parameters, it doesn't exist. Your best counterargument at this point is to say that radiation is detectable. Ill get back to that point in a bit.

 In general the use of senses as proofs for something is weak. If you see a stick go under water, and it looks bent, you would be forced to say that when sticks are submerged, water bends them and when you remove them from the water, they get unbent. Well, that's illogical.

So, you would admit that things exist, even if you can't see them because they can be detected. They exist even before they're detected. Its not as if the existence of radiation began with Rutherfords discovery. It existed before and was only proven then.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Molyneux's argument against the existence of God depends, essentially, on a Christian definition of God, while Johnson failed for a long time to make the simple case that you cannot prove a negative.

"We," regrettably, came up a lot.  Individuals could know or experience what you do not.  What science "knows" is constantly changing, for example.  MolyNeux actually used argument from necessity by implying that God would defeat science, which we need.  BTW, science "proves" itself "wrong" regularly, when a scientist demonstrates how the assertions of those before him have been wrong.

How similar is Molyneux's argument to the fact that circles do not actually exist?  Interestingly, he continually repeated the thing about "square circles."

In short, God could in fact exist, and it cannot be disproved.  A simple definition such as the creator, and possibly one who can intervene in daily activities, may not be provable, but to dismiss the possibility out-of-hand is to dismiss all the things we didn't believe possible which we now know are.

I'm sure Johnson knew he would be debating someone who is obviously a superior debater, but being correct certainly made it interesting anyway.

[blackie]

Molyneux's argument against the existence of God depends, essentially, on a Christian definition of God

Well, fringe believers who tag the name "God" on pretty much anything are incorrect. Stefan must think the Christian definition of God is the only correct one.

[mikehz]

Saying that a thing that cannot be detected in any manner at all is the same thing as saying that it does not exist. Something that cannot be detected by any of the senses is the very definition of "nonsense."

Well, unless you want to claim that God is a concept.  But though there are a lot of theologians who are fine with that, most believers are not. 

Sure, you can say that gods are concepts. You can say the same thing about Santa and the Tooth Fairy. A "concept" is a mental construct, and not a physical reality.

It's also possible to conduct an experiment to see if gods exist. Gods, it's said, respond to pleadings, in the form of prayers. People under stress often pray to their god for relief. But, the results seem to be the same whether one prays or not. The conclusion is that the prayers have no effect. Therefore, I'd conclude that since the effect does not exist, neither does the cause.

Then, we have to wonder what the belief of the faithful, held with such hard and certain conviction is based UPON. It comes from a group of ancient writings sloppily put together by political order millennium ago. Many parts of the books are absurd and easily falsifiable. Why do people belief these ancient writings to be true? Why, the book says that it is true! What more proof could you want? The trouble is, there are other ancient books, and these also claim to be true. In fact, to this day people are making absurd claims which they maintain are true. Are we to accept every claim? It would be like the world in Ricky Gervais' The Invention of Lying!

[Terror Australis]

Dog exists.

[mikehz]

Dog exists.

But only for dyslexics.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Molyneux's argument against the existence of God depends, essentially, on a Christian definition of God, while Johnson failed for a long time to make the simple case that you cannot prove a negative.

Absolutely. He said something like, "God has a set of well defined characteristics you can't just call an acorn god" which is just not true. There are absolutely people who believe that an acorn is a god, or that there is a god of acorns, like a Platonic form.

The you disbelieve in 99.99% of gods and I just disbelieve in one more argument I find irritating. Because I personally know pagans that believe in 99.99% of gods. They call it Henotheism, which means they believe multiple gods exist but only chose to worship one as a patron.

Alot of it just sounds like a series of logical short cuts.

How similar is Molyneux's argument to the fact that circles do not actually exist?  Interestingly, he continually repeated the thing about "square circles."

Has anyone ever pointed out that a cylinder is a square circle? Although... in that sense cylinders don't actually exist either.

I'm sure Johnson knew he would be debating someone who is obviously a superior debater, but being correct certainly made it interesting anyway.

I was really prepped for a good debate for just that reason. Disappointing.

[Rillion]

Absolutely. He said something like, "God has a set of well defined characteristics you can't just call an acorn god" which is just not true. There are absolutely people who believe that an acorn is a god, or that there is a god of acorns, like a Platonic form.

True.  You can propose a set of well-defined characteristics for a god in order to properly know what kind of being you're evaluating, but they're certainly not a given.  Deists, pantheists, monotheists, and polytheists believe in radically different kinds of gods. 

The you disbelieve in 99.99% of gods and I just disbelieve in one more argument I find irritating. Because I personally know pagans that believe in 99.99% of gods. They call it Henotheism, which means they believe multiple gods exist but only chose to worship one as a patron.

Well, that argument obviously isn't aimed at your pagan friends.  It's intended to be a response to people who find it incredible to deny the existence of the god they believe in. 

Also, I don't think anyone knows of 99.99% of gods.  You can say "I believe there are millions of gods," but "I believe in millions of gods" doesn't work.

Has anyone ever pointed out that a cylinder is a square circle? Although... in that sense cylinders don't actually exist either.

A square is a shape with four sides of equal length.  How does a cylinder qualify?

[The Muslim Agorist]

The you disbelieve in 99.99% of gods and I just disbelieve in one more argument I find irritating. Because I personally know pagans that believe in 99.99% of gods. They call it Henotheism, which means they believe multiple gods exist but only chose to worship one as a patron.

Well, that argument obviously isn't aimed at your pagan friends.  It's intended to be a response to people who find it incredible to deny the existence of the god they believe in. 

ok... but it's not an argument. It's just a statement.

Also, I don't think anyone knows of 99.99% of gods.  You can say "I believe there are millions of gods," but "I believe in millions of gods" doesn't work.

And yet, that is exactly what they say. The best I can figure it, they believe that the act of worship creates a god, therefore they believe in all gods who were ever worshiped, even the ones they've never heard of, and the ones they invent themselves. But they choose which they wish to worship. This is an idea that comes from Neil Gaiman's book American Gods.

A square is a shape with four sides of equal length.  How does a cylinder qualify?

A cylinder viewed from it's face is a circle, and viewed from it's side is a square. I suppose it's not always a square. It could be a rectangle.

[Rillion]

Also, I don't think anyone knows of 99.99% of gods.  You can say "I believe there are millions of gods," but "I believe in millions of gods" doesn't work.

And yet, that is exactly what they say. The best I can figure it, they believe that the act of worship creates a god, therefore they believe in all gods who were ever worshiped, even the ones they've never heard of, and the ones they invent themselves. But they choose which they wish to worship. This is an idea that comes from Neil Gaiman's book American Gods.

Ah, I see.  It's also the premise of Terry Pratchett's book Small Gods, in which (from what I recall) he mercilessly ridicules the idea. 

I suppose if you believe that the worship of a god creates it, then saying "I believe in all of them" is like saying "I believe that all of the houses built by people exist."

Worshiping that which is created by your own imagination, however, strikes me as sheer narcissism and about two steps from worshiping yourself.  Not to mention the matter of how much sense it makes to base one's theology on a fictional book. 

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Absolutely. He said something like, "God has a set of well defined characteristics you can't just call an acorn god" which is just not true. There are absolutely people who believe that an acorn is a god, or that there is a god of acorns, like a Platonic form.

True.  You can propose a set of well-defined characteristics for a god in order to properly know what kind of being you're evaluating, but they're certainly not a given.  Deists, pantheists, monotheists, and polytheists believe in radically different kinds of gods. 

And there are also Deistic pantheistic monotheists who embrace their cultural heritage pragmatically like myself.

[Terror Australis]

      The world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.Religion ignores this basic concept  and tries to explain it away but it is a logical fallacy.Human beings are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.The creator of this flawed existence is the one responsible for it.Human beings therefore hold no responsibilty for any of the crap that goes on in the world.The fact that God blames humans for their failings shows a lack of responsibility for its actions.God is a fucking asshole who stuffed up and is now blaming its creations for its mistakes.The asshole god in the old testament is not the real god but a flawed creature.A real god would be incapable of creating imperfection.The old testament god is merely an emanation from the source of perfection who thinks it is perfect but is in fact a flawed creature to begin with.You could say that this "god" is a turd from the ass of perfection lol.In fact the state follows this example perfectly.A flawed system trying to find perfection but failing because its nature is flawed to begin with and expecting any different outcome is absurd.This false god couldnt find its own ass in a windstorm.

   Humans will only be truly free when they follow their own inner light and forgive themselves for something that cannot be changed because it was created/designed that way.Religion is dying off because it ignores the obvious and logical answer to why does god let shit happen and then claims god is a perfect being.The light inside humans will see this obvious answer over time as we evolve into more perfect creatures.As we gain more knowledge of the true nature of perfection it becomes easier to see the absurd premise that is religion.You do not need god to feel love and compassion for one another.You do need religion and the state rules to hate one another.The simple fact that religion fails so often to be perfect is testament to the imperfection of its creator.Something that is imperfect should not be worshipped as this will only lead to more failure.It is inconceivable that a perfect creator would allow destruction/killing/corruption in its name,and in fact encourage it because that was its purpose to begin with.

  Morality is an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the inner light.Rules only serve failure and the false gods.In short there is no personal salvation without the knowledge that each of us carries our own inner light.It has to be a personal journey so collectivism and following another person's rules leads to certain failure.Follow your own heart  to find true freedom

[Rillion]

And there are also Deistic pantheistic monotheists who embrace their cultural heritage pragmatically like myself.

Well, it's not impossible for a monotheist to also be a deist since deism usually maintains that only one god created the universe and then fucked off, but I'm not sure how it's possible to be both a deist and a pantheist at the same time.  Do you think God created himself?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

And there are also Deistic pantheistic monotheists who embrace their cultural heritage pragmatically like myself.

Well, it's not impossible for a monotheist to also be a deist since deism usually maintains that only one god created the universe and then fucked off, but I'm not sure how it's possible to be both a deist and a pantheist at the same time.  Do you think God created himself?

Well I believe that everything is a part of God because God is everything which is consistent with the Jewish model of God.  Much like I might create the hairdo I wear for the day, God created the universe as we know it and set the physical laws we must obey and are discovering and learning more of every year.  I don't see an inconsistency there.

[Rillion]

Well I believe that everything is a part of God because God is everything which is consistent with the Jewish model of God.  Much like I might create the hairdo I wear for the day, God created the universe as we know it and set the physical laws we must obey and are discovering and learning more of every year.  I don't see an inconsistency there.

Well, God presumably either created the universe (deist, monotheist) or he/she/it is the universe (pantheist).  If you think both are true, I'd like to hear how.