blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote:

Copson not rebutting two of Williams' three arguments prevented Craig responding to the opposition's rebuttals of these two arguments.
"The opening government presents the case for the government."
"The opening opposition presents the case for the opposition. To do this, they rebut the opening government and present arguments."
Closing speakers "they present new analysis of the debate either from a different viewpoint or by extending the arguments already made."
Copson and Ahmed failed to adhere to these rules.


No they didn't fail to adhere to the rules. Copson rebutted one argument and presented some of his own while Ahmed presented his analysis of the debate, and rebutted the other arguments.


lapwing wrote:
Interuption=pause, break or halt in an ongoing process
Question=request for information

They are not the same thing so to say "the interruptions during the speeches were often questions." is poor English. There was only one interruption (not "quite a few") during which two questions (more like points) were asked/made.

I'm not saying they are the same thing and I was referring to the speeches in general and not just Ahmed's speech. That is why "speeches" was in plural.


lapwing wrote:
At least you are now admitting that Craig used the word delusion only in terms of belief in God. "their personal view on their colleagues" was said only in terms of belief in God. Craig used the synonym "irrational" and Williams gave a longer definition which required the opposition to provide incontrovertible proof that God does not exist. Of course, they could not and did not provide such proof.



I never said that Craig used the word delusion only in terms of belief in God. In fact, my point is the opposite of what you're claiming it is. Ahmed pointed this out. And you may note the context in which "their personal view of the colleagues" is being used which is in referring to these colleagues as suffering from a delusion.
Did either Craig or Williams, the proposers of the motion present incontrovertible proof that God does exist? They obviously couldn't and never have.

1

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar
"I was referring to the speeches in general and not just Ahmed's speech."

Yes but in your earlier post you wrote:

"He (that is Ahmed) also had quite a few interruptions."

Ahmed made one speech and during Ahmed's speech there was only one interruption: the interrupter made two points.

You are imposing your own interpretation on what Craig said. Craig only talked about delusion with respect to "belief in God". The extension to being generally deluded that you are imposing would not be relevant to the debate:

"This House Believes that God is not a Delusion"

One meaning of the word delusion is a false belief held despite strong contradictory evidence which maybe a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.
The opposers preferred "a false belief about something" but "this house believes that belief in God is a false belief" reduces to "this house believes that God does not exist" which was not the debate title.


In fact the debate title would have been better worded grammatically as
"This House Believes that belief in God is not a Delusion"
since in both definitions delusion has the meaning of the act of believing not the object of belief.

"Did either Craig or Williams, the proposers of the motion present incontrovertible proof that God does exist?"

They didn't have to for this debate since the title was not "This House believes that God does not exist" as Craig explained.



For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

2

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote:  "I was referring to the speeches in general and not just Ahmed's speech."

Yes but in your earlier post you wrote:

"He (that is Ahmed) also had quite a few interruptions."

Ahmed made one speech and during Ahmed's speech there was only one interruption: the interrupter made two points.


Okay.

lapwing wrote:
You are imposing your own interpretation on what Craig said. Craig only talked about delusion with respect to "belief in God". The extension to being generally deluded that you are imposing would not be relevant to the debate:

"This House Believes that God is not a Delusion"

One meaning of the word delusion is a false belief held despite strong contradictory evidence which maybe a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.
The opposers preferred "a false belief about something" but "this house believes that belief in God is a false belief" reduces to "this house believes that God does not exist" which was not the debate title.


No I'm not imposing my own interpretation of what Craig said. The proposition did present the medical definition of a delusion initially. Generally speaking, to say that someone is suffering from a delusion doesn't mean that the person simply has a false belief about something. Ahmed pointed out Craig's attempt at obfuscation.

lapwing wrote:
In fact the debate title would have been better worded grammatically as
"This House Believes that belief in God is not a Delusion"
since in both definitions delusion has the meaning of the act of believing not the object of belief.


Okay.

lapwing wrote:
"Did either Craig or Williams, the proposers of the motion present incontrovertible proof that God does exist?"

They didn't have to for this debate since the title was not "This House believes that God does not exist" as Craig explained.


Then why did you ask for Ahmed and Copson to provide incontrovertible proof that God doesn't exist?

3

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar

"to say that someone is suffering from a delusion doesn't mean that the person simply has a false belief about something"

In fact Ahmed, understandably, preferred delusion to mean simply "a false belief". This highlights another problem with the motion - uncertainty in the definition of the word delusion. Ahmed did not quote the Shorter OED correctly since its 2nd definition includes the idea of "symptoms of mental illness". Each team preferred the definition that best suited their purpose for the debate. I don't agree that "suffering from a delusion" is any different in meaning from "being deluded". Suffering does not necessarily carry the meaning of being ill.

"why did you ask for Ahmed and Copson to provide incontrovertible proof that God doesn't exist?"

What I did write was: "Williams gave a longer definition (of delusion) which required the opposition to provide incontrovertible proof that God does not exist." So I personally did not ask for Ahmed and Copson to provide incontrovertible proof that God doesn't exist.

The point that Williams and Craig both made was that under their preferred definition of delusion the motion was not neutral. Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held "despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

4

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote:

"to say that someone is suffering from a delusion doesn't mean that the person simply has a false belief about something"

In fact Ahmed, understandably, preferred delusion to mean simply "a false belief". This highlights another problem with the motion - uncertainty in the definition of the word delusion. Ahmed did not quote the Shorter OED correctly since its 2nd definition includes the idea of "symptoms of mental illness". Each team preferred the definition that best suited their purpose for the debate. I don't agree that "suffering from a delusion" is any different in meaning from "being deluded". Suffering does not necessarily carry the meaning of being ill.



I hope you realize the implications of what you've said above. The implication here is that both teams were using different meanings of being deluded. Copson and Ahmed chose one while Williams and Craig chose another. Now, given the idea that Craig had in mind for what a delusion is, what would it then mean for him to say that someone is being judged as suffering from a delusion? Keeping in mind the fact that he chose to extend this to the views one has of their colleagues and others.


lapwing wrote:

"why did you ask for Ahmed and Copson to provide incontrovertible proof that God doesn't exist?"

What I did write was: "Williams gave a longer definition (of delusion) which required the opposition to provide incontrovertible proof that God does not exist." So I personally did not ask for Ahmed and Copson to provide incontrovertible proof that God doesn't exist.


You concluded that sentence by saying: "Of course, they could not and did not provide such proof."

This tells me that on some level, you wished to see such a proof. If you wish to shift such a desire to Williams, then I would think that if you wished to be fair, you would also request to see his incontrovertible proof that God exists.


lapwing wrote:

The point that Williams and Craig both made was that under their preferred definition of delusion the motion was not neutral. Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held "despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".



How can it be neutral? You've just said that Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief. Doesn't that imply that the task before Williams and Craig was to show that the belief was a true one? How can they show that such a belief matches reality without them assuming at least some burden of proof in showing us this God?

5

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar

"both teams were using different meanings of being deluded"

That is the case given what each team said and the slides showed during the

debate. The shorter OED uses a "false or mistaken belief" and "a false impression or opinion esp. as a symptom of mental illness".  

"he chose to extend this to the views one has of their colleagues"

Craig referred to believing colleagues in the context of their belief in God. There was no explicit expansion beyond belief in God.

"you wished to see such a proof"

Do you have an incontrovertible proof of the non existence of God? I was simply making the point that afaik no such proof exists but prove me wrong if you can.

"You've just said that Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief."

That's a truncation (with change of meaning) of what I wrote:

"Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary."

The highlighted text comes from Williams' opening definition of delusion.

So, as I've already written, the problem with this debate was the uncertainty in the definition of the word delusion. Both sides used different definitions drawn from dictionaries or other references. But if you assert the simple "false belief" definition then the debate reduces to "This House believes that God does not exist" or something similar. This was not the debate title.

"the burden of proof"

The standard atheist ruse to avoid the fact that atheists can't prove God's non existence. But this is not just a no score draw: there is a difference. Many theists say that they believe God exists by faith. Atheists do not admit to this but refuse to face the consequence of the fact that they do not have incontrovertible proof that God does not exist. Now that is irrational.

For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

6

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote:

"both teams were using different meanings of being deluded"

That is the case given what each team said and the slides showed during the

debate. The shorter OED uses a "false or mistaken belief" and "a false impression or opinion esp. as a symptom of mental illness".



Yes and what meaning of being deluded was being used by the Williams, Craig team?


lapwing wrote:

"he chose to extend this to the views one has of their colleagues"

Craig referred to believing colleagues in the context of their belief in God. There was no explicit expansion beyond belief in God.


I think there was such an expansion. It was one of the things Ahmed pointed out in his speech.


lapwing wrote:

"you wished to see such a proof"

Do you have an incontrovertible proof of the non existence of God? I was simply making the point that afaik no such proof exists but prove me wrong if you can.


Do you have an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God? I don't think such a proof exists but you can prove me wrong if you can. Just don't try to shift the burden of proof, which here lies more on you, to someone else.


lapwing wrote:

"You've just said that Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief."

That's a truncation (with change of meaning) of what I wrote:

"Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary."

The highlighted text comes from Williams' opening definition of delusion.


How did I change the meaning of what you wrote?


lapwing wrote:

So, as I've already written, the problem with this debate was the uncertainty in the definition of the word delusion. Both sides used different definitions drawn from dictionaries or other references. But if you assert the simple "false belief" definition then the debate reduces to "This House believes that God does not exist" or something similar. This was not the debate title.


You want to have your cake and eat it too. You're saying that both parties could define delusions in different ways but if one group uses a particular definition, then their debate points should be considered as being off topic. So what do you want the opposition to do? To simply accept Williams' definition? Which has connotations with mental health?


lapwing wrote:

"the burden of proof"

The standard atheist ruse to avoid the fact that atheists can't prove God's non existence. But this is not just a no score draw: there is a difference. Many theists say that they believe God exists by faith. Atheists do not admit to this but refuse to face the consequence of the fact that they do not have incontrovertible proof that God does not exist. Now that is irrational.



No it isn't an atheist ruse, it is a philosophical, scientific and legal idea. Though used in different degrees in these various fields.
Please tell me, how can something exist by faith? You do know that believing something strongly doesn't make it true so why should such a belief be taken as a good argument? How is it irrational not to believe what someone else believes based on faith? Many people have had faith in leprechauns, faeries and other creatures. Do you have incontrovertible proof that they do not exist? Is it irrational if you do not believe their claims?
Seriously, this is why people who claim to be Christian philosophers yet shirk their responsibilities when it comes to providing justification for their beliefs are often not taken seriously.

7

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar
"What meaning of being deluded was being used by the Williams, Craig team?"
I would assume the meaning presented in the opening slide.

"One of the things Ahmed pointed out in his speech"
This assumes that everything Ahmed said was fair and accurate. That assumption may be false since Ahmed is human and was trying to win the debate.

"Do you have an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God?"
The meaning of my phrase no score draw was that I believe that neither atheists or theists have incontrovertible for the non-existence or existence of God. Is that your position or are you claiming incontrovertible proof for God's non existence.

"How did I change the meaning of what you wrote?"
Are you contending that there is no difference in meaning between:
1. "Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief." and
2. "Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary."
I believe these two statements have different meanings. The second indicates false belief held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

"You're saying that both parties could define delusions in different ways but if one group uses a particular definition, then their debate points should be considered as being off topic."

I wrote that both parties used different definitions for delusion. Are you denying that "this house believes that belief in God is a false belief" reduces to "this house believes that God does not exist"?

"atheist ruse"
The ruse is using "the burden of proof" argument to avoid the fact that there is no incontrovertible argument for the non existence of God. I was not saying that "the burden of proof" is in itself a ruse. The irrationality is not owning up to the lack of a proof  in God's non-existence.

How can something exist by faith?
That was not my meaning. The "by faith" qualifies the believer's ground for believing. Theists who admit that there is no incontrovertible proof for the existence of God say that they believe by faith. "Faith is the conviction of things not seen." Heb 11:1 RSV. But how do atheists rationalise their belief in God's non-existence (atheists are not agnostics) in the absence of incontrovertible proof of God's non-existence.

"people who claim to be Christian philosophers"
Who do you mean? I have made no such claim about myself and it is unclear what you mean by this qualification.
For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

8

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote: "What meaning of being deluded was being used by the Williams, Craig team?"
I would assume the meaning presented in the opening slide.


And that meaning used the medical definition.

lapwing wrote:
"One of the things Ahmed pointed out in his speech"
This assumes that everything Ahmed said was fair and accurate. That assumption may be false since Ahmed is human and was trying to win the debate.


No it doesn't assume that. My point was that he indicated that Craig had the option of using the definition presented by the opposition as he had in a previous debate but chose not to do that in this debate. He actually quoted Craig.

lapwing wrote:
"Do you have an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God?"
The meaning of my phrase no score draw was that I believe that neither atheists or theists have incontrovertible for the non-existence or existence of God. Is that your position or are you claiming incontrovertible proof for God's non existence.


My position is that the burden of proof lies more on one side than the other.

lapwing wrote:
"How did I change the meaning of what you wrote?"
Are you contending that there is no difference in meaning between:
1. "Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief." and
2. "Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary."
I believe these two statements have different meanings. The second indicates false belief held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.


I still don't see how I changed the meaning of what you wrote given the context of my statement. My statement in context would then be that Williams and Craig had to show that belief in God was a true belief with some incontrovertible and obvious proof in support of this belief.

lapwing wrote:
"You're saying that both parties could define delusions in different ways but if one group uses a particular definition, then their debate points should be considered as being off topic."

I wrote that both parties used different definitions for delusion. Are you denying that "this house believes that belief in God is a false belief" reduces to "this house believes that God does not exist"?


It could be reduced to that depending on the definition of delusion used by the different teams. You already pointed this out in post #19.

lapwing wrote:
"atheist ruse"
The ruse is using "the burden of proof" argument to avoid the fact that there is no incontrovertible argument for the non existence of God. I was not saying that "the burden of proof" is in itself a ruse. The irrationality is not owning up to the lack of a proof  in God's non-existence.


The burden of proof isn't to avoid the presence or absence of incontrovertible arguments. After all, what one considers an incontrovertible argument, another may not agree that it is incontrovertible. The burden of proof as I'm familiar with the idea is simply to show which side in the debate actually needs to present an argument strong enough to defeat other arguments that may be raised to counter it.

lapwing wrote:
How can something exist by faith?
That was not my meaning. The "by faith" qualifies the believer's ground for believing. Theists who admit that there is no incontrovertible proof for the existence of God say that they believe by faith. "Faith is the conviction of things not seen." Heb 11:1 RSV. But how do atheists rationalise their belief in God's non-existence (atheists are not agnostics) in the absence of incontrovertible proof of God's non-existence.


There is another definition of faith which I think applies strongly to religious faith which goes:

Dictionary.com wrote:
Faith: 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
Source


Based on that definition of faith, I don't think theists actually have a ground for believing unless they're willing to accept that their grounds for believing is a very poor one.
Atheists on the other hand (who can also be agnostics) I think are justified in not believing because the evidence in support of the various ideas of God is poor just as the evidence in support of other mythical creatures are poor.

lapwing wrote:
"people who claim to be Christian philosophers"
Who do you mean? I have made no such claim about myself and it is unclear what you mean by this qualification.


I mean people who are Christians who have studied philosophy yet refuse to step up to the plate and present good arguments to justify their beliefs in the Christian God and show that this God is indeed worthy of worship. Someone who claims to be a Christian philosopher yet claims they're presenting strong arguments based on some religious faith I think are discarding their philosophical training when it comes to religious discussions.

9

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar
"the medical definition" rather the definition drawn from a medical manual. The shorter OED includes a "medical" element in its 2nd definition as I have already indicated.

"as he had in a previous debate but chose not to do that in this debate."
The definition used by Williams and Craig was consistent with the shorter OED and other dictionaries. Are you saying that Craig (or anyone else) can only use one definition for any word that has more than one definition. That would make life very constricted.

"My position is that the burden of proof lies more on one side than the other."
I would like you to answer the question do you believe there is incontrovertible proof that God does not exist first, and if you do to provide it.

"I still don't see how I changed the meaning of what you wrote" You changed my previous statement in 2 to the truncation in 1. I contend that 1 and 2 have different meanings. 1 omits the idea of incontrovertible proof. From the debate title Williams and Craig only have to show that God is not a delusion: it's Ahmed and Copson who have to show that God is a delusion so that includes the idea of "incontrovertible proof" not a delusion does not necessarily involve the idea of incontrovertible proof.

"You already pointed this out in post #19." I was waiting for your answer.

"faith"
I thought you were implying that I had meant that theist's belief influences the actuality of God's existence. I don't think that.

"people who are Christians who have studied philosophy yet refuse to step up to the plate and present good arguments to justify their beliefs in the Christian God"
That's just a definition. Ifyou're going to say that "people" fail to present "good arguments" you need to name names - it's unfair to attack a group of people without being specific. I could say that all atheists are liars but that would be unfair for the same kind of reason.
For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

10

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote: "the medical definition" rather the definition drawn from a medical manual. The shorter OED includes a "medical" element in its 2nd definition as I have already indicated.


Was the Williams and Craig team using this definition drawn from a medical manual?

lapwing wrote:
"as he had in a previous debate but chose not to do that in this debate."
The definition used by Williams and Craig was consistent with the shorter OED and other dictionaries. Are you saying that Craig (or anyone else) can only use one definition for any word that has more than one definition. That would make life very constricted.


No, what I'm saying is that in a debate, for one to avoid the fallacy of ambiguity, they should use that same definition consistently in that debate.

lapwing wrote:
"My position is that the burden of proof lies more on one side than the other."
I would like you to answer the question do you believe there is incontrovertible proof that God does not exist first, and if you do to provide it.


That would depend on what standards you have for "incontrovertible proof" and what God you're talking about. Also, what I should tell you is that I simply do not believe that the claims so far presented justify a belief in the Christian God.

lapwing wrote:
"I still don't see how I changed the meaning of what you wrote" You changed my previous statement in 2 to the truncation in 1. I contend that 1 and 2 have different meanings. 1 omits the idea of incontrovertible proof. From the debate title Williams and Craig only have to show that God is not a delusion: it's Ahmed and Copson who have to show that God is a delusion so that includes the idea of "incontrovertible proof" not a delusion does not necessarily involve the idea of incontrovertible proof.


I already said that as I used it in context, it didn't alter the meanings. What you appear to be doing is shifting the burden of proof since for Williams and Craig to show that God is not a delusion, they would actually need to provide incontrovertible proof that God does exist unless of course you wish to use some unfamiliar method of deciding who bears the heavier burden of proof.

lapwing wrote:
"You already pointed this out in post #19." I was waiting for your answer.


I already said it could be reduced to that as you pointed out. But you and Craig both said that the topic of the debate wasn't whether or not God exists.

lapwing wrote:
"faith"
I thought you were implying that I had meant that theist's belief influences the actuality of God's existence. I don't think that.


No, my point is that faith isn't a good argument for justifying a belief that something actually exists.

lapwing wrote:
"people who are Christians who have studied philosophy yet refuse to step up to the plate and present good arguments to justify their beliefs in the Christian God"
That's just a definition. Ifyou're going to say that "people" fail to present "good arguments" you need to name names - it's unfair to attack a group of people without being specific. I could say that all atheists are liars but that would be unfair for the same kind of reason.


I thought I was being specific enough without naming names and being at the risk of a ban for defamation or something on this forum.
I was referring to Christians who had formally received training in philosophy who still choose to try to shift the burden of proof when the concept at least when it comes to issues of religion and non-belief is more weighted towards the religious believer.

11

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar
"Was the Williams and Craig team using this definition drawn from a medical manual?"
"they should use that same definition consistently in that debate."
Williams presented the medical definition in his opening slide. The two sides used their own different, but legitimate, definitions of delusion. Ahmed implied that the shorter OED only gave his side's definition which is not true.The organisers could have specified the definition of delusion as part of the debate title, but they did not which led to the possibility of the two sides using different definitions.

"what God you're talking about."
I believe Craig defined this during the debate along the lines of an invisible creator God responsible for creation of the universe. I take it that you don't have incontrovertible proof for the non existence of such a God. NB: Craig specifically said that the debate was not about the "Christian God" per se. That term did not appear in the debate title.

"change of definition on truncation"
What I wrote was:

The point that Williams and Craig both made was that under their preferred definition of delusion the motion was not neutral. Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held "despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".
To remove any ambiguity I should have added at the end according to the Willams/Craig preferred definition of delusion.

What you wrote was:
You've just said that Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief. Doesn't that imply that the task before Williams and Craig was to show that the belief was a true one?

I have included the context and I still contend that you changed the meaning of what I wrote by truncating it. Your mirror argument fails because the debate title and organisers did not specify a single definition to be used for the word delusion.

"since for Williams and Craig to show that God is not a delusion, they would actually need to provide incontrovertible proof that God does exist"
This is wrong. To show that, say, a trout is not a bird one would show that the characteristics of a trout are not those of birds. To show that a trout is a fish you would use a different method - to show that the trout has the characteristics of fish. All Williams and Craig had to show is what God is not: in this case not a delusion.

"the topic of the debate wasn't whether or not God exists."
Yes and this is what casts doubt Copson's and Ahmed's choice of definition for the word delusion; that and Dawkins' use of the word in his book.

"faith"
You don't seem to have grasped that I am talking about how theists and atheists personally come to terms with the lack of incontrovertible proof for the existence or non existence of God. Theists say that their belief in God is a faith belief rather than a belief based on incontrovertible proof, although there is evidence. Some atheists seem reluctant to own up to the lack of any incontrovertible proof that God does not exist. But rarely do atheists admit that their belief that God does not exist is similarly based on their own leap of faith. I noted that in the Oxford debate the atheist speaker did own up to the fact that there was no incontrovertible proof that God does not exist - something that you have signally failed to do. Why is that?

"people who are Christians who have studied philosophy yet refuse to step up to the plate and present good arguments to justify their beliefs in the Christian God"
Well without names this is a content free pointless slur and adds nothing to this discussion, or anything else.
For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

12

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote: "Was the Williams and Craig team using this definition drawn from a medical manual?"
"they should use that same definition consistently in that debate."
Williams presented the medical definition in his opening slide. The two sides used their own different, but legitimate, definitions of delusion. Ahmed implied that the shorter OED only gave his side's definition which is not true.The organisers could have specified the definition of delusion as part of the debate title, but they did not which led to the possibility of the two sides using different definitions.


I'm not arguing against the fact that they used different definitions. I'm simply pointing out that both sides need to use the definitions consistently and understand the implications of the definitions which in Craig's case, did imply a medical disorder in those who did not agree with him.

lapwing wrote:
"what God you're talking about."
I believe Craig defined this during the debate along the lines of an invisible creator God responsible for creation of the universe. I take it that you don't have incontrovertible proof for the non existence of such a God. NB: Craig specifically said that the debate was not about the "Christian God" per se. That term did not appear in the debate title.


I've told you what belief I do have and pointed out to you that one would need certain specifics to answer that question.
Craig may say that the debate wasn't about the Christian God but it was about whatever Gods Craig and Williams believed in if they do believe in a monotheistic God. This ambiguity is part of the reason why the question needs to be more specific.

lapwing wrote:
"change of definition on truncation"
What I wrote was:

The point that Williams and Craig both made was that under their preferred definition of delusion the motion was not neutral. Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held "despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".
To remove any ambiguity I should have added at the end according to the Willams/Craig preferred definition of delusion.

What you wrote was:
You've just said that Copson and Ahmed had to show that the belief was a false belief. Doesn't that imply that the task before Williams and Craig was to show that the belief was a true one?

I have included the context and I still contend that you changed the meaning of what I wrote by truncating it.


In context, my statement would imply that if Copson and Ahmed had to show that belief in God was a "false belief" held "despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary", then Williams and Craig had to show that belief in God was a true  belief with some incontrovertible and obvious proof in support of this  belief. I didn't make that statement in isolation but in comparison with there being a true belief to which similar standards of determining that one is false would apply to the other being true.
If your problem with my post is that I didn't use your exact words, I could rewrite it and simply attach similar requirements to the demonstration of whether or not their belief is true.

lapwing wrote:
Your mirror argument fails because the debate title and organisers did not specify a single definition to be used for the word delusion.


How does it fail? I'm simply asking for consistency and an avoidance of unnecessarily shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof can shift when Williams and Craig have met it.

lapwing wrote:
"since for Williams and Craig to show that God is not a delusion, they would actually need to provide incontrovertible proof that God does exist"
This is wrong. To show that, say, a trout is not a bird one would show that the characteristics of a trout are not those of birds. To show that a trout is a fish you would use a different method - to show that the trout has the characteristics of fish. All Williams and Craig had to show is what God is not: in this case not a delusion.


How can they show that God is not a delusion without presenting incontrovertible proof that God does exist? i.e that God has the characteristics that would lead one to conclude incontrovertibly that he does exist?

lapwing wrote:
"the topic of the debate wasn't whether or not God exists."
Yes and this is what casts doubt Copson's and Ahmed's choice of definition for the word delusion; that and Dawkins' use of the word in his book.


Once again, you're applying a certain double standard here. You agree that they can use different definitions, you agree that one of the definitions can be resolved to a debate on whether or not God exists yet you wish to deny the debaters this route. Why? And what does Dawkins' use of the word "delusion" in his book have to do with this debate? You've already said that the word can have multiple meanings.

lapwing wrote:
"faith"
You don't seem to have grasped that I am talking about how theists and atheists personally come to terms with the lack of incontrovertible proof for the existence or non existence of God. Theists say that their belief in God is a faith belief rather than a belief based on incontrovertible proof, although there is evidence. Some atheists seem reluctant to own up to the lack of any incontrovertible proof that God does not exist. But rarely do atheists admit that their belief that God does not exist is similarly based on their own leap of faith. I noted that in the Oxford debate the atheist speaker did own up to the fact that there was no incontrovertible proof that God does not exist - something that you have signally failed to do. Why is that?


Nah, I understand what you're saying and I've pointed out to you that how theists have come to terms with the lack of incontrovertible proof for the existence of God is a bad argument, a cop out when things get difficult for them to justify such a strongly held belief.
Atheists on the other hand have simply said that they do not find the evidence presented so far for God convincing and they do not accept religious faith as a good argument.
Someone saying that there is no incontrovertible proof that God does not exist can also say the same thing about faeries, goblins and unicorns. This in no way helps the argument presented by the theist. I cannot say that yet about God since we've not yet settled on the particular God under discussion.

lapwing wrote:
"people who are Christians who have studied philosophy yet refuse to step up to the plate and present good arguments to justify their beliefs in the Christian God"
Well without names this is a content free pointless slur and adds nothing to this discussion, or anything else.


I don't see it that way. I see it as requiring that Christians who have been formally trained on rigorous thinking, try to convince others about their God using those rigorous methods rather than using poor tactics such as shifting the burden of proof and other bad arguments.

13

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8477 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar
"understand the implications of the definitions which in Craig's case, did imply a medical disorder in those who did not agree with him."

No you've got that wrong. Craig and Williams spoke in support of the debate
"this house believes that (belief in) God is not a delusion". Williams' preferred definition (described by you as "medical") implies from the debate title that those who believe in God have to be deluded in their belief. So Craig and Williams' position is to oppose a proposition (their opponents' view) which says that theists (those who agree with them) necessarily have a "medical disorder" (your phrase).

"incontrovertible proof" (IP)
You have not responded to requests for IP for the non existence of God given your uncertainty in the standard expected though you have previously asked me (and Williams&Craig in #24,26) for IP for God's existence - double standards? You may find it easier to consider what is meant by controvertible. You seem to contend that the arguments for God's existence are controvertible - what makes them so and use that to work out what is meant by incontrovertible.
My question asking you for IP for God's non existence still stands

"the mirror argument fails"
You still don't seem to understand that it fails because the two teams used different definitions for "delusion" so that "God is not a delusion" was not the opposite/complement of "God is a delusion"  since delusion was defined differently for those two statements.

"How can they show that God is not a delusion without presenting incontrovertible proof that God does exist?"
Because, using their preferred definition for delusion, all they have to show is that one does not have to be deluded (have a medical disorder using your words) in order to believe in God. William&Craig only had to show that such belief is reasonable.

"you wish to deny the debaters this route"
Because if the intended definition was simply "false belief" then one would think that the debate title should have been "this house believes that God does not exist". Why was that title not used if the intended meaning for delusion was simply "false belief"?

"And what does Dawkins' use of the word "delusion" in his book have to do with this debate?"
I strongly suspect that the use of the word "delusion" in the debate title comes from its use in Dawkins' book.

"Atheists on the other hand have simply said that they do not find the evidence presented so far for God convincing and they do not accept religious faith as a good argument."
This is not the dictionary definition of atheism "disbelief in the existence of God or deities". You seem to be shifting to an agnostic position "somebody who believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists".
Is that the case?
Shorter OED atheist = "someone who denies or disbelieves in God or gods"
Shorter OED agnostic = "someone who holds the view that nothing can be known about the existence of God".

"Christian God"
This is an unfortunate phrase since according to orthodox Christian doctrine, God is eternal and so pre-exists the advent of Christianity. God's existence is not dependent on the existence of a religious system of humans. I think it is better for the purposes of this discussion to use Craig's definition of God.
[Rather than say Christian God it is better to say the God whom Christians worship or believe in]


For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

14

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
lapwing wrote: "understand the implications of the definitions which in Craig's case, did imply a medical disorder in those who did not agree with him."

No you've got that wrong. Craig and Williams spoke in support of the debate
"this house believes that (belief in) God is not a delusion". Williams' preferred definition (described by you as "medical") implies from the debate title that those who believe in God have to be deluded in their belief. So Craig and Williams' position is to oppose a proposition (their opponents' view) which says that theists (those who agree with them) necessarily have a "medical disorder" (your phrase).


Yeah sorry. What I meant to say was that according to Craig, those who voted in support of the motion viewed their colleagues as having a mental disorder.

lapwing wrote:
"incontrovertible proof" (IP)
You have not responded to requests for IP for the non existence of God given your uncertainty in the standard expected though you have previously asked me (and Williams&Craig in #24,26) for IP for God's existence - double standards? You may find it easier to consider what is meant by controvertible. You seem to contend that the arguments for God's existence are controvertible - what makes them so and use that to work out what is meant by incontrovertible.
My question asking you for IP for God's non existence still stands


I'm not saying I don't understand what controvertible or incontrovertible means, I'm saying that the burden of proof lies more on one side and requesting such proof of others means that the side that has the heavier burden of proof needs to first meet it.

lapwing wrote:
"the mirror argument fails"
You still don't seem to understand that it fails because the two teams used different definitions for "delusion" so that "God is not a delusion" was not the opposite/complement of "God is a delusion"  since delusion was defined differently for those two statements.


My point is that that for the side with the heavier burden of proof to request for incontrovertible proof means that they think they've met such a burden of proof. I simply wish to see this before the burden of proof can shift.

lapwing wrote:
"How can they show that God is not a delusion without presenting incontrovertible proof that God does exist?"
Because, using their preferred definition for delusion, all they have to show is that one does not have to be deluded (have a medical disorder using your words) in order to believe in God. William&Craig only had to show that such belief is reasonable.


So if for the sake of argument, God actually doesn't exist. Would it be a delusion to believe in him?

lapwing wrote:
"you wish to deny the debaters this route"
Because if the intended definition was simply "false belief" then one would think that the debate title should have been "this house believes that God does not exist". Why was that title not used if the intended meaning for delusion was simply "false belief"?


I don't know why that title wasn't used. But if the implication of one of the meanings was that God doesn't exist, it means that such a route should be open to access.

lapwing wrote:
"And what does Dawkins' use of the word "delusion" in his book have to do with this debate?"
I strongly suspect that the use of the word "delusion" in the debate title comes from its use in Dawkins' book.


Well we don't know that now do we?

lapwing wrote:
"Atheists on the other hand have simply said that they do not find the evidence presented so far for God convincing and they do not accept religious faith as a good argument."
This is not the dictionary definition of atheism "disbelief in the existence of God or deities". You seem to be shifting to an agnostic position "somebody who believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists".
Is that the case?


No because an agnostic is answering a different question from what is posed.

lapwing wrote:
Shorter OED atheist = "someone who denies or disbelieves in God or gods"
Shorter OED agnostic = "someone who holds the view that nothing can be known about the existence of God".


My view is that something can be known about the existence of God depending on what God it is that we're talking about. You see,

lapwing wrote:
"Christian God"
This is an unfortunate phrase since according to orthodox Christian doctrine, God is eternal and so pre-exists the advent of Christianity. God's existence is not dependent on the existence of a religious system of humans. I think it is better for the purposes of this discussion to use Craig's definition of God.
[Rather than say Christian God it is better to say the God whom Christians worship or believe in]


Nah I think saying Christian God is better since there are other Gods out there who pre-existed their followers e.g Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Wu Chi etc.
Also, using Craig's definition of God opens one up to the fallacy of ambiguity and of course ignores the possibility that it may be meaningless in that it may not be pointing to anything that really exists out there.