bskeptic

  • ****
  • 8354 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2017, 01:05:16 pm »

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

Meh.  We're still talking about a being who let's children die by the millions in horrible ways of its own invention.


So you would rather there is no hope for those children?

And of course, under theism, there would be a good reason for God permitting suffering. Also, although no doubt there is plenty of suffering in the world including at the end of many lives, death itself would be something of an illusion with theism. Death would be a transition to a different type of life, or maybe another reincarnation in human life.

1

Sanoy

  • ***
  • 2146 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2017, 01:40:18 pm »
She doesn't actually believe the world is an illusion she just doesn't want the argument to lead where it does. I don't think pressing the argument would be best thing to do right now.

Instead talk to here about who God is, give her your testimony. She is afraid, give reasons why she should be excited and hopeful instead. The argument has already done what it's supposed to do. The argument doesn't turn people into Christians, it just opens the door for you to tell them about God.

I dont get this....why would someone not want God to exist?

Do these people prefer death, no justice, never seeing loved ones again to eternal paradise, justice, seeing there loved ones again etc etc?

Now watch atheists here bring up hell. I mean, if you are worried about hell then accept Jesus as your saviour in your heart and pray daily.
Despite your attempt to preempt the argument, if you believe in a traditional Christian God who eternally damns those who don't believe in him, or who annihilates them, even if they ascertain truth as best they can and even if they do exactly what the are destined to do because of the way God creates them, then you believe in a moral monster that I fervently hope does not exist. I don't want someone telling me to enjoy eternal life with God while my Jewish wife, the best person I know, is eternally damned, and I sure don't want God to slip me something that stops me from mourning her fate while I enjoy heaven, as some here have suggested would happen.

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

If I or any Christian fails to represent Christ to you, you will not die because of this. If you never heard of Christ  you would not die because of that. It is how you respond to the revelations that have been made to you whether you know it in your mind or not. If your wife is Jewish, then she already loves the Lord in faith, just as Abraham did. She just does not recognize the messiah has come. Salvation comes from the response of the heart not the knowledge in the brain.

If I am a terrible witness for Christ then reject me, but if there is any tug at your heart calling you to righteousness and mercy lean toward it, invite it in and let it lead you into the knowledge of Christ.

I do not know what ultimately comes to those who die without Christ but they will not be forgotten. It says we will be comforted (Rev 21:4) not that we will forget. But do not think that because your wife is Jewish that she will not go to heaven. Instead consider that she wants you there with her in heaven.

2

Nunovalente

  • ***
  • 3859 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2017, 03:12:43 pm »
How do we know anything exists?

The premise does draw on assumptions. I.e. Normal rational ones, like, things exist! And from what we know from our senses and understanding, they are caused. It draws on the universal human experience and ability.

If we apply the theory, it could be an illusion, then it should apply to everything. So let's be consistent!

Does she apply this same skepticism to everything else? I doubt it. But if not, why not?
Faith is being confident in things hoped for, the conviction of facts not yet seen. Hebrews 11.
Everyone exercises faith in something. What is your faith in?

3

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10416 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2017, 05:06:06 pm »
She doesn't actually believe the world is an illusion she just doesn't want the argument to lead where it does. I don't think pressing the argument would be best thing to do right now.

Instead talk to here about who God is, give her your testimony. She is afraid, give reasons why she should be excited and hopeful instead. The argument has already done what it's supposed to do. The argument doesn't turn people into Christians, it just opens the door for you to tell them about God.

I dont get this....why would someone not want God to exist?

Do these people prefer death, no justice, never seeing loved ones again to eternal paradise, justice, seeing there loved ones again etc etc?

Now watch atheists here bring up hell. I mean, if you are worried about hell then accept Jesus as your saviour in your heart and pray daily.
Despite your attempt to preempt the argument, if you believe in a traditional Christian God who eternally damns those who don't believe in him, or who annihilates them, even if they ascertain truth as best they can and even if they do exactly what the are destined to do because of the way God creates them, then you believe in a moral monster that I fervently hope does not exist. I don't want someone telling me to enjoy eternal life with God while my Jewish wife, the best person I know, is eternally damned, and I sure don't want God to slip me something that stops me from mourning her fate while I enjoy heaven, as some here have suggested would happen.

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

An argument comes forward that someone finds very convincing, why panic and start to go into epistemic nihilism to avoid the truth?

Why not embrace it and see what you can to be saved? I mean, its not as if that if you find out God exists you then need to complete a PHD in nuclear physics (meaning you are not smart enough but in order to get to heaven you have pass such a torrid and difficult test)

Why not look into it further and if it continues to be convincing then accept Jesus? Pass the word around so your friends/family also get saved.

God is JUST,whoever is in hell, there are PERFECT reasons why they are in hell. There is no injustice which you seem to think there is.
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

4

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10416 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2017, 05:06:59 pm »

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

Meh.  We're still talking about a being who let's children die by the millions in horrible ways of its own invention.

Children dont die under Christianity, they just get removed from this temporal existence.
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12

5

Bill McEnaney

  • ***
  • 2986 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2017, 12:29:45 am »

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

Meh.  We're still talking about a being who let's children die by the millions in horrible ways of its own invention.
Including partial-birth abortion and abortion where the doctor dismembers the baby?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 12:35:22 am by Bill McEnaney »

6

HIJ

  • ****
  • 5192 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2017, 01:12:35 am »
I think the fact that an objective external reality is indistinguishable from a simulated virtual reality is no mere inference that cannot be understated. Often, this inference is used to prop up skepticism of an external reality, but in fact, this inference gives way to an esoteric argument that needs to be brought to light:

Premise 1. If reality is a simulation, then it has a simulator.
Premise 2. If reality is a simulation, then it has a logical foundation to explain its existence.
Premise 3. If reality is a simulation, then it is grounded by an absolute reality which is logical.
Premise 4. If our objective external reality is indistinguishable from a simulation, then by the Law of Identity, our objective external reality must also have a simulator, a logical foundation for its existence, and is also grounded by an absolute reality which is logical.
Conclusion. That absolute reality is God.

I wrote an essay to flesh out this argument, if you're interested. I think it's a fairly strong argument for the existence of God vis-a-vis philosophy (not theism), because you can't knock down the first three premises without making other metaphysical claims.

Has anyone pointed out yet that your conclusion does not follow from the premises? You need a premise that affirms the antecedent of P1-3, and that would get you a simulator, logical foundation, etc. Also, you need to specify what you mean by "indistinguishable" in P4 - is it epistemological or ontological? If the former, then the law of identity isn't going to help you, because a simulation and non-simulation are not identical by definition. Not saying it can't be done, but you have a few steps to make explicit.

7
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2017, 04:07:03 am »
How do we know anything exists?

The premise does draw on assumptions. I.e. Normal rational ones, like, things exist! And from what we know from our senses and understanding, they are caused. It draws on the universal human experience and ability.

If we apply the theory, it could be an illusion, then it should apply to everything. So let's be consistent!

Does she apply this same skepticism to everything else? I doubt it. But if not, why not?

She does not. As I stated, she subscribed to the solipsist school when she suspected something awry in my/her own thinking.

8

Gordon Tubbs

  • ****
  • 5445 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Personal Blog
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2017, 07:02:39 am »
I think the fact that an objective external reality is indistinguishable from a simulated virtual reality is no mere inference that cannot be understated. Often, this inference is used to prop up skepticism of an external reality, but in fact, this inference gives way to an esoteric argument that needs to be brought to light:

Premise 1. If reality is a simulation, then it has a simulator.
Premise 2. If reality is a simulation, then it has a logical foundation to explain its existence.
Premise 3. If reality is a simulation, then it is grounded by an absolute reality which is logical.
Premise 4. If our objective external reality is indistinguishable from a simulation, then by the Law of Identity, our objective external reality must also have a simulator, a logical foundation for its existence, and is also grounded by an absolute reality which is logical.
Conclusion. That absolute reality is God.

I wrote an essay to flesh out this argument, if you're interested. I think it's a fairly strong argument for the existence of God vis-a-vis philosophy (not theism), because you can't knock down the first three premises without making other metaphysical claims.

Has anyone pointed out yet that your conclusion does not follow from the premises? You need a premise that affirms the antecedent of P1-3, and that would get you a simulator, logical foundation, etc. Also, you need to specify what you mean by "indistinguishable" in P4 - is it epistemological or ontological? If the former, then the law of identity isn't going to help you, because a simulation and non-simulation are not identical by definition. Not saying it can't be done, but you have a few steps to make explicit.

Oh for sure. I should have been a little more precise, because in the essay I don't use that argument wholly, rather it's initial premise of "the mere plausibility that physical reality is indistinguishable from a virtual one could not be the case if we did not think there wasn’t some fundamental design to reality itself (both simulations and physical objects obey rules)" that needs to be stated.

It's an implicit argument that comes from asking: "why do you think reality could be a simulation/illusion/hallucination?" Followed by: "how can you tell the difference between what is real and illusion if you don't know?" I think there are two responses that could undermine one's external world skepticism:

(1) I can't tell the difference.
(2) It's possible an illusion could be the case.

On accounting of (1), their doubts are defeated because if you can't tell the difference, whence the doubt? Why ask the question if you can't possibly know the answer to it? If you can't tell the difference between what is real and illusion, then it doesn't matter if you're actually sitting down on a chair or dreaming of sitting down on a chair. In both instances, you're sitting down on a chair. In this case, skepticism is defeated with pragmatism.

On accounting of (2), if you're asserting that possibility, you need an epistemic antecedent for illusions/simulations. This is where my argument comes in, because you can't have simulations without a simulator, or illusions without projectors, or hallucinations without minds. In each of those cases, you have a Contingency Problem to deal with.  If you pick the hallucinations + minds option, then you have to circle back to response (1)... which leads to pragmatism.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 07:04:16 am by GordonTubbs »
Ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament (PCUSA)
Regent University, Master of Divinity (Chaplain Ministry)
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-2018)

9

Skeptic

  • ***
  • 2529 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: DEBATE: Difficulty arguing with my opponent
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2017, 03:00:24 pm »

Now, if universalism is true, or if being as good as one can and seeking the truth as best one can is sufficient for eternal life, then we're talking a different ball game.

Meh.  We're still talking about a being who let's children die by the millions in horrible ways of its own invention.

Children dont die under Christianity, they just get removed from this temporal existence.

Well except for all the suffering parents and other loved ones of those children dying happen to go through.

Not to mention the suffering of the children themselves.