Richard Dawkins's definition of "Faith" ....

Originally posted by Halitose
That is why you've risen to "king" status in my view: you feverishly construct strawmen -- and you don't even realise it. The upside to this is that you are not being intellectually dishonest: there is still hope that you'd exhibit more stringent and thorough methodology to your thinking.

So why exactly is this a strawman? Let’s go through this nice and ...[text shortened]... ing". You assume at your peril that God and Santa are essentially the same.

A good analysis. However in doing so you present two strawmen yourself.
1. The concept of Santa is well defined.
2. The concept of God is "a divine being existing outside of space and time".

Notice how in your last sentence you mention both 'a God' and God.
The poster made it quite clear that he was referring specifically to the Christian God and not including the nourse gods for example. So, back to your Santa proof, if a survey of the equator is sufficient evidence that Santa does not exist then to disprove the existence of God it is sufficient to show that rising from death three days after a crucification is medically impossible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A good analysis. However in doing so you present two strawmen yourself.
1. The concept of Santa is well defined.
2. The concept of God is "a divine being existing outside of space and time".

Notice how in your last sentence you mention both 'a God' and God.
The poster made it quite clear that he was referring specifically to the Christian God and no ...[text shortened]... ent to show that rising from death three days after a crucification is medically impossible.

Just a slight correction to your attempted disproof: then to disprove the existence of God it is sufficient to show that rising from death three days after a crucification is medically impossible for God.

Good luck.

You might want to take note of the "edit" I added to my post on the previous page.

Originally posted by Agerg
If we look at the one case where you see the problem with event causation, ie: the first cause ...

Off the bat you're starting with a strawman (which only confirms my suspicion that you're simply seeing the argument(s) you want to see instead of what's actually presented in front of you). I didn't say that the First Cause was the problem with event causation; all through this thread I've been identifying other issues with event causation (most notably induction) that have nothing to do with First Cause.

the alternative is also a problem because it is only by your definition (that I and others reject)...that God is uncaused...

I choose to call the First Cause (which, by definition, is uncaused) "God". If you and others reject my affixing the label "God" to the First Cause and choose instead to affix it to something else, then you cannot claim to have refuted the notion of God to me my refuting that something else. That is, by the very definition of the term, a strawman argument.

see above...statement not withdrawn

See above... you have still not provided one iota of evidence for your claim of circularity.

Your position that the evidence supporting the existence of god is NOT equal to that which supports the existence of the FSM, UPU, fairies etc...has not been qualified yet.

What's UPU?

Setting aside the FSM for a moment, fairies are fundamentally different beings to God. While they may violate (or appear to violate) laws of physics (for e.g.) they are still physically limited beings. They have size, dimensions, weight etc. The First Cause does not have any of these things; by virtue of being the uncaused First Cause, he does not have any parts (i.e. ontologically 'simple' - which differs from the conception of the FSM as well) and does not have any physical dimensions or measurables. Hence, as I said earlier, while one may look for specific physical evidence for the existence of fairies (e.g. footprints), one cannot look for specific physical evidence of God. One can, however, look for general physical evidence of God, evidence in terms of looking at the whole of physical creation instead of simply the parts.

Building : destruction of : rebuild of from *identical* materials and plans : building[b]2[/b]

Don't know how the proportionality operator ("::" ) works?

Anyway, in the example you cited, even if the building were not rebuilt from identical materials or plans it would still be commonly recognised as the same building (i.e. maintaining the same continuity) as the previous one provided the essential features and functions were the same.

Originally posted by Agerg
Additionally (because I suspect you are are going to say that what I demonstrated is not wholly an example of circular reasoning):
Stating that there even has to be a first cause *1* and that it had to be an agent type of causation forces that you could draw no other reasonable conclusion other than this agent had to be a God like entity *2*...Thing is, with ...[text shortened]... as a fact however, I simply don't know!

2) Though even this doesn't rule out FSM's etc...

Er, no.

You end up with Q => P and that's all.

What I have been trying to show is that ~Q is false with my criticism of event causation.

In other words

1. ~(~Q)
2. Q => P
(from (1)) 3. Q
(from (2,3)) 4. P

No circularity there whatsoever.

Originally posted by dottewell
Yes, there are many criticism of Hume; but I don't think those you mention imply your Reidian agent/efficient-cause view.

My point is simply that to suggest, as you did, there are two "theories" of causation - the Reidian one and a Humean one - gives a false picture.

Regarding Darvlay's face and agent-causation (boy, if I had a penny for every time I ...[text shortened]... causes the reaction (another event or fact)? The concept of agency doesn't seem to apply.

I don't claim that the rebuttal of event causation is of the constructive kind that simultaneously demonstrates/proves agent causation. However, because agent causation is the best known alternative and because agent causation does not suffer from the criticisms of event causation, I think one is nevertheless led to it.

I don't think it's a false picture to say that, given a common understanding of causation, one either has to say that causes are events or causes are agents. I've also provided some evidence why one cannot hold both simultaneously without being equivocal.

Regarding Darvlay's face and agent-causation (boy, if I had a penny for every time I'd said that... ), isn't the natural explanation that an event or perhaps a fact causes the reaction (another event or fact)? The concept of agency doesn't seem to apply.

No, because there is no logical or necessary connection between an event or a fact and a reaction. Put another way, events/facts do not have intrinsic causal powers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The poster made it quite clear that he was referring specifically to the Christian God and not including the nourse gods for example. So, back to your Santa proof, if a survey of the equator is sufficient evidence that Santa does not exist then to disprove the existence of God it is sufficient to show that rising from death three days after a crucification is medically impossible.

Not refering to a Christian God at all .. what I refer to is a Creator

My point is a simple one: To claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist is to assert a universal negative .. you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Your average Public School Teacher probably holds about .003% of all knowledge.
Just my opinion.

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything, but you have to know something .. either know God personally or be aware of some evidence that would establish His existence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

i have a question before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue was not the popular theory that "the earth is flat"? well that was man's thinking at the time but what God the creator of the earth had man pen down in His Word the Bible is that the earth is spherical. which clearly went against all reasonable thinking at the time. would that be just one example that the bible is trust worthy which there are more. i can reference the scripture if you like.

Originally posted by domlo45
i have a question before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue was not the popular theory that "the earth is flat"?

No, it wasn't. Europeans knew for centuries before Columbus that the world was curved.

Originally posted by domlo45
i can reference the scripture if you like.

please do

Originally posted by jammer
.....Your average Public School Teacher probably holds about .003% of all knowledge.
........

Do you have the figures for that? I wouldn't mind checking them....

(sure it's not nearer 0.00312%?)

Originally posted by domlo45
........ i can reference the scripture if you like.

Yes I would like to see the reference too......

Originally posted by jammer
please do

Isaiah 40:22 for that answer another Q. what was the popular belief of the earth in as far as the resting place of it what was the earth resting on. some said the man atlas is holding the world on his back others said the flat earth was resting upon three elephants that are standing on a turtle in a vast body of water but the bible states that God is hanging the earth upon nothing that is written in Job 26:7 how could this man know that in his life time unless inspired of God who knows all

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it wasn't. Europeans knew for centuries before Columbus that the world was curved.

you tell me when did it become popular the idea of the earth being curved 1500's....maybe 1200's let's go back 33 A.D. how about the year 732 B.C.E. (before common era) that's when the Book of Isaiah was written please enlighten me what did the EUROPEANS think way back then

Originally posted by domlo45
you tell me when did it become popular the idea of the earth being curved 1500's....maybe 1200's let's go back 33 A.D. how about the year 732 B.C.E. (before common era) that's when the Book of Isaiah was written please enlighten me what did the EUROPEANS think way back then

Copernicus first made his ideas widespread in 1536.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

However long before this time sailors were aware of a curvature across the ocean. When seeing a ship, the flag was the first visible sign on the horizon before the ship ascended into view.

However because of their education and predominantly, ingrained sociological and religious beliefs they would never have reasoned a curvature to the earth or made the leap of deduction to say the earth was a sphere.

Bad day for the Pope good day for thought. . . .

Originally posted by EAPOE
Copernicus first made his ideas widespread in 1536.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

However long before this time sailors were aware of a curvature across the ocean. When seeing a ship, the flag was the first visible sign on the horizon before the ship ascended into view.

However because of their education and predominantly, ingraine ...[text shortened]... of deduction to say the earth was a sphere.

Bad day for the Pope good day for thought. . . .

thank you and it stands to reason that because of the beliefs of the pope i don't think it is possible for the man to have ever read the bible.