Theists: It's irrelevant that you don't care.

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Theists: It's irrelevant that you don't care.

 My new biggest pet peeve from theists happens in conversations about evidence for God.  Here's the typical exchange.

Theist:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, God, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Atheist:  So... what evidence do you have for your belief in God?

Theist: Offers one of the following:

     1. Intuition

     2. Kalam/Cosmological/First Cause

     3. Complexity of design

     4. Personal experience of "miracle."

     5. Argument from wonder

     6. insert any of the other twenty invalid arguments for god here.

Atheist:  Well, that's not evidence.  Those are bad philosophical arguments.  I was asking for actual evidence.

Theist:  Hey, guess what.  I don't care that you don't like my evidence.  I still love you.

 

Here's an example off of my favorite atheist blogger, Greta Christina's website:

Quote:
Hey Greta-

One thing you might be discounting in your pre-conceived notions of us "God-fearing peeps" is that some of us really don't care if you believe in God or not.

In fact, some of us (Libertarian-minded folk) are happy that you have the right and the freedom to feel the way you do in this country.

I find it humorous that your slant on religion relies heavily on the generalization that all God-believers are there to challenge you. Such arrogance!

Quite honestly, I have faith that one day, in your time of need; be it on a hospital bed when you're dying of cancer, or on a plane that is going down or just amongst your family when they surround you on your deathbed, you will think about what lies beyond.

Only then may you truly consider what you have to lose.

See, if religious-folk are wrong about heaven, no biggie. We all end up stone-cold dead, six-feet deep; atheists and religious alike. BUT....BUT, if athiests are wrong, they have f*cked up royally. Eternal damnation. Sweet.

Cheers!

 

 

Here's the thing.  That's just irrelevant emotionalism.  We aren't asking if you care that we don't believe.  That has nothing at all to do with it.  Whether you care if we believe or not, we care that you don't have any evidence for your beliefs.  That's the difference between you and us, you see.  We are firmly attached to the idea that science, reason, and evidence are the ONLY ways to know anything at all.  The fact that some of your fellow theists -- many, perhaps most of them -- are insistent on their beliefs being treated as if they are factually true makes it our business to question you.

The fact that we actually argue about things like "In God We Trust" and the teaching of creationism makes your beliefs our business.  When you piously assert your apathy, it doesn't help anything.  It just makes us all the more determined, since it ought to be obvious to anybody with half a social conscience that when your beliefs affect our lives, it is our business, and our epistemological right to demand evidence.

 


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
They should care though. If

They should care though. If I get my way, the churches will lose their tax exempt status. Bibles will disappear from court rooms. Public display of the 10 commandments will be made illegal in government buildings. The word god would disappear from the pledge of allegiance. Gay marriage would be made legal, abortions funded by the state. Religious private schools would lose all rights to any public voucher money, teacher led prayer would be outlawed in public educational institutions (that includes before extracurricular activities like sports). While this is by no means a complete list, the effect that I am seeking is that religious institutions would lose all political and economic control and be relegated to something that you keep to yourself and practice in private, exactly as it ought to be. They should care, because Atheists like me want to change the system. 


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Hi Hambydammit I have a few

Hi Hambydammit

I have a few questions:

1. What do take evidence to be?

2. Would you agree that whatever evidence is, it's always defeasible?

3. On what basis do you draw such a sharp line between "philosophical arguments" and "evidence"? Also, how does a philosophic argument differ from other arguments? I ask these two questions because if you examine the evidence for the existence of, say, charm quarks, you will not get some X that is easily distinguishable from arguments. That is, the evidence will be presented in the form of a very long, very complicated argument.

4. Do you distinguish evidence (however defined) that is private from evidence that is public? If so, then isn't it the case that personal experience can (in some situations) be evidence for me, even if I can't reproduce it or provide it to you?

5. Do you think all arguments for God's existence are invalid (i.e. fallacious), or were you using the term 'invalid' loosely there to refer to any argument that 'fails'?

6. Finally, what criteria must an argument meet to be judged a good argument? Must it be rationally coercive?

Edejardin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 From my experience, people

 From my experience, people who start by arguing over what evidence actually is, may have very little to none of it. 


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Stuntgibbon, you're way off

Stuntgibbon, you're way off there. Questions about the nature of evidence are extremely complicated, and are widely discussed by epistemologists and philosophers of science, most of whom by far don't care one bit about religion.

If you think it's so easy, why not take a stab at answering my questions? None of them are traps or "gotcha" questions; all are, in fact, pretty standard.

Edejardin


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote: 3. On what

edejardin wrote:
3. On what basis do you draw such a sharp line between "philosophical arguments" and "evidence"? Also, how does a philosophic argument differ from other arguments? I ask these two questions because if you examine the evidence for the existence of, say, charm quarks, you will not get some X that is easily distinguishable from arguments. That is, the evidence will be presented in the form of a very long, very complicated argument.

 

Philosophical arguments such as the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the design argument, and the moral argument are philosophical.  The ontological argument entails no evidence whatsoever.  The first cause argument uses known logic (no thing is un-caused) to posit God 'caused' the universe.  This has no evidence, however, because it is simply an extrapolation of logic.  (Since nothing exists without a cause, neither does the universe, so on and so forth.)  The only arguments with evidence are the design and moral arguments.  This is because these claim things as evidence to promote the argument.  The problem with these arguments is that the claim that the evidence is actually evidence is subjective and the arguments attempting to make that evidence objective are philosophical.

 

Hambydammit wants valid evidence to be used in theistic arguments.  (this is what I gather, at least)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:1. What do take

 

Quote:
1. What do take evidence to be?

Part 4: Evidence

Wiki:  Evidence

Quote:
2. Would you agree that whatever evidence is, it's always defeasible?

Do you mean defensible?  Evidence is falsifiable.  That is, whatever evidence there is, it is subject to scrutiny and there is a method available to potentially prove it false.

Part 5: Evaluating Evidence

Quote:
3. On what basis do you draw such a sharp line between "philosophical arguments" and "evidence"?

Philosophy, strictly speaking, is the contemplation of "What if."  We may consider any possibility and imagine it in this way:  "If X were true, what would the implications be for Y?"  This is interesting for debate, but it is not evidence for what is real.  It is just speculation.  When we discuss what actually is, we must present empirical evidence for its nature.  This is all basic epistemology.  

Quote:
Also, how does a philosophic argument differ from other arguments?

I just answered that.  Philosophical arguments take the form:  "If X, then Y."  Scientific arguments take the form:  "X, therefore, probably Y."

Quote:
I ask these two questions because if you examine the evidence for the existence of, say, charm quarks, you will not get some X that is easily distinguishable from arguments. That is, the evidence will be presented in the form of a very long, very complicated argument.

Some evidence requires explanation.  That's fine.  I don't know very much about astronomy, for example.  If a PhD student were to try to tell me what evidence supports the existence of black holes, he would probably have to give me a crash course in astronomy before any of the terms would be meaningful.  This is because knowledge is cumulative.  (I can't very well write a novel before I learn the alphabet!)

Evidence is usually paired with an argument.  If I say, "There are fossils arranged in strata all over the earth," this is a piece of empirical evidence.  By itself, it doesn't really do much.  The savvy thinker will respond to this statement by saying, "So... what?"  Generally speaking, several pieces of evidence together form a coherent and collaborative picture of what must be if X, Y, and Z are true.  In other words, evidence plus logic equals conclusions about the nature of what is.

Quote:
4. Do you distinguish evidence (however defined) that is private from evidence that is public? If so, then isn't it the case that personal experience can (in some situations) be evidence for me, even if I can't reproduce it or provide it to you?

Yes.  I covered this question in the articles linked above.  For those too lazy to read, "personal evidence" is only valid insofar as it can be externally verified.  In other words, there isn't much you can do about what you believe.  You might believe that you've been abducted by aliens and taken to the Andromeda Galaxy for an intergalactic croquet tournament, and it's hard to deny that there is something -- some personal evidence -- which leads you to believe so.  However, for humanity at large, personal evidence is virtually useless unless it has some mechanism by which it can be externally verified.  If you were to bring back an intergalactic croquet mallet, this would corroborate your personal evidence, and lend it some validity.

Quote:
5. Do you think all arguments for God's existence are invalid (i.e. fallacious), or were you using the term 'invalid' loosely there to refer to any argument that 'fails'?

I have never heard a valid argument for God's existence, nor have I seen any empirical evidence.  Do you have either?

Quote:
6. Finally, what criteria must an argument meet to be judged a good argument? Must it be rationally coercive?

An argument must be valid and contain true facts to be a "sound argument."  To meet the standard of validity, it must be logically valid (which implies that it contains no logical fallacies).

Did you mean "coercive"?  I don't think that's what you meant.  Belief cannot be forced.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"The ontological argument

"The ontological argument entails no evidence whatsoever."

I would agree with this given my understanding of 'evidence,' but that doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means.

"The first cause argument uses known logic (no thing is un-caused) to posit God 'caused' the universe. This has no evidence, however, because it is simply an extrapolation of logic. (Since nothing exists without a cause, neither does the universe, so on and so forth.)"

I very much disagree with your characterization of the various first-cause arguments. (None, for example, are premised on the notion that "nothing exists without a cause.") Further, given my understanding of evidence, first cause arguments do make use of evidence; however, again, this doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means.

"The only arguments with evidence are the design and moral arguments."

I would agree that these types of arguments make use of evidence, but, again, as I understand the term.

"The problem with these arguments is that the claim that the evidence is actually evidence is subjective and the arguments attempting to make that evidence objective are philosophical."

I don't know what you mean here.

"Hambydammit wants valid evidence to be used in theistic arguments."

But what is "valid evidence"? And isn't that redundant? That is, how do you distinguish 'valid evidence' from 'evidence' as such?

Edejardin


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:1. What do

edejardin wrote:

1. What do take evidence to be?

You know. Evidence. Something we can see would be a good start.

 

edejardin wrote:

2. Would you agree that whatever evidence is, it's always defeasible?

Do you mean defensible? If so, no. Not all evidence is defensible.

 

edejardin wrote:

3. On what basis do you draw such a sharp line between "philosophical arguments" and "evidence"? Also, how does a philosophic argument differ from other arguments? I ask these two questions because if you examine the evidence for the existence of, say, charm quarks, you will not get some X that is easily distinguishable from arguments. That is, the evidence will be presented in the form of a very long, very complicated argument.

See #1.

 

edejardin wrote:

4. Do you distinguish evidence (however defined) that is private from evidence that is public? If so, then isn't it the case that personal experience can (in some situations) be evidence for me, even if I can't reproduce it or provide it to you?

I think Hamby already addressed this in the OP. Personal experience does not hold much water with regard to proving the existence of God.

 

edejardin wrote:

5. Do you think all arguments for God's existence are invalid (i.e. fallacious), or were you using the term 'invalid' loosely there to refer to any argument that 'fails'?

Let's put it this way: we have yet to see a good argument.

 

edejardin wrote:

6. Finally, what criteria must an argument meet to be judged a good argument? Must it be rationally coercive?

How about some evidence?

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I very much disagree

 

Quote:
I very much disagree with your characterization of the various first-cause arguments. (None, for example, are premised on the notion that "nothing exists without a cause.&quotEye-wink Further, given my understanding of evidence, first cause arguments do make use of evidence; however, again, this doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means.

Are you sure you've read the first cause arguments?

Quote:
The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
  3. causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

 

The conclusion here -- that a first cause exists -- is derived at the expense of committing a logical fallacy.  None of the first 3 premises are proven by evidence.  They are just asserted without proof.  Furthermore, the contention in question -- that non-finite, non-contingent things exist -- begs the question by presuming its own truth.

Let me put that in a simpler way. Premise (1) assumes the existence of infinite and non-contingent "things."  But that is just what the argument claims to prove!  We cannot start by assuming that which we are trying to prove.  It's called "Begging the Question."

Here are the possibilites:

1) All that exists is finite and contingent

2) All that exists is finite, while some that exists is contingent

3) Some that exists is finite, while some that exists is contingent

4) Some that exists is finite, while all that exists is contingent

5) All that exists is finite, and none is contingent

6) None that exists is finite, while all is contingent.

The cosmological argument just picks one of these and asserts its truth without prior demonstration.

Quote:
"The problem with these arguments is that the claim that the evidence is actually evidence is subjective and the arguments attempting to make that evidence objective are philosophical."

I don't know what you mean here.

The "evidence" used to support the design and moral arguments are philosophical -- "If X is true, then Y."  There is no evidence that X is true, only the philosophical supposition that it "seems to be true."  

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"The

edejardin wrote:
"The ontological argument entails no evidence whatsoever." I would agree with this given my understanding of 'evidence,' but that doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means. "The first cause argument uses known logic (no thing is un-caused) to posit God 'caused' the universe. This has no evidence, however, because it is simply an extrapolation of logic. (Since nothing exists without a cause, neither does the universe, so on and so forth. )" I very much disagree with your characterization of the various first-cause arguments. (None, for example, are premised on the notion that "nothing exists without a cause." ) Further, given my understanding of evidence, first cause arguments do make use of evidence; however, again, this doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means. "The only arguments with evidence are the design and moral arguments." I would agree that these types of arguments make use of evidence, but, again, as I understand the term. "The problem with these arguments is that the claim that the evidence is actually evidence is subjective and the arguments attempting to make that evidence objective are philosophical." I don't know what you mean here. "Hambydammit wants valid evidence to be used in theistic arguments." But what is "valid evidence"? And isn't that redundant? That is, how do you distinguish 'valid evidence' from 'evidence' as such?

 

The issue is whether or not claims of evidence are correct.  You can claim that a plant is evidence of design.  Hambydammit can claim that it is not.  In light of your argument, hambydammit sees your evidence as invalid.  This discrepancy in viewpoints allows for the existence of 'subjective evidence.'

 

My understanding of the general first cause argument is that since the universe has a beginning, there is a cause.  I guess I can concede that the universe itself can be used as evidence in this argument.

 

"(None, for example, are premised on the notion that "nothing exists without a cause." )"

My wording may not have been perfect; it should be no cause exists without a cause.  I view them as near synonymous, however, because it is paralleled with 'something can't come from nothing.'

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:My understanding of

 

Quote:
My understanding of the general first cause argument is that since the universe has a beginning, there is a cause.  I guess I can concede that the universe itself can be used as evidence in this argument.

There seems to be some confusion here about the nature of evidence.  In an argument, there are assertions, such as "The universe exists."  These assertions are subject to falsification.  By themselves, however, assertions represent bits of data -- pieces of information.  By themselves, pieces of information don't do anything.  Only when they are incorporated into an argument do they constitute evidence for this or that.

Here's an example.

Assertion:  There are three pennies on my desk.

This assertion doesn't prove anything by itself.  It's not evidence yet.  However, if we empirically validate my claim -- if ten or twelve scientists do rigorous tests and conclude that yes, there is a desk, that it is legally owned by me, and that there are, in fact, three pennies on it -- I may claim this assertion as true, and proceed with the following argument:

1) There are three pennies on my desk.

2) Twenty minutes ago, there were five pennies on my desk.  (Bring on the scientists to verify this claim.)

3) Between now and twenty minutes ago, the only agent in my office was my friend, Bob.

4) There have been no unusual events which would reasonably account for the disappearance of two pennies from my desk in the last twenty minutes.

5) Therefore, it stands to reason that Bob moved two pennies from my desk within the last twenty minutes.

 

The pennies are now evidence.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit, I don't mean to

Hambydammit, I don't mean to be rude, but I was looking for something a bit more sophisticated than a wiki reference. And note that your article launches into distinguishing types of evidence without first providing an analysis of the term. Perhaps this is the problem: the wiki article, for example, provides a rough *definition* of evidence ("everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion"), but no *analysis* of the term. In philosophy, an analysis of a term sets out the necessary and sufficient conditions that must be met for any X. So, an analysis of evidence might be, "Any X counts as evidence for a conclusion C just in case (that is, if and only if, or 'iff') X makes C more probable than would be the case in its absence." So, I'm looking for something a bit more philosophically rigorous than the amorphous references to evidence you provided.

"Do you mean defensible?"

No, I meant defeasible. That is, X can count as evidence for C even if ~C obtains.

"Philosophy, strictly speaking, is the contemplation of "What if." We may consider any possibility and imagine it in this way: "If X were true, what would the implications be for Y?" This is interesting for debate, but it is not evidence for what is real. It is just speculation. When we discuss what actually is, we must present empirical evidence for its nature. This is all basic epistemology."

It is? I'm not sure how you get to "philosophy is the contemplation of the 'what if'" from "basic epistemology" (which is itself a fundamental field of philosophy); in fact, I'm not sure how you get to "philosophy is the contemplation of 'what if'" at all. Further, doesn't this idiosyncratic conception of philosophy raise an intractable problem for you, viz. your understanding of evidence is informed by your understanding of epistemology, but epistemology, a field of philosophy, is reduced to 'speculation.' With all due respect, this all strikes me as very confused.

"In other words, evidence plus logic equals conclusions about the nature of what is."

Right, but that formula -- evidence plus logic -- describes most arguments, hence my question. In other words, most arguments -- including most philosophic arguments -- use evidence; hence, the hard and fast distinction you were attempting to draw between evidence and philosophic arguments struck me as odd.

"For those too lazy to read, "personal evidence" is only valid insofar as it can be externally verified."

Do you mean by "can be verified" that it must in fact be capable of verification, or that it must only in principle be capable of verification? And if the former, haven't you collapsed the distinction?

"I have never heard a valid argument for God's existence, nor have I seen any empirical evidence. Do you have either?"

Almost every argument for God's existence is valid in the strict sense of the term (i.e. it's form is truth preserving). With respect to 'evidence,' I'm still trying to understand how you're using the term.

"An argument must be valid and contain true facts to be a "sound argument.""

Right, but surely you know that the issue in every substantive philosophic argument is whether the premises are true. Usually, such arguments are logically valid. This is why soundness is an ideal standard; it's rarely reached when non-trivial conclusions are at issue. This is why other standards are often discussed, e.g. an argument is a good argument if it's both logically sound and is composed of premises that are minimally more plausible than their negations.

"Did you mean "coercive"? I don't think that's what you meant."

That's precisely what I meant. An argument is said to be rationally coercive if its conclusion can only be denied on pain of irrationality. A truly sound argument, for example, would be rationally coercive.

Edejardin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:"The

edejardin wrote:
"The ontological argument entails no evidence whatsoever." I would agree with this given my understanding of 'evidence,' but that doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means. "The first cause argument uses known logic (no thing is un-caused) to posit God 'caused' the universe. This has no evidence, however, because it is simply an extrapolation of logic. (Since nothing exists without a cause, neither does the universe, so on and so forth.)" I very much disagree with your characterization of the various first-cause arguments. (None, for example, are premised on the notion that "nothing exists without a cause." ) Further, given my understanding of evidence, first cause arguments do make use of evidence; however, again, this doesn't help me understand what Hambydammit means. "The only arguments with evidence are the design and moral arguments." I would agree that these types of arguments make use of evidence, but, again, as I understand the term. "The problem with these arguments is that the claim that the evidence is actually evidence is subjective and the arguments attempting to make that evidence objective are philosophical." I don't know what you mean here. "Hambydammit wants valid evidence to be used in theistic arguments." But what is "valid evidence"? And isn't that redundant? That is, how do you distinguish 'valid evidence' from 'evidence' as such?

First-Cause arguments for G-d's existence are invalid because they presume that "The Laws of Nature" aren't cause enough and because they presume that (a) G-d created the Laws of Nature (HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is my personal belief) (b) their particular god created the Laws of Nature.

Religion, Theology, etc. exist in the domain of PHILOSOPHY.  Christian fundies made the mistake of trying to move them into the domain of SCIENCE.  People who try to insist that a PHILOSOPHY is somehow objectively real or not real are a few boulders short of a rock pile.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:My

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
My understanding of the general first cause argument is that since the universe has a beginning, there is a cause.  I guess I can concede that the universe itself can be used as evidence in this argument.

There seems to be some confusion here about the nature of evidence.  In an argument, there are assertions, such as "The universe exists."  These assertions are subject to falsification.  By themselves, however, assertions represent bits of data -- pieces of information.  By themselves, pieces of information don't do anything.  Only when they are incorporated into an argument do they constitute evidence for this or that.

Here's an example.

Assertion:  There are three pennies on my desk.

This assertion doesn't prove anything by itself.  It's not evidence yet.  However, if we empirically validate my claim -- if ten or twelve scientists do rigorous tests and conclude that yes, there is a desk, that it is legally owned by me, and that there are, in fact, three pennies on it -- I may claim this assertion as true, and proceed with the following argument:

1) There are three pennies on my desk.

2) Twenty minutes ago, there were five pennies on my desk.  (Bring on the scientists to verify this claim.)

3) Between now and twenty minutes ago, the only agent in my office was my friend, Bob.

4) There have been no unusual events which would reasonably account for the disappearance of two pennies from my desk in the last twenty minutes.

5) Therefore, it stands to reason that Bob moved two pennies from my desk within the last twenty minutes.

 

The pennies are now evidence.

 

 

 

Last three words you quote from me:  "... in this argument."  I do not agree with the most of the rest of the argument, but I can acknowledge the use of the universe as evidence. (Because it is not just a piece of information, it does in fact exist)


 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The First Cause argument, at

The First Cause argument, at best, suggests that the causal chain leading to our universe must have started with some discrete 'cause'. That's it.

Even if we accept that as proven, which it isn't. It contains no logic to tie the hypothetical beginning of the causal chain with an entity with any of the typical attributes claimed for 'God'.

Infinite causal chains can exist, as long as the causes are less in magnitude and duration than their effects.

So a logically valid 'first cause' would be an infinitesimal twitch in reality.

So what we have is a set of assumptions, not an actual argument. It is utterly without merit.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Are you sure you've read

"Are you sure you've read the first cause arguments?"

Yes.

"Let me put that in a simpler way. Premise (1) assumes the existence of infinite and non-contingent "things." But that is just what the argument claims to prove! We cannot start by assuming that which we are trying to prove. It's called "Begging the Question.""

First, "Every finite and contingent being has a cause" doesn't in any sense assume "the existence of infinite and non-contingent "things."" This is easily proven: Is (1) consistent with,

(5) Only finite and contingent beings exist.

Clearly it is. Look at the conjunction of the two: "Every finite and contingent being has a cause, *and* only finite and contingent beings exist." See? No contradiction whatsoever. But if (1) is consistent with (5), then it cannot, as a matter of simple logic, assume "the existence of infinite and non-contingent "things.""

"The cosmological argument just picks one of these and asserts its truth without prior demonstration."

It does no such thing. Now, if all you look at is the basic outline of an argument itself (and the cosmological argument you've provided is better characterized as an outline of the sort of argument subsumed by some families of the cosmological argument, i.e. the sort of argument provided in very basic introductions to families of cosmological arguments) -- any argument -- then of course you're not going to see justified premises and the like. Such bare bones outlines aren't meant to provide such details. This leads me to ask you the question you asked me, only slightly modified: Are you sure you've read treatments of the first cause argument that go beyond very basic introductions to it?

"The "evidence" used to support the design and moral arguments are philosophical -- "If X is true, then Y." There is no evidence that X is true, only the philosophical supposition that it "seems to be true.""

We have two very different understandings of philosophy. May I ask, are you studying philosophy at university (or, did you study it at university)? I ask because you're saying things that sound so odd to me that it would surprise me if you have (and I mean no offense by that; I'm sure I say things that sound a bit odd when I'm speaking outside my field to those in another field).

Edejardin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Personal experiences do not

Personal experiences do not constitute evidence for anything other than the fact that you experienced a particular sequence of mental events.

You would need to establish that the experienced set of mental events could only be induced by an external supernatural entity matching the assumed God. There is really no way to exclude an infinite number of other hypothetical causes for something so open-ended.

Given the number of people who report experiences covering just about every conceivable mental experience, noting that even the absolute conviction of the validity of the content of the experience is just another mental aspect of the experience, and can be confabulated by the brain, there is no way to use this as proof of anything more than the power of imagination.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Hambydammit, I don't

 

Quote:
Hambydammit, I don't mean to be rude, but I was looking for something a bit more sophisticated than a wiki reference. 

If you're familiar with everything in the wiki references, why are you asking the questions you're asking?  Are you just trying to throw your weight around because you've taken a philosophy of logic course?

Quote:
And note that your article launches into distinguishing types of evidence without first providing an analysis of the term. Perhaps this is the problem: the wiki article, for example, provides a rough *definition* of evidence ("everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion&quotEye-wink, but no *analysis* of the term. In philosophy, an analysis of a term sets out the necessary and sufficient conditions that must be met for any X. So, an analysis of evidence might be, "Any X counts as evidence for a conclusion C just in case (that is, if and only if, or 'iff') X makes C more probable than would be the case in its absence." So, I'm looking for something a bit more philosophically rigorous than the amorphous references to evidence you provided.

Really?  You're really questioning the existence of "data used in an argument"?  You really want me to justify the categorical differences between types of evidence?  If you've taken a philosophy of logic course (which it sounds like you have) then you're doing one of two things.  Either you:

1) Are trying to confuse and conquer by deflecting away from the salient point of this discussion

2) You really don't understand the nature of empiricism.

I'm calling bullshit and voting for #1.

Quote:
"Do you mean defensible?"

No, I meant defeasible. That is, X can count as evidence for C even if ~C obtains.

Ok, well... in the strictest sense, axioms are not defeasible, and can be used in arguments, so no.  All evidence is not defeasible.  That seems obvious.

Quote:
It is? I'm not sure how you get to "philosophy is the contemplation of the 'what if'" from "basic epistemology" (which is itself a fundamental field of philosophy); in fact, I'm not sure how you get to "philosophy is the contemplation of 'what if'" at all. Further, doesn't this idiosyncratic conception of philosophy raise an intractable problem for you, viz. your understanding of evidence is informed by your understanding of epistemology, but epistemology, a field of philosophy, is reduced to 'speculation.' With all due respect, this all strikes me as very confused.

You're just obfuscating.  I'm sure you're aware that many words have multiple meanings.  Either you're trying to intentionally create confusion by conflating the word "philosophy" or you're very confused.  I was explaining to you which sense of the word "philosophy" I was referring to.  I am using the term "philosophical argument" to refer to an argument without supporting empirical data, which relies on the initial supposition of an unproven premise.  You don't get to determine which definition I use, and arguing semantics with me will just piss me off.

So, henceforth:

1) Philosophical argument - an argument which is not supported by empirically demonstrated premises, instead reasoning from a hypothetical and unproven premise to a conclusion which would be (or would likely be) true IF the premise were proven true.

2) Scientific/Empirical argument - an argument in which the premises are supported by empirical evidence.  (No, I will not prove to you that evidence exists.  No, I will not prove to you that direct evidence is more reliable than indirect.  You're just being an ass and trying to deflect from the obvious.)

Quote:
Right, but that formula -- evidence plus logic -- describes most arguments, hence my question. In other words, most arguments -- including most philosophic arguments -- use evidence; hence, the hard and fast distinction you were attempting to draw between evidence and philosophic arguments struck me as odd.

Valid arguments are arguments in which ALL of the premises are supported by TRUE facts, where true is defined by the adherence to empirical AND logical validity, and where the premises follow logically, and there are no logical fallacies.  You know... science.

Quote:
Do you mean by "can be verified" that it must in fact be capable of verification, or that it must only in principle be capable of verification? And if the former, haven't you collapsed the distinction?

I mean that it has been verified.  Pardon me.  Personal evidence without external verification is not valid evidence for external reality.  If a thing has the quality of falsifiability, but has not been investigated to the extent that some conclusion is reasonably justified, it is not reasonable to draw a conclusion based on the thing's truth.  You know... burden of proof?

Quote:
Almost every argument for God's existence is valid in the strict sense of the term (i.e. it's form is truth preserving). With respect to 'evidence,' I'm still trying to understand how you're using the term.

Validity + Truth = sound argument.  Validity without truth is unsound.  It's very simple.

Quote:
Right, but surely you know that the issue in every substantive philosophic argument is whether the premises are true. Usually, such arguments are logically valid. This is why soundness is an ideal standard; it's rarely reached when non-trivial conclusions are at issue. This is why other standards are often discussed, e.g. an argument is a good argument if it's both logically sound and is composed of premises that are minimally more plausible than their negations.

I have no objections to this.

Quote:
That's precisely what I meant. An argument is said to be rationally coercive if its conclusion can only be denied on pain of irrationality. A truly sound argument, for example, would be rationally coercive.

Pardon me again.  The demand for a coercive argument is usually tied to the gravity of the decision at hand.  I don't need coercive evidence to decide what to eat for lunch.  For belief in God, yes.  Only a coercive argument would be sufficient for inspiring such a momentous change in worldview for me.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:We have two very

 

Quote:
We have two very different understandings of philosophy. May I ask, are you studying philosophy at university (or, did you study it at university)? I ask because you're saying things that sound so odd to me that it would surprise me if you have (and I mean no offense by that; I'm sure I say things that sound a bit odd when I'm speaking outside my field to those in another field).

Yes, I did.  You are contesting bizarre points which seem to have no bearing on the topic at hand.  For instance, in asking about the defeasibility of evidence, you seem to overlook the obvious fact that axioms can be used in arguments, and therefore can constitute evidence.  It seemed odd that you would ask such a question when the answer is obvious.  Likewise, most rational humans are aware of the fact that some decisions require more evidence than others.  Why would you even ask if all arguments must be coercive?  That's a silly question with an obvious answer.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Hi Bob "Even if we accept

Hi Bob

"Even if we accept that as proven, which it isn't. It contains no logic to tie the hypothetical beginning of the causal chain with an entity with any of the typical attributes claimed for 'God'."

This isn't true. First cause arguments from Aquinas's First Way to Craig's Kalam argument all lead to an entity with many of the attributes of the God of classical theism. For example, Aquinas argues throughout Book One of his Summa Contra Gentiles that the purely actual first mover of the First Way must be eternal, immaterial, simple, perfect, omnipotent, good, intelligent, necessarily existing personal being. Similarly, Craig argues that a conceptual analysis of what a cause of the universe must be entails an eternal, immaterial, powerful, personal being.

"So what we have is a set of assumptions, not an actual argument."

In fact, the arguments for these attributes cover hundreds and hundreds of pages in the works of Aquinas and Craig alone! The arguments are out there, but most people are unaware of them. And I've found that when I tell others where to find them, they tend to demonstrate that they're not actually that interested in the arguments at all -- the apparent concern with arguments is a pose. (I'm not saying this is the case with you, of course. I'm just saying that in my experience, people start by telling me that such arguments don't exist. When I inform them that I can point them to volume after volume of the very arguments they claim are non-existent, they dismiss this information with a shrug and an appeal to charges of obfuscation and the like -- all before having acquainted themselves with the arguments, of course!)

Edejardin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote: First,

edejardin wrote:
First, "Every finite and contingent being has a cause" doesn't in any sense assume "the existence of infinite and non-contingent "things."" This is easily proven: Is (1) consistent with, (5) Only finite and contingent beings exist. Clearly it is. Look at the conjunction of the two: "Every finite and contingent being has a cause, *and* only finite and contingent beings exist." See? No contradiction whatsoever. But if (1) is consistent with (5), then it cannot, as a matter of simple logic, assume "the existence of infinite and non-contingent "things."

But God is not consistent with (5) then, so God cannot exist.

(seriously, I'd rather put my hand in a blender than engage in apologetics... ugh what a mess)

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I forgot to respond

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this:

"Infinite causal chains can exist, as long as the causes are less in magnitude and duration than their effects."

Aquinas would have no problem with this as far as it goes. He argued that causal chains in which each effect is *instrumentally* brought about by its cause cannot be infinite. For example, take a man moving a boulder with a stick as a lever. The boulder moves, but not on its own -- it's moved buy the stick. But the stick doesn't move on its own either; it's moved by the man's arm. And the man's arm doesn't move on its own, but is moved by the contraction of his muscles (etc.). That is, each part of the chain derives its motion from an earlier part. Causal chains like this cannot be infinite, since an infinite chain of instrumental movers would lack a source of motion. (I'm simplifying Aquinas here, of course: act and potency are fundamental to his conception of change, and thus fundamental to the conception of an infinite series of instrumental movers, or a per se causal series.)

It's late here on the East coast, so I won't be able to respond to any more posts until tomorrow.

Edejardin


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
edejardin,  I understand a

edejardin,

 

I understand a lot of work went into those volumes.  However it is still a situation about claiming an absolute truth about pre-big bang conditions without any empirical evidence.  It doesn't take a philosophy degree to know that if your standards are of a scientific nature, philosophical arguments won't cut the cake.  This is the case with most of the atheists here.  It may be realllllly good, well thought-out speculation, but it doesn't have observable, testable evidence to back it up.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:Hi Bob

edejardin wrote:
Hi Bob "Even if we accept that as proven, which it isn't. It contains no logic to tie the hypothetical beginning of the causal chain with an entity with any of the typical attributes claimed for 'God'." This isn't true. First cause arguments from Aquinas's First Way to Craig's Kalam argument all lead to an entity with many of the attributes of the God of classical theism. For example, Aquinas argues throughout Book One of his Summa Contra Gentiles that the purely actual first mover of the First Way must be eternal, immaterial, simple, perfect, omnipotent, good, intelligent, necessarily existing personal being. Similarly, Craig argues that a conceptual analysis of what a cause of the universe must be entails an eternal, immaterial, powerful, personal being. "So what we have is a set of assumptions, not an actual argument." In fact, the arguments for these attributes cover hundreds and hundreds of pages in the works of Aquinas and Craig alone! The arguments are out there, but most people are unaware of them. And I've found that when I tell others where to find them, they tend to demonstrate that they're not actually that interested in the arguments at all -- the apparent concern with arguments is a pose. (I'm not saying this is the case with you, of course. I'm just saying that in my experience, people start by telling me that such arguments don't exist. When I inform them that I can point them to volume after volume of the very arguments they claim are non-existent, they dismiss this information with a shrug and an appeal to charges of obfuscation and the like -- all before having acquainted themselves with the arguments, of course!)

Craig does not deserve to be taken seriously, I have heard more than enough of his approach to know what a sequence on non-sequiters sounds like.

The very fact that Aquinas has generated so many pages on such flimsy 'evidence' as the idea that there must be a causeless cause, strongly suggests we have a case of unconscious obfuscation, ie you throw enough assumptions and devious arguments as necessary to paper together an apparent case for your preconceived position.

Having looked at the actual possibilities, in the light of current scientific insights into the nature of causation, anyone speaking on the subject from any era before the 19th century, unversed in the nature and implications of Quantum Theory, Chaotic Systems, Relativity, etc is quite irrelevant.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Premise 1 presumes a false

 Premise 1 presumes a false dichotomy.  Even as I stated above, the cosmological argument fails because it arbitrarily picks one of several choices, even if the dichotomy were true.

To be clear, the false dichotomy assumes that time and space are linear, and further assumes that causation is an entirely linear process.  Even if modern cosmology didn't suspect that space/time is not strictly linear, the good philosopher would not assume that linear space/time was the only possibility.  So I'm afraid you've been hoisted by your own petard here.

After premise 1 assumes a false dichotomy, it rather arbitrarily sets "finite" things in the spotlight, without prior justification.  The conclusion -- "An infinite thing exists" -- is made possible by the flippant focus on the category, which is another false dichotomy.  In fact, the concept of an infinite anything is dreadfully treacherous philosophical territory, and defies all that we empirically observe about the universe.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:Sorry, I

edejardin wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this: "Infinite causal chains can exist, as long as the causes are less in magnitude and duration than their effects." Aquinas would have no problem with this as far as it goes. He argued that causal chains in which each effect is *instrumentally* brought about by its cause cannot be infinite. For example, take a man moving a boulder with a stick as a lever. The boulder moves, but not on its own -- it's moved buy the stick. But the stick doesn't move on its own either; it's moved by the man's arm. And the man's arm doesn't move on its own, but is moved by the contraction of his muscles (etc.). That is, each part of the chain derives its motion from an earlier part. Causal chains like this cannot be infinite, since an infinite chain of instrumental movers would lack a source of motion. (I'm simplifying Aquinas here, of course: act and potency are fundamental to his conception of change, and thus fundamental to the conception of an infinite series of instrumental movers, or a per se causal series.) It's late here on the East coast, so I won't be able to respond to any more posts until tomorrow.

There does need to be 'available energy' for each causal event to draw on, but the energy is not the specific cause.

EDIT: Even an infinite sequence of events requiring energy to draw on is possible, as long as it is not infinite in duration.

For example, an infinite sum of finite terms can be finite:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... +  1/2r + 1/2r+1 + ..., where r -> infinity, = 2.0, ie finite.

So if Aquinas claimed to prove that an infinite chain of energy consuming acts was impossible, then that demonstrates that his assumptions were flawed, therefore he cannot be regarded as an authority here. He was simply wrong, no matter how many pages he wasted elaborating his errors.

/EDIT

The only potential problem here is not the infinite causal chain, it is a First Law of Thermodynamics problem, ie where did the matter/energy come from?

This is addressed by modern science:

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

See what I mean about the irrelevance of the obsolete arguments of a 13th century priest?

The bottom line is that we have a few plausible outlines of how the Universe could arise, without violating current Scientific principles, with no requirement anywhere for the intervention of a 'God'. So Aquinas and Craig can argue as long as they like, unless they can show the error in the science, they don't have a sound argument.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:edejardin

BobSpence1 wrote:

edejardin wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this: "Infinite causal chains can exist, as long as the causes are less in magnitude and duration than their effects." Aquinas would have no problem with this as far as it goes. He argued that causal chains in which each effect is *instrumentally* brought about by its cause cannot be infinite. For example, take a man moving a boulder with a stick as a lever. The boulder moves, but not on its own -- it's moved buy the stick. But the stick doesn't move on its own either; it's moved by the man's arm. And the man's arm doesn't move on its own, but is moved by the contraction of his muscles (etc.). That is, each part of the chain derives its motion from an earlier part. Causal chains like this cannot be infinite, since an infinite chain of instrumental movers would lack a source of motion. (I'm simplifying Aquinas here, of course: act and potency are fundamental to his conception of change, and thus fundamental to the conception of an infinite series of instrumental movers, or a per se causal series.) It's late here on the East coast, so I won't be able to respond to any more posts until tomorrow.

There does need to be 'available energy' for each causal event to draw on, but the energy is not the specific cause.

The only potential problem here is not the infinite causal chain, it is a First Law of Thermodynamics problem, ie where did the matter/energy come from?

This is addressed by modern science:

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

See what I mean about the irrelevance of the obsolete arguments of a 13th century priest?

 

Is it bad that I've watched enough discovery to have read that entire thing exactly as it would sound coming from Filippenko himself?


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
edejardin wrote:Stuntgibbon,

edejardin wrote:
Stuntgibbon, you're way off there.

No, I'm not. 

And... Scene!


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
I have been away from this

I have been away from this site for quite some time. It is good to see some of the same old faces are still trying to force some science into the unrealistic masses. Goodnight.

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."


MrPal
Superfan
MrPal's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2009-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Awelton85 wrote:I have been

Awelton85 wrote:

I have been away from this site for quite some time. It is good to see some of the same old faces are still trying to force some science into the unrealistic masses. Goodnight.

 

I hear that!  I don't have the patience...  Ironic, considering my past here.

 

However I'm sure I'll be doing it in real life, especially for people I care about.  So it's nice to read these threads and "arm myself".

I never thought there were corners in my mind until I was told to stand in one.

I have learned so much, thanks for keeping it real RRS.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi EJ

 

Could you give us lurkers a hand here and define evidence as you see it? What a shame this business of evidence has to go so far sideways in the cause of its comprehension.

I have a small brain. What I want from a god who demands my allegiance on pain of death, is a personal meeting. We sit on his verandah, he creates a few galaxies, we have coffee,

I fall at his feet and cry lord, lord.

No oblique, confusing messages, no need to use a brain as capable of yours to laboriously make the whole thing work. Fuck. He's a personal god, right?? So let's get personal.

I don't want an argument from force where the threat seems to paper over the cracks in what can to the normal human mind, be proven, or even loosely understood. 

I want a damascus road moment or bloody good evidence. Failing that I'm not as prepared to convince myself of the invisible as you seem to be.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3472
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

First-Cause arguments for G-d's existence are invalid because they presume that "The Laws of Nature" aren't cause enough and because they presume that (a) G-d created the Laws of Nature (HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is my personal belief) (b) their particular god created the Laws of Nature.

 

is there anything hashem didn't create?  if so, is he bound by his creation in any way?  aren't there various talmudic passages that say that hashem needs israel to accomplish his will?  for example, some sects believe that each jew doing mitzvot is the only way to bring about the coming of the messiah.  just which branch of judaism do you subscribe to, exactly?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambi, you just need to

Hambi, you just need to admit that thinking beings with no body or brain or neurons with super powers are real.

I can't believe you don't see that the majority of our species believes this, isn't that enough? Why cant you just accept that the earth is flat? Have you yourself ever been in space? NO so you are just blindly buying that pesky evidence that scientists used to make the stupid claim that the earth was round and rotated around the sun.

DAMN IT HAMBI! I know, with all my heart that my computer is powered by an invisible hamster turning a magical wheel in my computer tower! WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME!

You are such a killjoy with your "pet peeves".

I am growing weary of this site and it's pesky thinkers who face reality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: My new

Hambydammit wrote:

 My new biggest pet peeve from theists happens in conversations about evidence for God.  Here's the typical exchange.

Atheist:  So... what evidence do you have for your belief in God?

Atheist:  Well, that's not evidence.  Those are bad philosophical arguments.  I was asking for actual evidence.

Theist:  Hey, guess what.  I don't care that you don't like my evidence.  I still love you.

Not evidence, but rather interpretation of evidence is my beef. A mountain of evidence interpreted poorly results in poor conclusions.

Theists cite big-bang cosmology, instances irreducible complexity, and moral intuitions as evidence to bolster particular arguments.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 My new biggest pet peeve from theists happens in conversations about evidence for God.  Here's the typical exchange.

Atheist:  So... what evidence do you have for your belief in God?

Atheist:  Well, that's not evidence.  Those are bad philosophical arguments.  I was asking for actual evidence.

Theist:  Hey, guess what.  I don't care that you don't like my evidence.  I still love you.

Not evidence, but rather interpretation of evidence is my beef. A mountain of evidence interpreted poorly results in poor conclusions.

Theists cite big-bang cosmology, instances irreducible complexity, and moral intuitions as evidence to bolster particular arguments.

It is called back peddling. Theists now realize that the old tactic of naked assertions is a house built on sand in it and won't blindly be accepted anymore, they try to incorporate REAL science to prop up their ancient superstitious myths.

We now accept cars as having wheels and that the wheels and combustion engines are a result of science. No one in their right mind would attribute this human progression to Thor. But modern monotheists are still stuck on the concept of some super hero in the sky being the inventor of life.

Isn't it funny that a Muslim quoting "second law" will try to lead you to Allah and a Christian using that same stupid back peddling tactic will try to lead you to Jesus.

How about REALITY folks.

Humans have always had a history of falsely believing in super hero's that don't exist. How about giving up on the bullshit tactic of trying to use lagit science to prop up ancient myth, do the intellectually responsible thing and give up on BAD ideas. Thor is made up and so is Santa and virgin births and magical harems in the sky.

No amount of dressing up these old myths with modern science will make the claims true.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Nothing can't come from

Nothing can't come from nothing!  Therefore, Thor exists and has a bitchin' hammer.  (which caused the big bang of course...)

 

Second Law! Yadda yadda...  therefore Thor!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Nothing

stuntgibbon wrote:

Nothing can't come from nothing!  Therefore, Thor exists and has a bitchin' hammer.  (which caused the big bang of course...)

 

Second Law! Yadda yadda...  therefore Thor!

EXACTLY, that is what they don't get.

I could give a shit less if they call their super hero Thor, or Jesus or Allah. It all amounts to humans making this shit up because the idea of having a super hero is appealing to them. Theists are merely stuck in the past and refuse to face that at the time the claims were made, humanity was IGNORANT by comparison to today's knowledge.

You have to buy claims of immaterial brains with super powers(by any label). I used to believe this crap, but I can no longer do such knowing what I know now.

WHAT IS more realistic is that we know humans have a history of making shit up.

Second law can no more prop up claims of magical invisible super brains than I could use it to claim I could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 Second law is like Mentos.

 Second law is like Mentos.  You just do anything you want and pull it out!

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
First-Cause arguments for G-d's existence are invalid because they presume that "The Laws of Nature" aren't cause enough and because they presume that (a) G-d created the Laws of Nature (HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is my personal belief) (b) their particular god created the Laws of Nature.

is there anything hashem didn't create?  if so, is he bound by his creation in any way?  aren't there various talmudic passages that say that hashem needs israel to accomplish his will?  for example, some sects believe that each jew doing mitzvot is the only way to bring about the coming of the messiah.  just which branch of judaism do you subscribe to, exactly?

I'm not a Talmudic scholar, so I can't answer with any kind of Talmudic authority, but I'd be surprised if the Talmud says that G-d needs us for anything.  G-d isn't a puppet on our string, either.

There are multiple beliefs about what it's going to take for Moshiach (and I prefer the Hebrew, especially when Christians are around, but if I say "The Messiah", they claim Jesus is going to come back from the dead all over again).  One is that all the Jews on the planet have to be "Shomer Mitzvot" -- strictly obey all of Jewish law -- others just say "Shomer Shabbat" -- faithly observe Shabbat laws.  Still others believe Moshiach will fix the planet, then we'll realize he's Moshiach and so on.  But the exact requirements aren't something G-d has spelled out in fine detail.

As for my particular branch, I'm "Conservadox" -- Conservative with Orthodox tendencies, but also somewhat liberal in many regards.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:iwbiek

FurryCatHerder wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
First-Cause arguments for G-d's existence are invalid because they presume that "The Laws of Nature" aren't cause enough and because they presume that (a) G-d created the Laws of Nature (HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is my personal belief) (b) their particular god created the Laws of Nature.

is there anything hashem didn't create?  if so, is he bound by his creation in any way?  aren't there various talmudic passages that say that hashem needs israel to accomplish his will?  for example, some sects believe that each jew doing mitzvot is the only way to bring about the coming of the messiah.  just which branch of judaism do you subscribe to, exactly?

I'm not a Talmudic scholar, so I can't answer with any kind of Talmudic authority, but I'd be surprised if the Talmud says that G-d needs us for anything.  G-d isn't a puppet on our string, either.

There are multiple beliefs about what it's going to take for Moshiach (and I prefer the Hebrew, especially when Christians are around, but if I say "The Messiah", they claim Jesus is going to come back from the dead all over again).  One is that all the Jews on the planet have to be "Shomer Mitzvot" -- strictly obey all of Jewish law -- others just say "Shomer Shabbat" -- faithly observe Shabbat laws.  Still others believe Moshiach will fix the planet, then we'll realize he's Moshiach and so on.  But the exact requirements aren't something G-d has spelled out in fine detail.

As for my particular branch, I'm "Conservadox" -- Conservative with Orthodox tendencies, but also somewhat liberal in many regards.

Furry, being this is my first time posting a response to you I will keep my fangs and frothing at the mouth to a minimum and keep my response short. Keep in mind that my blasphemy in this post is for EVERYONE, of any claim, not just yours, so don't take it personally.

It doesn't matter if you are a "scholar" of the Talmud, or Bible, or Egyptology, super hero's are a product of human imagination. You simply hold a currently popular myth and believe it to be fact.

Star Trek fans made up an entire fictional Klingon language, but yet you don't believe that Klingons are real, even if a fan could recite all the lines of all the tv shows and all the movies and could speak "Klingon" fluently.

The bottom line, be it a polytheistic god or a monotheistic god requires you to buy the claim that an invisible immaterial brain with super powers exists. That is no more credible than claiming that Harry Potter can literally fly around on a broom. We can prove that brooms exist and that London exists, but how does that translate to boys flying around on brooms?

Being a theologian  for PRACTICAL reasons accepting it as a study of myth in human culture, is acceptable and realistic. Being a theologian because you really buy absurd claims is nothing to be proud of. Just as if a Star Trek fan claimed Klingons were real because he can speak the language and he saw them on TV.

Priests, clerics, Imams and Rabbis are in the same boat as Star Trek enthusiasts. The only difference is that the Star Trek fans accept what they are fans of is fiction.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Of course god is a puppet

God (of the torah or bible) being a creation of man, more specifically by hebrews (and later additions of this god by romans and everyone eles basically),does what ever man wants him to do, all the things that are known of god are not by god, but are written by man, there is no independent evidence that god did squat, on the contrary everything that is known about god is known due to the torah, bible or q'uran, which really shows that god is a creation of man, a puppet, a character in a book.

If there was some evidence outside of the holy texts that could prove god, well then that would be huge, but there isn't a shred of evidence, and so far any so called evidence shown is not only so inconclusive that it's laughable, and can be used to prove any number of gods. Heck to show that god is a puppet, we have to other holey books, the bible and the q'uran, all showing how god is a puppet of man, because it's a creation of man.

Even more so we have enough history to show that god will allow anything that man desires to happen, want a war? god wills it (Iraq war as bush cited god's will, crusades, and various other religious wars), peace, again god's will, can't defeat a certain enemy, god's will (and Iron chariots are a massive problem for god), accumulation of wealth, god's will, slaughter your enemies, god's will, whatever you want to do, it's god's will, because there is no evidence of god, and you don't really need it, you can't really find it, god just tells you to do things. Happens all throughout history. Never is there a shred of evidence that god told anyone anything other than the author of such said things says so, u just have to have faith. Laughing out loud


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
First-Cause arguments for G-d's existence are invalid because they presume that "The Laws of Nature" aren't cause enough and because they presume that (a) G-d created the Laws of Nature (HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is my personal belief) (b) their particular god created the Laws of Nature.

is there anything hashem didn't create?  if so, is he bound by his creation in any way?  aren't there various talmudic passages that say that hashem needs israel to accomplish his will?  for example, some sects believe that each jew doing mitzvot is the only way to bring about the coming of the messiah.  just which branch of judaism do you subscribe to, exactly?

I'm not a Talmudic scholar, so I can't answer with any kind of Talmudic authority, but I'd be surprised if the Talmud says that G-d needs us for anything.  G-d isn't a puppet on our string, either.

There are multiple beliefs about what it's going to take for Moshiach (and I prefer the Hebrew, especially when Christians are around, but if I say "The Messiah", they claim Jesus is going to come back from the dead all over again).  One is that all the Jews on the planet have to be "Shomer Mitzvot" -- strictly obey all of Jewish law -- others just say "Shomer Shabbat" -- faithly observe Shabbat laws.  Still others believe Moshiach will fix the planet, then we'll realize he's Moshiach and so on.  But the exact requirements aren't something G-d has spelled out in fine detail.

As for my particular branch, I'm "Conservadox" -- Conservative with Orthodox tendencies, but also somewhat liberal in many regards.

Furry, being this is my first time posting a response to you I will keep my fangs and frothing at the mouth to a minimum and keep my response short. Keep in mind that my blasphemy in this post is for EVERYONE, of any claim, not just yours, so don't take it personally.

It doesn't matter if you are a "scholar" of the Talmud, or Bible, or Egyptology, super hero's are a product of human imagination. You simply hold a currently popular myth and believe it to be fact.

Star Trek fans made up an entire fictional Klingon language, but yet you don't believe that Klingons are real, even if a fan could recite all the lines of all the tv shows and all the movies and could speak "Klingon" fluently.

The bottom line, be it a polytheistic god or a monotheistic god requires you to buy the claim that an invisible immaterial brain with super powers exists. That is no more credible than claiming that Harry Potter can literally fly around on a broom. We can prove that brooms exist and that London exists, but how does that translate to boys flying around on brooms?

Being a theologian  for PRACTICAL reasons accepting it as a study of myth in human culture, is acceptable and realistic. Being a theologian because you really buy absurd claims is nothing to be proud of. Just as if a Star Trek fan claimed Klingons were real because he can speak the language and he saw them on TV.

Priests, clerics, Imams and Rabbis are in the same boat as Star Trek enthusiasts. The only difference is that the Star Trek fans accept what they are fans of is fiction.

Aww, c'mon Brian, the Jews have been working on their belief system for over 3000 years, so they must have it right by now....

Or at least worked out a really devious way to 'interpret it' so they make it sound infinitely subtle, and rubbish us poor ignoramuses who can't possibly understand it.

And if we point out where it seems to be describing something about the nature of the universe and its origin which doesn't jibe with what we now know, they just chant "it doesn't claim to be a science manual", as if that excuses God for inspiring his followers with completely stuffed-up descriptions of the Universe he allegedly created.

If it can't get simple facts about the shape of the earth and whether it goes round the Sun or not, or that the moon is a not source of light, and isn't even a decent light at night half the time, or that land was there long before any water, etc, etc, how can you trust it about more truly subtle things?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 latincanuck wrote:God (of

 

latincanuck wrote:

God (of the torah or bible) being a creation of man, more specifically by hebrews (and later additions of this god by romans and everyone eles basically),does what ever man wants him to do, all the things that are known of god are not by god, but are written by man, there is no independent evidence that god did squat, on the contrary everything that is known about god is known due to the torah, bible or q'uran, which really shows that god is a creation of man, a puppet, a character in a book.

If there was some evidence outside of the holy texts that could prove god, well then that would be huge, but there isn't a shred of evidence, and so far any so called evidence shown is not only so inconclusive that it's laughable, and can be used to prove any number of gods. Heck to show that god is a puppet, we have to other holey books, the bible and the q'uran, all showing how god is a puppet of man, because it's a creation of man.

Even more so we have enough history to show that god will allow anything that man desires to happen, want a war? god wills it (Iraq war as bush cited god's will, crusades, and various other religious wars), peace, again god's will, can't defeat a certain enemy, god's will (and Iron chariots are a massive problem for god), accumulation of wealth, god's will, slaughter your enemies, god's will, whatever you want to do, it's god's will, because there is no evidence of god, and you don't really need it, you can't really find it, god just tells you to do things. Happens all throughout history. Never is there a shred of evidence that god told anyone anything other than the author of such said things says so, u just have to have faith. Laughing out loud

 

If there is so many evidence for god why are there still non believers

Doesnt make sense Theist ans my question please  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Brian37

BobSpence1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
First-Cause arguments for G-d's existence are invalid because they presume that "The Laws of Nature" aren't cause enough and because they presume that (a) G-d created the Laws of Nature (HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is my personal belief) (b) their particular god created the Laws of Nature.

is there anything hashem didn't create?  if so, is he bound by his creation in any way?  aren't there various talmudic passages that say that hashem needs israel to accomplish his will?  for example, some sects believe that each jew doing mitzvot is the only way to bring about the coming of the messiah.  just which branch of judaism do you subscribe to, exactly?

I'm not a Talmudic scholar, so I can't answer with any kind of Talmudic authority, but I'd be surprised if the Talmud says that G-d needs us for anything.  G-d isn't a puppet on our string, either.

There are multiple beliefs about what it's going to take for Moshiach (and I prefer the Hebrew, especially when Christians are around, but if I say "The Messiah", they claim Jesus is going to come back from the dead all over again).  One is that all the Jews on the planet have to be "Shomer Mitzvot" -- strictly obey all of Jewish law -- others just say "Shomer Shabbat" -- faithly observe Shabbat laws.  Still others believe Moshiach will fix the planet, then we'll realize he's Moshiach and so on.  But the exact requirements aren't something G-d has spelled out in fine detail.

As for my particular branch, I'm "Conservadox" -- Conservative with Orthodox tendencies, but also somewhat liberal in many regards.

Furry, being this is my first time posting a response to you I will keep my fangs and frothing at the mouth to a minimum and keep my response short. Keep in mind that my blasphemy in this post is for EVERYONE, of any claim, not just yours, so don't take it personally.

It doesn't matter if you are a "scholar" of the Talmud, or Bible, or Egyptology, super hero's are a product of human imagination. You simply hold a currently popular myth and believe it to be fact.

Star Trek fans made up an entire fictional Klingon language, but yet you don't believe that Klingons are real, even if a fan could recite all the lines of all the tv shows and all the movies and could speak "Klingon" fluently.

The bottom line, be it a polytheistic god or a monotheistic god requires you to buy the claim that an invisible immaterial brain with super powers exists. That is no more credible than claiming that Harry Potter can literally fly around on a broom. We can prove that brooms exist and that London exists, but how does that translate to boys flying around on brooms?

Being a theologian  for PRACTICAL reasons accepting it as a study of myth in human culture, is acceptable and realistic. Being a theologian because you really buy absurd claims is nothing to be proud of. Just as if a Star Trek fan claimed Klingons were real because he can speak the language and he saw them on TV.

Priests, clerics, Imams and Rabbis are in the same boat as Star Trek enthusiasts. The only difference is that the Star Trek fans accept what they are fans of is fiction.

 

Aww, c'mon Brian, the Jews have been working on their belief system for over 3000 years, so they must have it right by now....

OH SHIT, NOT YOU TOO, THE BELIEVERS GOT TO YOU TOO?

I warned you! I warned you to stay away from the bagels and lentil soup.  BUT NOOOOOOOOO you wouldn't listen. You were in NY and passed a Kosher deli and couldn't resist. I am soooooo disappointed in you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 It's a real catch-22 for

 It's a real catch-22 for theists.  They have three avenues for trying to provide evidence for God:

1) Texts:  Using the Bible (or any holy text) as evidence is so laughable that only the very ignorant will fall for it.

2) Science:  Those who understand science know that without a falsifiable concept, the effort is doomed.

3) Philosophy/Logic:  This is where the shit hits the fan because unfortunately, the subtlety of philosophy and the difficulties uniting philosophy and empiricism/science are very difficult for most academics to keep straight.  Joe Plumber has almost no hope.

With the popularity of postmodernism, the playing field has become even more treacherous.  (Yes, I throw up a little in my mouth every time I think about postmodernism.  It's faith for atheists.)

The bottom line for me, however, has always been this:  A deity that makes itself inscrutable except through the devious machinations of modern philosophy is either an asshole or nonexistent.  If it's an asshole, I have no reason to trust anything I discover about it.  If it's non-existent, well, that answers itself.

We see folks like our erstwhile interlocutor who try desperately to link modern philosophy with ancient philosophy because they believe that if they can show that the ancients did indeed have a way to discover god, then god isn't a total douche after all.  But as Bob and I have pointed out, the limitations of ancient philosophy are the limits of science in ancient times.  Once again, the skeptical scientist wins the day -- God is not exempt from scientific inquiry, and even the philosophical search for his existence MUST rely on the tools of science.

 

As a sort of debriefing after that bizarre philosophical dick-waggling contest, I feel like I ought to make note of something.  Anytime an argument goes from asking a simple question to arguing esoterica, we need to be on high alert.   It's as if the casual reader will get lost in academic jargon and concede to the argument from authority.  "That guy really knows his philosophy, so I must not know enough to refute him."

I've been in education for most of my life in one way or another, and I've taught some very tricky subjects that are hard for most people to grasp intuitively.  The best teachers that I've had -- the ones I've tried to emulate -- are the ones who realize that technical jargon is convenient for professionals and the highly educated because it's an easy shortcut.  Once someone understands a concept, it's easy to pare it down to its essentials and take the rest as read.  For a neophyte, however, things need to be explained in ways that make sense to a non-professional.

There's a reason I don't use the word "defeasable" in posts.  Sure, it's a proper word for this kind of discussion, but nine out of ten people would have to look it up, and as you can see, our interlocutor was completely capable of saying the same thing in lay-language.  That's why I called bullshit on him.  He wasn't here to be clearly understood.  He was intentionally using words that make it hard to understand what he was saying.  (And did you notice that the question he asked about defeasibility was a silly question?  There was no content.  Just jargon!)

And so, ladies and gentlemen, I give you example number 74 of "Theist Tactics to Prove God."  I'll call it "Confuse and Conquer."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13829
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: It's a

Hambydammit wrote:

 It's a real catch-22 for theists.  They have three avenues for trying to provide evidence for God:

1) Texts:  Using the Bible (or any holy text) as evidence is so laughable that only the very ignorant will fall for it.

2) Science:  Those who understand science know that without a falsifiable concept, the effort is doomed.

3) Philosophy/Logic:  This is where the shit hits the fan because unfortunately, the subtlety of philosophy and the difficulties uniting philosophy and empiricism/science are very difficult for most academics to keep straight.  Joe Plumber has almost no hope.

With the popularity of postmodernism, the playing field has become even more treacherous.  (Yes, I throw up a little in my mouth every time I think about postmodernism.  It's faith for atheists.)

The bottom line for me, however, has always been this:  A deity that makes itself inscrutable except through the devious machinations of modern philosophy is either an asshole or nonexistent.  If it's an asshole, I have no reason to trust anything I discover about it.  If it's non-existent, well, that answers itself.

We see folks like our erstwhile interlocutor who try desperately to link modern philosophy with ancient philosophy because they believe that if they can show that the ancients did indeed have a way to discover god, then god isn't a total douche after all.  But as Bob and I have pointed out, the limitations of ancient philosophy are the limits of science in ancient times.  Once again, the skeptical scientist wins the day -- God is not exempt from scientific inquiry, and even the philosophical search for his existence MUST rely on the tools of science.

 

As a sort of debriefing after that bizarre philosophical dick-waggling contest, I feel like I ought to make note of something.  Anytime an argument goes from asking a simple question to arguing esoterica, we need to be on high alert.   It's as if the casual reader will get lost in academic jargon and concede to the argument from authority.  "That guy really knows his philosophy, so I must not know enough to refute him."

I've been in education for most of my life in one way or another, and I've taught some very tricky subjects that are hard for most people to grasp intuitively.  The best teachers that I've had -- the ones I've tried to emulate -- are the ones who realize that technical jargon is convenient for professionals and the highly educated because it's an easy shortcut.  Once someone understands a concept, it's easy to pare it down to its essentials and take the rest as read.  For a neophyte, however, things need to be explained in ways that make sense to a non-professional.

There's a reason I don't use the word "defeasable" in posts.  Sure, it's a proper word for this kind of discussion, but nine out of ten people would have to look it up, and as you can see, our interlocutor was completely capable of saying the same thing in lay-language.  That's why I called bullshit on him.  He wasn't here to be clearly understood.  He was intentionally using words that make it hard to understand what he was saying.  (And did you notice that the question he asked about defeasibility was a silly question?  There was no content.  Just jargon!)

And so, ladies and gentlemen, I give you example number 74 of "Theist Tactics to Prove God."  I'll call it "Confuse and Conquer."

 

Hambi, these are the types of arguments I like. Short and to the point. It is easy to get caught up in the "history" and "tradition" and "philosophy" crap, but at the end of the day they still believe in an immaterial brain, with no brain, that has super powers.

I think the quickest way to skin a cat(bad argument) is not to get distracted by the diversions, but to cut to the core of what they are trying to defend.

"Confuse and Conquer", yep. I like to say, "Pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"Personal experiences do not

"Personal experiences do not constitute evidence for anything other than the fact that you experienced a particular sequence of mental events."

Suppose you're charged with having committed a crime for which you had an obvious motive. Suppose that all the available evidence -- hair, blood, fingerprints, etc. -- points to you (you were set up by a clever rival). Further suppose that you had ample time to commit the crime, were in the area of the crime when it was committed, but that you did not in fact commit it: you were alone walking in the park. In other words, suppose that all the publicly available evidence points clearly to you, and does so in such a way that any objective observer would conclude that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while your privately available evidence -- i.e. your memories of having been in the park at the time -- contradict this conclusion.

Would you honestly go with the publicly available evidence? Would you honestly say, "Well, I clearly remember walking in the park, I have no memory that suggests I'm guilty, and I know I'm not the sort of person who would've committed that crime -- but, those are all just mental events. I'm going with the publicly available evidence." You know you wouldn't. But if this is the case, then it follows that privately available evidence in the form of personal experience can, in certain situations, for the person who has the experience, trump publicly available evidence.

Edejardin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Suppose you're

 

Quote:
Suppose you're charged with having committed a crime for which you had an obvious motive. Suppose that all the available evidence -- hair, blood, fingerprints, etc. -- points to you (you were set up by a clever rival). Further suppose that you had ample time to commit the crime, were in the area of the crime when it was committed, but that you did not in fact commit it: you were alone walking in the park. In other words, suppose that all the publicly available evidence points clearly to you, and does so in such a way that any objective observer would conclude that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while your privately available evidence -- i.e. your memories of having been in the park at the time -- contradict this conclusion.

You're confused.

There is external evidence that you were alone walking in the park.  Tons of it.  The problem is, none of the people at the trial are privy to it.  This is not a problem of internal vs. external evidence.  It's a problem of knowledge vs. belief.  The trial jury believes that there is no external evidence to support your claim that you are innocent.  In fact, they are wrong.  There is simply no external evidence available to them.

Trials aren't the same as science.  A trial (barring appeals) is a one time assessment of the evidence as it stands right now.  When a verdict is handed down, it is a one-time decision.  The thing is, this guy who is accused of murder either needs to be set free or put in jail.  We can't take an unlimited time to make a decision, or justice would be impossible.  So, we do the best we can right now and make a one-time decision.  We even have provisions in the law stating that even if a prosecutor finds new evidence later, a person can't be tried twice for the same crime.

Science is not that way at all.  At any given moment, science is playing a kind of hedge-bet.  Any and all scientific conclusions are subject to revision when new evidence comes to light.  In fact, that's what many scientists spend their entire careers doing -- trying to find the new evidence that will turn previous scientific thought on its head.  (Just do some google searches for Steven Jay Gould and punctuated equilibrium.  You'll see what I mean.)

All science ever does is say, "This is the best we can say with the evidence we have."  It is ALWAYS looking for more data to either refine or overturn existing theories.

Quote:
Would you honestly go with the publicly available evidence? Would you honestly say, "Well, I clearly remember walking in the park, I have no memory that suggests I'm guilty, and I know I'm not the sort of person who would've committed that crime -- but, those are all just mental events. I'm going with the publicly available evidence." You know you wouldn't. But if this is the case, then it follows that privately available evidence in the form of personal experience can, in certain situations, for the person who has the experience, trump publicly available evidence.

Your own example is failing you.  Sure, you would testify to your own innocence.  And guess what.  If your testimony was the only evidence in your favor, you there was a ton of counter-evidence against your testimony, YOU'D GO TO JAIL.  That's because personal testimony is virtually useless without corroborating external verification.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"If you're familiar with

"If you're familiar with everything in the wiki references, why are you asking the questions you're asking?"

Because, as I said, the wiki reference provides a definition, not an analysis.

"Are you just trying to throw your weight around because you've taken a philosophy of logic course?""

No. To show that I am, you'd have to show that I'm using jargon and the like to muddy the waters, when in fact the questions I've asked are all pretty standard.

"You're really questioning the existence of "data used in an argument"? You really want me to justify the categorical differences between types of evidence?"

Are you claiming that theistic arguments make use of no data? That's absurd. If evidence, as you understand it, is "data used in an argument," then your initial point fails on both counts: first, your sharp line between evidence and logic (note, according to this definition, you can't have evidence without an argument); and second, your claim that theistic arguments provide no evidence.

And no, I don't want you to say anything about types of evidence, but something substantial about what is necessary and sufficient for something to count as evidence in the first place.

"Ok, well... in the strictest sense, axioms are not defeasible, and can be used in arguments, so no. All evidence is not defeasible. That seems obvious."

It's not obvious unless you're clear that you understand evidence to be such that it comprises axioms. That helps me a little. But axioms are not empirically grounded, so your objections to non-empirical premises in theistic arguments are going to have to be clarified. (You wrote in an earlier post, "When we discuss what actually is, we must present empirical evidence for its nature," which doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the comment I just responded to concerning axioms.)

"1) Philosophical argument - an argument which is not supported by empirically demonstrated premises, instead reasoning from a hypothetical and unproven premise to a conclusion which would be (or would likely be) true IF the premise were proven true."

I'm sorry, but this won't do at all. Take Popper's hypothetico-deductive method as a description of scientific reasoning. It's perfectly consistent with (1) above. *So is nearly all scientific reasoning*. Every scientific conclusion is provisional, which is to say they're all open to falsification or modification; hence, none is proven. Hence, all scientific arguments make use of unproven premises to support a conclusion that would be, or would likely be true if the premises were proven true.

"2) Scientific/Empirical argument - an argument in which the premises are supported by empirical evidence. (No, I will not prove to you that evidence exists. No, I will not prove to you that direct evidence is more reliable than indirect. You're just being an ass and trying to deflect from the obvious.)"

Again, this won't do. Many, many obviously philosophic arguments, from philosophy of mind to philosophy of religion, make copious use of empirically supported premises.

That aside, I don't know what motivated the "I will not prove to you that evidence exists" remark. All I've asked for is clarification on your part. You're the one complaining about a lack of evidence, so don't cry when someone asks you to be precise and clarify just what it is you're looking for.

"Personal evidence without external verification is not valid evidence for external reality."

See the post I wrote before this one in which i responded to Bob on personal evidence.

"I have no objections to this."

Right, so we agree that an argument can be a good argument even if its premises are not proven (as long as the premises are more plausible than their denials).

Edejardin


edejardin
Theist
edejardin's picture
Posts: 96
Joined: 2009-08-22
User is offlineOffline
"But God is not consistent

"But God is not consistent with (5) then, so God cannot exist.
(seriously, I'd rather put my hand in a blender than engage in apologetics... ugh what a mess)"

No, you've missed the point. If (1) and (5) are consistent, then (1) cannot assume that a non-contingent, infinite being exists, i.e. the argument does not beg the question. Note, (1) is consistent with (5) *and* with ~(5), but I only needed to show that it's consistent with (5) to refute Hambydammit. That's the point.

Edejardin