|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
My conversion challenge to Godtube
Posted on: May 2, 2007 - 11:10pm
   Offline
My conversion challenge to Godtube
This is my challenge to GodTube. (Yes, I know I'm ugly and awkward, and my hair was messy. Shut up!) Any theists on here can sign up and join the challenge.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
The only problem that I had with the video was that it was a bit dark.
There is a little illustration I like to tell people about conversions where the believer gives the unbeliever a fact, the unbeliever reads it and tosses it into a wastebin. The wastebin will never fill because it is the unbeliever's "presuppositions" or bias against the fact.
Despite that, I'll give you my best argument anyway for God's existance.
Without God we cannot prove anything.
We live in a world where Postmodern "relative truth" is pervasive, but no one holding to this position is really consistant with it. A lie does not change the actual universe, even though it may alter perceptions of the universe, so ultimately, everyone holding this position is a hipocrite.
Likewise there is an epistemic (epistemology = study of the foundations of knowledge) branch called "skepticism" which says that we cannot diffinitively prove anything and can only get empirical data, even though it could be purely illusionary. These people are hipocrites the moment they get up each day by assuming that the alarm going off isn't a dream.
OK, I have danced around the point enough. If all that is is matter, then there is no foundation for logic that can make it either universal or able to prove anything. As someone once said,
In other words, to not believe that ideas can have authority in and of themselves, you cannot prove anything or are stuck in perpetual hipocricy.
So, what does all this have to do with God? Well, where do the laws of logic come from? If they are to hold authority over nature, they must come from a source above nature. A brain that is purely matterial cannot be such a source, therefore, the existance of the laws of logic proves two things:
- There is something above nature
- That something is, itself, rational in some sense, even if beyond the laws of logic.
So what best fits the conclusion? Unless I am presented with a conclusion that says otherwise, I think it says there is a God who is personal enough to give us the means of understanding His own creation, if not Himself."Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Some flaws with this: First off, there's no evidence that a brain that is purely made of material is incapable of higher thought. In fact, that is about the height of illogic. What else would our brains be made of aside from matter? Likewise, how is it that we are incapable of coming up with the notion of a perfect being? All we would have to do is imagine someone like ourselves only without flaws or limitations. Simple. Second: What god would it prove? Is there a really logical god out there that caused my capability of higher thought? Thirdly: How do we know that our idea of "perfection" is "perfect"? Likewise, how do we know that our idea of "logical" is truly "logic"? Fourthly: How do we know that a perfect or supernatural being CAN exist? We don't. Fifthly: There is a lot of ambiguity in the statement that "A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist" invalidates it. (I'm attacking the original argument rather than your variation, but it's still a valid argument). Also, well...Moojan Momen brings up another good historical objection to this argument in his book "The Phenomenon of Religion". He says "There is a difference between the real world and conceptual worlds, meaning that the argument is nonsensical."
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
It's amazing to me just how often theists project their own flawed arguments onto others. Weird.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Appeals to god for objective truth fail just as much as appeals to logic (assuming for the sake of argument that logic fails) as appeals to god are bald assertions devoid of foundation, and structure and walls and floors too.
Asking for a proof of logic is like asking if you can see your eyes. Logic is the system whereby truth is ascertained. Saying that logic fails because it has no foundation is like saying you have no eyes because you can't look at your eyes with your eyes (looking at a mirror does not solve the problem because you are not looking at your eyes in a mirror; you're looking at the mirror).
Somebody around here is under a bad spell of deconstructivist postmodernism (gee, I wonder who) at right about the time when it's dying a painful death.
Let me ask: Is the assertion "logic has no foundation" true? If it is, what system of thought was used to ascertain this truth? If there was none, in what way (besides bald assertion) can the statement be deemed true? Failing an explanation, can we then say "logic has no foundation" could be false?
First off, my illustration is not an ad hominem, partly because it is acknowledged that everyone has bias, and partly because it is pretty clear that the illustration works in reverse (as I have seen it most often used.) If it was an ad hominem then think of every time an atheist called what any theist believed false in any regard, and that too is an ad homnem.
Secondly, Your critique of St. Anslem's proof is irrelevent. My argument is related to his, but looking closely, it is clear that mine is a reversion of his.
St. Anslem argues that for the idea of a perfect being to exist, the perfect being must actually exist. While I would agree with him, I also would agree that his argument is not sound (faulty connection of premise with conclusion) logically speaking.
My argument says that without God (or as St. Anslem put it, a "perfect being"
there is no basis for knowledge.
It isn't as though the person who doesn't believe in God doesn't know anything, it's that the knowledge isn't legitimate according to the worldview itself.
So, without God there isn't a basis for logic (no higher being = nature supreme, logic mirrors nature rather than both mirroring a creator) This constitutes a lack of an ability to prove anything.
According to present psycological understanding, logic is derrived from early life via observation, but we are all "imperfect beings."Assuming there isn't a flaw in logic, and everything is all fine and dandy, but for something to be "valid" scientifically speaking, one must prove that there isn't an error.
Assume that the laws of logic have fault X in them that is universal to imperfect beings. It follows that all imperfect beings will be forever unable to determine fault X because fault X is part of the native logic pattern. It is like asking a computer program to debug itself: it can't happen.
So, assuming the laws of logic only mirror observation, it is impossible regardless of the number of empirical observations to detect a possible error, so logic cannot be verified, therefore any use of logic is not valid as proof.
Now try to prove anything in your next post without logic.
The entire problem is the order of axiomatic powers. The theist puts God first, with both logic, then nature derrived from Him. The atheist is forced to put nature first and then use imperfect observation to formulate logic. The logic may have errors in it and because the error is self-concealing, we will never be able to detect them regardless of empirical evidence.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Sorry I've taken so long...busy and all. I'll reply to Sir Valiant's arguments in a video. Someone else brought that up as well...
My problems with theism in general
My problems with christianity part 1
part 2
part 3
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
This is all the proof you need for a loving, caring, wise God that gave this gift to his children:
That's proof that Jessica Alba is hot. That's all.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Did you just commit adultery in your heart?
www.caseagainstfaith.com
"God" is an incoherent reference. Provide an ontology for 'god' or concede this point.
Sentient brains create them, a priori. The only metaphysic required is the existence of sentient brains.
If you want to know where sentient brains 'come from', then you are leaving logic and entering into evolution, abiogenesis and even cosmology.
"Hold authority over nature"? You are confusing metaphysics for physics.
This is a non sequitur.
"The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.)... In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about ''causality,'' but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time ''caused'' the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are --- we don't need any ancillary notions
From Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists, by Sean M. Carroll, University of Chicago
Why not? Why can't a material brain produce basic metaphysical axioms? You're not going to repeat that fallacy of composition, are you?
The first point is incoherent.
The second claim is an internal contradiction. How can a claim that violates all the laws of 'logic' be rational?
And if you want to say "I didnt' say violate, I said "they are above them" please demonstrate how this is a distinction with a difference.
That you don't really know what you're talking about. You don't understand what logic is...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I'm not married.
But you never provide us with an ontology for this 'god' nor do you explain HOW this 'god' providces a basis for knowledge.
Which psychologist are you citing?
Which logic are you referencing?
How is logic 'derived' via 'early life observations'? Are you implying that we learn a priori rules a posteriori?!
How does my status as an 'imperfect being' bring a tautology into doubt? You assert this, as if there's a connection between 'imperfect being' and 'grounds for rejecting tautologies as true". But you provide no actual connector. How on earth does 'imperfect being' = "utterly unable to hold to any truth claim at all"?
1) Deductive logic is created, a priori. Not through inductive means/a posteriori.
2) Logic cannot be 'verified' by induction! Logic rests upon axioms or rules defined within the system.
3) Please read a book on logic. Please. Pretty please?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Thank you todangst. You put this argument in its place a lot better than I could have.
It seems as though this is the new "it-argument" for theists. I've heard it from no less than 3 theists in the last few weeks. They should at least admit that the other arguments they've used before have flaws.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
There's nothing easier than uncovering and refuting a TAGer.
1) They usually have no formal training in logic, and often lack basic knowledge of what logic even is. (otherwise, they'd see the flaws in TAG and reject it)
2) They have no idea at all about the serious ontological problems in TAG. They assert words like 'god' and 'transcendence' without even pausing to examine what the words could possibly mean, while at the same time demanding that every single question that they have about logic be answered precisely to their satisfaction!
3) They confuse a priori man made rules for physical laws. I've yet to meet one TAGer who does not commit this fallacy.
I cover these points here:
http://candleinthedark.com/laws.html
But I might as well publish my bank account number there, as few theists bother to investigate the topic they think they are arguing over.... facts would just get in the way of arguing TAG.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'