We go out of our way to catalog definitions into huge documents which everyone can reference. We take care to include definitions of new words, and to refer to older definitions as obsolete. Definitions are one of the most basic properties of language.
Yet when we come to analyzing argumentation, it is not uncommon to come to the realization that the words being used do not have the same meaning to both participants in the argument. If this is the case, then language is failing, and the meanings are being obscured.
Because definitions and the meanings of our concepts are crucially important to communicating our arguments accurately, we need to take some time with the concept of definitions before we get to arguments.
Purpose of Definitions
Definitions for a certain argument might need to be more precise than the word synonyms found in dictionaries. So we might need to create a word model of the concept that has the precision needed. According to Kelley:
a) A definition can clarify boundaries of a concept. (In what way is a cat not a dog? And also not a skunk?)Types of Definitions
b) A definition can show relationships to other concepts (In what way is a cat like a dog but not like an alligator?)
c) A definition provides a summary statement about the referents of the concept. (If a concept is a container for all information about a certain class of things, a definition can summarize that information in a specific, condensed essence).
There are several types of definitions:
1. Stipulative; a new concept or symbol gets a definition by its creator.In logic, precising and theoretical types will likely be most common.
2. Lexical; specifies a previously existing use of a term.
3. Precising; Used to remove ambiguity, to add precision to a term.
4. Theoretical; a comprehensive, perhaps scientific definition.
5. Persuasive; defined in a manner to “resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions”; as in politically emotive language.
Definition Method
A term has a class or set of like concepts to which it belongs; this is called extension. It is possible that this set is too large to define completely.
A term also has a class or set of like concepts which belong totally to it; this is called intension. Intensional definitions include those that are accepted by public usage in everyday language, and this is called Conventional Intension, which is the commonly used set for creating definitions.
A term can be classified by the use of “Genus and Differentiation (Species)” to locate the concept within a specific class for similarities and subclass for differences. In categorizing a term (or concept), it can generally be placed within a class of similar items, or a genus. Within that class items can be again categorized into subclasses, a process also referred to as “differentiation into species”. Hence the terminology, Genus and Differentiation.
Examples of Genus and Difference definitions:
Term: fatherRules for Definitions
Genus: parent
Difference / species: man (note 1)
Term: florin
Genus: coin
Difference / species: Italian (note 2)
Term: table
Genus: dining
Difference / species: round
There are rules for Defining things. Here are two sets of similar rules for forming definitions:
Rules for Definitions From Kelley (note 4):
1. A definition should include a genus and a differentia [species].From Copi & Cohen (note 5):
2. A definition should not be too broad or narrow.
3. A definition should state the essential attributes of the concept’s referents. [i.e. go to the fundamentals of the concept].
4. A definition should not be circular.
5. A definition should not use negative terms unnecessarily.
6. A definition should not use vague, obscure or metaphorical language.
The first three rules in Kelley’s set form a construction list for making definitions. The last three are quality check items to make sure the definition is sound. This organization of the rules (Kelley’s) seems the best organized to me, so let’s go through it in slightly more detail using examples.
1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the species.
2. A definition must not be circular.
3. A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow.
4. Ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language must not be used in a definition.
5. A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative.
(Copi’s rule set presumes Genus and Difference methodology).
A definition should include a genus and a differentia [species]. Placing the concept within a frame of reference relative to similar concepts is useful to understanding its meaning. So finding a proper genus which reflects that is necessary. The additional separation into a subclass makes the concept distinct from the others in the genus. Here’s an example of some selections for “table”:
a) Term: table
Genus: furnitureToo broad; desks also have flat surfaces.
Difference / species: flat surface
b) Term: table
Genus: furnitureToo narrow; there are other table types.
Difference / species: end of couch
c) Term: table
Genus: furnitureOops, unnecessary negative, trying to set an exclusive boundary for one other furniture species or type.
Difference / species: not a desk
d) Term: table
Genus: furnitureSynonym: circular reference: table = bench = table.
Difference: bench
e) Term: table
Genus: furnitureThis definition contains proper referents (items pertinent to the concept and pertinent to differentiating the concept from other species).
Difference / species: Horizontal flat surface set on legs.
Exercise:
Using Genus and Difference, define “cat”, being certain to differentiate it from “dog” with certainty without saying “not a dog”, and to similarly also exclude skunks, raccoons, ferrets, rabbits, etc. Also do not use circular synonyms, such as “feline”. Obviously: no search engines, dictionaries, reference books, etc. Do your own work. If you have a good definition and care to share it, please feel free to do so.
As always, all questions and comments are welcome.
Notes:
1) Copi and Cohen, Logic, p115.
2) Kelley, The Art of reasoning, p 37.
4) Kelley, p 43.
5) Copi and Cohen, p 115 –117.
63 comments:
I like.
Thanks.
Well, I think I can predict where this is going, so I'll just point out:
"A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative" says "should not" and not "can not."
Some words are inherently negations, like teetotaler, nonsmoker, and atheist.
Interesting. A teetotaler knows there is alcohol, but has a definite plan: I will positively consume no alcohol.
A nonsmoker knows there are cigarettes, but has a definite outlook: I will positively consume no tobacco.
We could say that,
A non-R person knows that R exists, but refuses to participate in R.
An Atheist, on the other hand, does not fit those descriptions; the Atheist claims to know that there definitely is no First Cause, but he usually accepts the Judeo-Christian ethic nonetheless.
So the Atheist would be:
A non-R person who claims that R positively does not exist, but participates in R anyway.
Brace for inevitable atheist claim: "atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not a positive belief in the lack of a deity."
the Atheist claims to know that there definitely is no First Cause,
Wrong.
but he usually accepts the Judeo-Christian ethic nonetheless.
No, I reject parts of the Judeo-Christian ethic, such as the parts concerning slavery.
Brace for inevitable atheist claim: "atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, not a positive belief in the lack of a deity."
Only because that's what the word means, and how atheists use it. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. That was easy.
This is a superb demonstration of the reason for accurate definitions of terminology.
Under the definition above, a Deist is an Atheist, as is a Buddhist, etc.
Atheists have only recently undertaken to redefine the term "Atheism", because they have now realized that they cannot defend their actual belief. However, Atheists also cannot provide convincing arguments that they "have NO God theory", or that everyone who is not a Theist is an Atheist. Their argument of avoidance is just as anti-rational as is their belief system: it cannot be supported. There is absolutely no question in the mind of any observer of Atheists that they absolutely believe that there exists no First Cause / deity. And to deny that is more than disingenuous, it is an attempt to perpetuate a False premise, in the face of observable reality to the contrary.
a'the-ism, n. the belief that there is no God.
a'the-ist, n. one who believes that there is no God.
Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Ed, 1979.
This also goes to the issue of intellectual honesty under the Atheist Paradigm, which has no morals or ethics attached to it. This automatically leaves Atheists to make up their own morals and ethics to fit whatever temporary situation they encounter.
As for slavery, the Atheist / Progressive Left is determined to induce egalitarianism on the masses in the form of equal outcomes; this is economic slavery, which will be administered by an elitist coterie which is exempt from its own regulations (think Congress and health care).
The fight against institutionalized slavery was not manned with Atheists, it was fought by Christians. Republicans, mostly, and with Democrats fighting for separation and exploitation of blacks long after losing the war. We can take this as far as necessary; the Left still victimizes blacks.
I was wondering what is your view on God and time Stan. Is God temporal by nature or atemporal by nature? I have briefly viewed one position namely william craig's timeless sans creation. I believe Craig states God was atemporal like a frozen state then became temporal when he first created something(angels or whatever). The problem I have is how would something atemporal change into temporal. Second probelm I have is God changing his nature which he said he doesn't. This would equate to if God changed from being righteous by nature to non-righteous by nature.
God and time; interesting question. Whatever one says, there can be no material evidence for support. Even speculations on the nature of the First Cause are secondary, being based on prior, and more basic speculations – specifically, the existence of the First Cause, and the existence of non-tangible dimensions. Are such secondary speculations worthwhile? Or more to the point, what are such speculations worth, in terms of knowledge?
Even given that speculating on such imponderables is entertaining, a second level speculation can be taken beyond its intention, and reflected back on its originator as bad philosophy, bad theology, bad science, or some such.
What is clear to me is that minds bound by our own dimensional limitations can hardly conceive of what the next dimension would be like, either alone or if added to our space-time dimensions. (Let alone any dimensions beyond that).
I once created a scenario wherein a person discovers a two-dimensional society. He asks many questions including, “how does it feel to live without mass”? The 2Ds respond, “what is mass”? And the 3D person is ultimately unable to help them understand that which they cannot experience due to their dimensional limits.
Then I found out that someone else, E. A. Abbott, had already made this scenario in 1884 and called it Flat Land. Not only that, they made a movie of it too. But my scenario preceded the movie, at least.
Even the nature of time itself, something which we do experience and observe, is mysterious. Time is the feature of our existence that moves all mass around continually, isn’t it? What keeps time moving? Or does time even exist: if we exist in an inexorable sequence of states of mass-energy, and we merely step from state to state to state, why even posit time at all, other than to mark off states as we transition? Or maybe the transitions cannot occur without time?
Consider this: If mass is determined by energy, and if energy is determined by time, and if time is a measure of the transitions of the states of mass, then our very reality is circular, without an underlying basis. But that took three “ifs”, and no matter how convincing it might initially sound, its likelihood is tiny.
I prefer not to speculate on the nature (existential criteria) of the First Cause. Nothing I can establish myself can be thought to be valid when it concerns dimensions that I can neither experience nor comprehend. So this is a long answer to say, I don’t know.
Agnostic-
One who believes there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists. (American Heritage)
So we can have Atheist, (without God), Agnostic (without knowledge) or Theist (with God).
A person who isn't certain of the existence of God and isn't certain of the non-existence of God is called an Agnostic (a word coined by Thomas Huxley BTW).
No need for the false dilemma.
Language is subjective, meanings of words evolve all the time.
hypnex said,
"Language is subjective, meanings of words evolve all the time."
Meanings do evolve as a culture accepts modifications in its speech. It is not subjective, however, or language would have no meaning at all to anyone beyond the individual originating the speech. Language only works as a communications device because it does project meanings which are agreed upon by the parties involved in transmitting and receiving the symbols or tokens which are given those meanings.
If the meanings of the symbols or tokens change by mutual agreement, then communication continues successfully. If there is no mutual agreement on the changed meaning of the tokens or symbols, then communication of meaning stops.
Perhaps what is needed here is a definition of the word "subjective".
And watch a movie from the 1930's; the language is perfectly understandable, even if the pronounciation is slightly off. Or read a 300 year old book; not that many words have changed.
a'the-ism, n. the belief that there is no God.
the Atheist claims to know that there definitely is no First Cause
Your definitions are not consistent. Is atheism a tentative belief or a claim of absolute knowledge?
Being an atheist, I of course know the answer, but I suspect you will choose to continue to strawman the position..
I think this distinction is very important. The definition of what atheism entails cuts to the heart of the claim that the atheistic position is irrational.
You also claim that the denial of a First Cause is contrary to observable reality. This is fascinating. Every argument ever made for a First Cause is circular with some special pleading thrown in. But something observable? Do tell.
Lastly, definitions DO change you know? Based on new information and a changing zeitgeist. Obviously not-a-theist is not an conclusive description, for it leaves cats, rocks and the concept of pink unicorns in the category of "atheist". But to protest that not-a-theist means that deists and Buddhists are then atheist shows a profound ignorance on what atheists actually profess. Again.
Jeremy, I found your other comment from the 16th in the spam folder just now and answered it (Challenge to Atheists).
You said,
"a'the-ism, n. the belief that there is no God.
the Atheist claims to know that there definitely is no First Cause
Your definitions are not consistent. Is atheism a tentative belief or a claim of absolute knowledge?"
I fail to see how I could be more clear than to say "there definitely is no..." as I said above.
"But to protest that not-a-theist means that deists and Buddhists are then atheist shows a profound ignorance on what atheists actually profess. Again."
Deists are not theists; Buddhists are not theists. Hence they are not-a-theist: QED. Where exactly does this profound ignorance reside?
The problem is between what Atheists profess and what they actually believe. If they now demand to be known as "without God", then they have co-opted (stolen) the agnostic position, and left open the positive position that there is positively no God, a position that would now have no name to describe it, since "Atheism" is in use elsewhere. It now requires no name, because suddenly no one has that belief? That position is absurd.
They may demand away at this dodge, but that is insufficient to convince anyone other than themselves, and even they know better. The dodge has a transparently specific purpose: to avoid acknowledging that they have a belief which they cannot support using science or materialism - a specific religious stance, and one that they evangelize loud and long. They do not vehemently denounce theism by saying "I have no God theory", or "I am merely without God". Atheists are not wishy washy, as their desired new denotation would suggest.
It is not credible that an Atheist has no position on God. Atheists do have a position, and it is that there Positively IS NO God. Their credibility hits below rock bottom when they try to deny the obvious with word games.
It does have one extra effect. It makes the intellectual dishonesty of those who make such claims highly visible; it is not profitable to waste time in arguing with such people, if one is expecting a logical, rational argument. Such claims intend to derail discussions before any evaluation of the actual, real claim can occur.
You don't see the difference between a belief and a claim of definitive knowledge? Of course you don't, that's the problem.
The reason there is no word for a dogmatic fundamentalist religious atheist is because there are hardly any of them, so they are called dogmatic fundamentalist religious atheists. And yeah, they are pretty dumb. People who want to actually outlaw religion.. sheesh. You can believe whatever you want man.
that they have a belief which they cannot support using science or materialism - a specific religious stance
I neither request nor require science or material sources to accept or deny my, or your, position. This is what, the 4th time I have said that?
Yes, science and materialism is fucking awesome because hello I'm having this fantastic conversation over the internet because of science and materialism. But I do NOT PRAY IN MY HEAD THAT EVOLUTION AND GRAVITY IS REAL.
"without God", then they have co-opted (stolen) the agnostic position
Whaaaat?? On a post about definitions? Ha the IRONY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Guess where I found that? Wikipedia.
Here, check this out to it sums up the position very well.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
Took about a second to find on the google. Woot science.
I don't believe in God. In your God or any other god. Because I think all the reasons people believe in one range from implausible to ridiculous. Or fallacious.
It is not credible that an Atheist has no position on God.
Yea .. there is no god. That's my position. No fairies, no ghosts, no demons nor angels. That's my position.
So .. all that stuff you said is wrong.
Btw nice poisoning the well fallacy at the end there.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
One might want to include this definition--
What do you call a theist who has doubts?
Human.
(might as well have some fun- no?)
Jer,
You say: "Yea .. there is no god. That's my position."
But earlier, you said: "I think all the reasons people believe in one range from implausible to ridiculous. Or fallacious."
Show me how that argument works, while avoiding appeal to ignorance fallacies or appeal to fallacy fallacies.
Jeremy said,
“I don't believe in God. In your God or any other god.”
and,
”Yea .. there is no god. That's my position. No fairies, no ghosts, no demons nor angels. That's my position.”
You seem to have betrayed your actual positive position here: "There is no god". This is not a tentative claim based on lack of evidence (traditionally known as agnosticism). It is an assertion of a positive knowledge of an existential state, presented as fact.
And here is where I assert the standard Atheist requirement: Prove your assertion of this fact, materially.
and,
”Btw nice poisoning the well fallacy at the end there.”
Those who demand special rules of logic (or definitions or otherwise) do not operate congruently with those who remain within the rules. They consider themselves above and beyond the rules, and they persist in comparable behavior. Such an attitude is known as dishonesty. It is not possible to engage in honest transactions with a dishonest adversary. The well is already poisoned therefore, and the statement you reference is a cautionary statement of that state of affairs. If you still conclude that that is poisoning the well, then show here and now why that is so. And then show why the statement should be considered false.
Jeremy said,
"Yea .. there is no god. That's my position. No fairies, no ghosts, no demons nor angels. That's my position.
So .. all that stuff you said is wrong. "
This is a classic example of rationalization. The conclusion is established first and declared valid (dogmatically). Then the premises are declared false simply because they do not support the conclusion.
This is the inverse of rational logic, which requires that the conclusion cannot be known valid or non-valid until the premises are established to support or not support the conclusion.
This generally occurs when the proponent desires one conclusion over another one, and therefore it, rationalization, is an emotional process rather than a logical process.
Sonic, yeah how can you not have doubts? The whole thing seems patently absurd and embarrassingly man made.
Martin, something like ...
In my experience, the reasons people believe in a god range from implausible to ridiculous, and are often contradictory (ie: first cause).
I see no other reason to believe in God. (ie: I have had no personal divine revelation, and see no reason to find yours compelling).
Therefore I conclude that God(s) do not exist. Any new information could change my opinion .. but honestly at this point I think I've heard every argument under the sun a dozen times. They all fail.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
?
Of course there is a certain amount of ignorance here. I don't know everything and will never claim to.
I'm not the one claiming a psychic link with the creator of the universe... sheesh. Back that up theist. It should be a snap if true, but what is the argument instead? You can't prove me wrong, blah blah blah. Show me every molecule and atom, every femtosecond of time and pre-time to prove me wrong? How is this not a complete b.s. argument?
Jeremy,
Here are your arguments as I understand them:
1). The Theist must demonstrate his beliefs, materially:
"Back that up, theist".
2). The Atheist is under no compunction to demonstrate his beliefs, materially.
"How is this not a complete b.s. argument?"
This is Special Pleading in its most basic form.
Moreover, it is a category error to demand material evidence for a non-material entity. You do not connect with this, as you demonstrate here: "It should be a snap, if true."
While you have not invoked science, it also smacks of the Scientistic Fallacy, claiming that if it cannot be demonstrated physically, it cannot exist. (aka Materialist Fallacy).
The premise are false because they are 1) contradictory (first cause) and 2) insufficient (personal experience). The conclusion is neither dogmatic or establish prior to the argument.
I haven't 'betrayed' anything. You have no idea what atheism means. You have no idea what agnosticism means.
Again you demand a material evidence. What is wrong with you? I've said sooo many times I don't need material evidence. I'm not asking YOU for material evidence.
Furthermore you've said that you require an infinite amount of material evidence AND that material evidence is invalid in relation to a non-material being.
Oh, but I'm the one demanding special rules, I'm being dishonest.
No Stan. Everything you actually said was wrong. Your definition of agnostic is wrong. Your definition of atheism as a claim of definitive knowledge is wrong. Your claim that science/materialism is required to disprove god is wrong. Your claim that atheists are wishy-washy is wrong.
By attacking my intellectual honesty and claiming that future exchange will be pointless on account of such is the very definition of poisoning the well.
It is especially grating when you seem to be doing the very thing you accuse me of.
Stan. Again with the material qualifier. I believe this will be the sixth time you've erected that strawman.
Again I am not asking for material evidence. However if you are psychically chatting with the creator of the universe .. is there not something awesome about that experience you can share? Some insight? Some revelation? Some knowledge that is otherwise unaccessible to the rest of us?
Should that not be the most simple and convincing argument?
You'd be the first..
To be clear, you maintain that it is a valid requirement that atheists must demonstrate to you that every atom, throughout time, and before time, does not contain god? And you don't think that's ridiculous?
1) "Back that up theist"
You are making the claim (god talks to you). If you want me to believe you, yeah, give me a reason.
2) First Cause is a contradiction. No material required.
But to the point of the original post. Your definitions of both atheism and agnosticism are wrong.
That was me above, autocomplete picked the wrong name.
Jeremy,
Your arguments, formally:
1. If people believe in God for contradictory or implausible reasons, then God does not exist
2. People believe in God for contradictory or implausible reasons
3. Therefore, God does not exist
Clearly, premise 1 is false. This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html
And your second argument:
1. If there are no reasons to believe in God, then God does not exist
2. There are no reasons to believe in God
3. Therefore, God does not exist
Premise 1 is argument from ignorance: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
And premise 2 is disputable, at best. There are many arguments, such as the contingency of the universe, that to some degree may support the existence of a first cause.
Jeremy says,
"You are making the claim (god talks to you). If you want me to believe you, yeah, give me a reason."
I have not made that claim, nor do I now make it.
Define "reason", if it is not material. What argument would you accept? I suggest that there is no possible argument that you would accept; I base this on discussions with other Atheists, who make the same materialist statements accompanied by denials of their statements.
" First Cause is a contradiction. No material required.
First Cause is a concept. If it is internally contradictory, you must show that, not merely claim that it is so. As always, show your work, rather than making claims and accusations.
"But to the point of the original post. Your definitions of both atheism and agnosticism are wrong."
Again, a claim / accusation with no support of any kind. The definitions provided were not mine, they were dictionary definitions, from 1979. Here is a more recent definition:
athe-ist n.: One who denies the existence of God.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004.
You wish to have your own special definitions. That might work for you, in small circles of like-minded individuals. But it will not work when attempting to argue outside that small circle.
I have not made that claim, nor do I now make it.
The second level of your argument is "a personal relationship with the deity described in the First level"(First Cause)
So .. you don't have a personal relationship with the first cause? Well that was easy to clear up. Second level refuted. I wasn't even going to bother with that one, but if you want to confirm its non-existence, by all means.
I did show my work in my original post. Causality is a time dependent concept. Therefore something without time cannot cause something. Not to mention the host of other problems with a First Cause argument for a theistic god..
You responded by shifting the goal posts to require a literal infinite amount of proof. Go big or go home eh.
Here's is a more complete rebuttal, although unfortunately it falls far short of your 'infinite amount of required proof'.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=First_cause_argument
***
It's not my own 'special definition'. You google agnosticism and find me any site that defines agnosticism as "without god".
Find a site that has the definition of atheism followed by "know or definite".
Stan: "the Atheist claims to know that there definitely is no First Cause"
And I did reference wikipedia and atheism.about.com.
Did you miss that or ignore it?
So we can have Atheist, (without God), Agnostic (without knowledge) or Theist (with God). <- Not exhaustive, but essentially correct.
***
What would convince me personally? Well for starters the claim would have to be consistent, with itself and observable reality. Actually, I think that might do it right there.
Also, a divine revelation. Either personal, or if someone else could supply knowledge they could have only gained through divine revelation.
I would also accept material evidence of course, that would be quite convincing. Miracles, especially those brought about via prayer. Direct manifestations. Aliens who believe in Jesus. A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book. A religion without internal disputes or factions. A religion that has won all its holy wars. Those would all be extremely convincing as well.
Most important though I think, is for the concept to be both logically sound, and based upon observable reality.
Jeremy, when you say something is [A] and then deny that you believe that something is [A], your credibility drops to zero.
You claim over and over that you are not a materialist, then you say this:
“Most important though I think, is for the concept to be both logically sound, and based upon observable reality.”
First, that is a blatantly materialist demand.
You refuse to admit to the logical errors of self-contradiction which you make over and over, and you refuse to admit to the errors of category and materialism that are elaborated for you, again over and over.
This is beginning to fall into the category of wasting our time with nonsense.
” So .. you don't have a personal relationship with the first cause? Well that was easy to clear up. Second level refuted. I wasn't even going to bother with that one, but if you want to confirm its non-existence, by all means. “
First you said “talk to God”. But now you say “personal relationship with God”. Which do you actually mean? Where are the goal posts?
Again wasting my time with nonsense.
You did make this clarification:
” Causality is a time dependent concept. Therefore something without time cannot cause something.”
Yet when expanded to its fullest meaning, the statement reads,
a) Within our universe, causality is a time dependent function; outside or before our universe, causality is undefined and not understood in material terms, and can be neither confirmed nor denied;
b)Therefore, within our universe, something without time cannot cause something; outside or before our universe, causality is undefined and not understood in material terms, and can be neither confirmed nor denied.
There is no internal conflict with either the simultaneous cause or with the non-material cause argument. First Cause is legitimately said to be undefined in material terms, but not non-coherent.
It is interesting that Atheists use the “who made God” / “what caused God” argument implying that causation is a legitimate subject outside of the material universe, and then contrarily deny that the first cause is coherent on the basis that causation is not a legitimate subject outside the material universe.
” Stan: "the Atheist claims to know that there definitely is no First Cause"
And I did reference wikipedia and atheism.about.com.
Did you miss that or ignore it?”
I ignored it for the following reasons:
1) Wiki is a source for opinion rather than fact; using it as fact is a recipe for fallacious conclusions. I do not use wiki, nor do I recommend its use.
2) Atheists are employing the epistemological dodge, as I described before. They can define themselves as green alien gypsies on as many sites as they wish and that doesn’t detract from the fact that they, as Atheists,
a) have a belief;
b) they specifically believe that there definitely is no God, according to standard conventional language definitions;
c) if they believe otherwise, then they are not Atheists under standard conventional language definitions;
d) if they believe that there is no God, but claim otherwise, then they are dishonest.
You have ignored or declared false every standard English dictionary definition in favor of Atheist dodge definitions, which you declare valid. Yes, this is wasting my time. And when I start to say things like “wasting my time”, it means that without some sort of logic on the part of the commenter, and in the face of a commenter defending irrational positions over and over, the conversation is rapidly drawing to a close.
So if you choose to make the logic statements asked for regarding your belief system, and full logic statements in rebuttal of conclusions with which you disagree, then we can continue. Otherwise, there is no need to go around this block another time.
I'll rephrase that Martin. 2. is pretty close.
1) There exists nothing BUT arguments to sway those unconvinced of god's existence. ie: No material evidence.
2) Arguments for the existence of god are internally contradictory, contrary to observable reality, or fallacious.
3) Therefore there is no currently attainable reason to believe in god.
4) Thus I do not accept the claim "God exists", thus I am an atheist (without god).
I agree the first phrasing is fallacious. Obviously even if 99.999% of theists accepted the existence of god on horrible reasoning, there could still exist both god, and good arguments for his existence.
Whether the universe is contingent or not is certainly open to debate. However if the universe could not exist, I see no reason why God could not exist. Nor do I see how the universe need be contingent upon the will of God.
As opposed to what? Being illogical and contrary to observable reality? Which quite frankly tends to be the theistic argument.
Yeah. Show me some illogic and something that doesn't line up with observations. That's a fantastic reason there is a god. /sarcasm
You don't pray? What's a personal relationship without communication? That's the goal post. Communication. Transfer of information. Regardless, your claim is a personal relationship .. that's got to mean something more than evoking a desire to bash atheists?
a) Within our universe, causality is a time dependent function; outside or before our universe, causality is undefined and not understood in material terms, and can be neither confirmed nor denied;
b)Therefore, within our universe, something without time cannot cause something; outside or before our universe, causality is undefined and not understood in material terms, and can be neither confirmed nor denied.
I don't see how that is an argument for god. It seems a genuine admission of "I don't know". I don't see a "therefore god" anywhere..
I ignored it for the following reasons
So you did know that I referenced, you just chose to say I didn't because you don't like the sources cited? That's nice and honest.
You know every book ever written is in large part someone's opinion?
Yet you do not present a single source which matches the definitions you previously gave regarding agnostic/atheist.
Again you put forth a definition, without citation.
Again, cite any english dictionary that includes "definite" or "know" in the definition of atheism.
Again, cite any dictionary that includes in the definition of agnostic as "without god".
I'm not disagreeing with the dictionary, I'm disagree with you.
I think if you could have done so, you would have found such definitions and thrown them in my face. I would be like .. "oh, I guess I was wrong. My bad."
Let's see what happens with you.
When theists ask how and why atheists can be certain that no gods exist, they do so under the mistaken assumption that all atheists deny the existence or possible existence of any gods and that such denial is based upon certainty. Although this is true of some atheists, it is not true of all — indeed, it seems unlikely that it is true of most or even a significant minority of atheists. Not all atheists deny the existence of all gods and not all of those who do claim absolute certainty.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsriskhell/a/CertianGod.htm
Even if you don't like wikipedia, google is still your friend.
Jeremy,
So now your argument is that you don't have good reasons for believing that God does exist.
But earlier, you said: "Yea .. there is no god. That's my position."
I am very confused as to what your position actually is. Do you think theism is true or false. If false, then what is your argument?
Sorry Martin, I'm not trying to obfuscate the issue. Is it really unclear?
I do not think there are good reasons to believe god exists, therefore I do not believe god exists.
Because I do not think a god exists, I think theism is false.
Because I do not think that a god exists, I believe I am justified in calling myself an atheist.
I think arguments for the existence of god fail. I think there are good reasons to think that the concept of god is fallacious and superfluous.
I think it could be possible .. I just think it incredibly unlikely.
In my experience, the reasons people believe in a god range from implausible to ridiculous, and are often contradictory (ie: first cause).
I see no other reason to believe in God. (ie: I have had no personal divine revelation, and see no reason to find yours compelling).
Therefore I conclude that God(s) do not exist. Any new information could change my opinion .. but honestly at this point I think I've heard every argument under the sun a dozen times. They all fail.
That was my original stance, it is consistent, no? I'm happy to clarify or apologize if not.
I do not think there are good reasons to believe god exists, therefore I do not believe god exists.
Which gets you to dead center, between true and false. Otherwise, you are engaging in argument from ignorance.
Because I do not think a god exists, I think theism is false.
But then you go the extra unjustified step of thinking that God does not exist. You have to have justification for this before you can take that view.
It's fallacious to take this position just because the arguments for God might be fallacious. Argument from fallacy: "the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false."
Let me quote from Introduction to Logic by Gensler: "To show a view to be false, we must do more than just refute an argument for it; we must invent an argument of our own that shows the view to be false."
So, if you think God does not exist, you must have an argument for it that concludes: "Therefore, theism is false."
So what is your argument?
" Not all atheists deny the existence of all gods and not all of those who do claim absolute certainty."
atheism.about.com
This definition attempts to include everyone and discriminates against no one. This is an example of attempting to exclude the term "Atheism" from having any particular definition whatsoever, and therefore not vulnerable to attack since it means nothing.
And this is why I do not use Atheist-generated definitions: if there is no differentiation, there is no value. By being all inclusive, the Atheist dodge seems complete... at least to the Atheist.
As for your demands on dictionary definitions, you are engaged in the same word play.
A personal aside. When I was in kindergarden, my circle of friends and I "knew" that "few many" meant that it was a lot more than just "many". Mom told me otherwise, but I knew better: my buddies and I had a meaning, and we stuck with it. The outside world thought it was contradictory, but we had our meaning attached... for a little while, until reality interceded.
So to summarize, you can't find a dictionary definition matching the definitions for agnosticism or atheism you gave above. Shocking. No apology but instead another ranting post. Shocking.
It would seem you are still stuck in your kindergarten circle with your own special definitions that don't apply to the vast majority of the people claiming the labels.
I do not have an absolutist position. If there were sound reasons or evidences to accept your claim that god exists, I would be obliged to accept such a claim. You on the other hand require an impossible proof. Yet criticize my standard that god claims should be consistent and match observable reality. Nothing will change your mind. A single god claim based in reality instead of fantasy would cause me to reconsider my position.
It is for this reason that atheism is not a claim of definitive absolute knowledge.
"There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
You insist on defining the atheist position for them, and then criticize them on the grounds of your own definition. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Martin,
I totally disagree. If you think a claim must be false (for good reasons) then it stands upon those reasons that the claim is false. You don't need to provide infinite (impossible) proof to be justified in rejecting the claim. It certainly doesn't reduce it to a 50/50 proposition.
If you disagree, I would ask whether you accept the existence of gold at the end of the rainbow? If you agree, then we are both justified in not accepting the claim of rainbow-gold, yet are under no obligation to prove it. Especially not to Stan's requested degree (infinite). Or do you think the odds that rainbow gold exists to be 50/50?
There is no god, therefore theism is false? Could there be a god? Well, I have a pretty fantastic imagination .. so sure. But I do understand when I am picturing god, that I'm just imagining it.
Jeremy,
The dictionary definitions stand in stark contrast to your claims. They support my contentions and refute yours. The "new definitions" are no longer real definitions in that they are so broad that they mean everything and discriminate aginst nothing. And that is the dodge: Atheism is now relativism, undisguised: post-modernism in Atheist modernist sheets.
"You insist on defining the atheist position for them, and then criticize them on the grounds of your own definition. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest."
That is blatantly and transparently false. Definitions are agreements between all of society as to what a term means. I did not create definitions; I use and referred you to standard dictionary definitions from dictionaries spanning 25 years - 1979 to 2004. It is the Atheists who are attempting to destroy the term Atheist by creating false "definitions".
You might form a "Blue Society" which insists that blue includes everything from ultraviolet to infrared, and you might have good parties at the Blue Society social soiree's. But that doesn't change the general convention standard which has been used for centuries, and is still used for the overwhelming majority of society, including its dictionaries.
"A single god claim based in reality instead of fantasy would cause me to reconsider my position."
Despite many requests you continue to fail to define "reality", which in general Atheist usage (which you prefer to general denoted usage) means "material existence". You continue your materialist demands while also continuing to claim non-materialism and openness. Your position is internally contradictory and therefore violates logical principles, rendering it irrational.
Your irritable petulance is demonstrating your inability to incorporate validity into your arguments. Perhaps you should take some time off to think about how a logical response would work. (Not arrogant Atheist illogic; traditional philosophical objective logic). I can recommend some college texts on logic if you are interested.
Jeremy,
If you think a claim must be false (for good reasons) then it stands upon those reasons that the claim is false.
I completely agree. And what are your reasons for thinking the claim is false? So far, you have given only fallacious reasons. You have yet to give a single good reason for thinking theism is false.
If you agree, then we are both justified in not accepting the claim of rainbow-gold, yet are under no obligation to prove it.
If we were called upon to give those reasons, we could easily give our justifications for not believing it: rainbows do not stand still; they move when you move; gold is heavy and cannot move.
So, again I ask, what are you justifications for thinking that theism is false?
No they most certainly do not.
I posted on your new thread the etymology and definition of agnosticism and atheism from three different websites. Two of which were religious sites.
The definition and history is consistent that atheism means "without god". Agnosticism is the position that the existence or non-existence of god is an unanswerable question. If you want to dispute that, go for it. I'm open to new information.
You asserted that the definition of agnostic is "without god"
You asserted that the definition of atheism is "the claim to definitively know there is no god"
You can't back that up. Because you are wrong. Again. Continually. Fractally wrong.
These are not new definitions. The term atheist is based on the greek atheos (literally "without god"). The term agnostic was coined in the 1800's by Huxley.
Atheism is not a claim of absolute knowledge. Are there perhaps atheists that do claim to know everything? Probably. They are idiots too.
I don't know why I'm bothering to continue this conversation when you are deleting my posts now.
Of course I'm not trying to dodge a challenge, I must have missed your request.
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.
Reality is often contrasted what is imaginary, delusional, in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. To reify is to make more real, and to abstract is the opposite. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are not considered real.
Two guesses where I pulled that off.
Your irritable petulance is demonstrating your inability to incorporate validity into your arguments.
This from the guy who's now deleting my posts and can't find a single external source that matches his internal definition. adddd hooominem.
Stan,
Here's my stab at the exercise.
Term: cat
Genus: domesticated mammals
Difference: insolent
Term: dog
Genus: domesticated mammals
Difference: loyal
Martin,
I have a thousand reasons why theism is false. Far too many to detail here.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/NoDesign.pdf
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
http://www.evilbible.com
http://www.godisimaginary.com
Yeah, it's not an infinite amount of proof, but I find it convincing nonetheless.
The problem is that theism is a moving target. It's very easy to say that you just have to disprove the concept of an intelligent first cause, and then shift the goalposts to "provide infinite material proof throughout every nano-second of time, present, past and outside of time." .. shocking that people would be so dishonest I know..
If the above arguments are unconvincing, give me a solid unambiguous definition of theism and I will attempt an explanation of why I think it false.
rainbows do not stand still; they move when you move; gold is heavy and cannot move.
Oh sorry you misunderstand. This is specifically rainbow-gold we are talking about. It only turns into your typical material gold when you catch it.
Care to try again? Hint: The standards of proof are listed elsewhere on this very website.
spam filter again? I have the post saved this time..
Martin,
I have a thousand reasons why theism is false. Far too many to detail here.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/NoDesign.pdf
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
http://www.evilbible.com
http://www.godisimaginary.com
Yeah, it's not an infinite amount of proof, but I find it convincing nonetheless.
The problem is that theism is a moving target. It's very easy to say that you just have to disprove the concept of an intelligent first cause, and then shift the goalposts to "provide infinite material proof throughout every nano-second of time, present, past and outside of time." .. shocking that people would be so dishonest I know..
If the above arguments are unconvincing, give me a solid unambiguous definition of theism and I will attempt an explanation of why I think it false.
rainbows do not stand still; they move when you move; gold is heavy and cannot move.
Oh sorry you misunderstand. This is specifically rainbow gold we are talking about. It only turns into your typical material gold when you catch it.
Care to try again? Hint: The standards of proof are listed elsewhere on this very website.
I have a thousand reasons why theism is false.
OK, your links are again mostly argument from ignorance or the genetic fallacy.
The first link is to a letter from Vic Stenger saying that the fine tuning argument doesn't work. Remember, a failure in an argument for theism does not show theism is false. See the above quote from the Gensler book on logic. All the arguments for God's existence may fail, but it may still be the case that God exists. You have to have an argument against the existence of God before you can take that view.
The second link is a huge rant against religious fundamentalism and religion in general. Again, they present no argument that theism is false. Theism could still be true despite the presence of nutjob followers of any particular religion.
Your third link is an EXCELLENT rebuttal to the atheist canard that you can't prove a negative. This is one of the most embarrassingly wrong tidbits to come from the self-proclaimed defenders of reason. But, again, no arguments that show theism to be false.
Evilbible is about the horrible things in the Bible. There is no way to infer the non-existence of God from this. The most you could infer is that either God is not the God of the Bible, or that God is the God of the Bible seen through the lense of human anthropomorphism, nationalistic furvor, and other horrors of human behavior. I.e., that Biblical literalism is false. In fact, some Christian philosophers are of the view that the Old Testament is a perfect example of how much humans can screw up God's message.
And the final link is again more attacks on specific (mostly fundamentalist) religious claims, but no argument that ends: "Therefore, God does not exist."
To reiterate, your position is: "Yea .. there is no god."
That's a positive claim. The only justification you've given so far for taking that position is that theists make fallacious arguments, the Bible is full of horrors, specific fundamentalist claims are clearly false, and so on.
None of which leads to the inference: "There is no god."
Can you provide such justification?
Russell, Good'n!
Stan
Jeremy, it looks like all your comments are going to spam filter purgatory. I don't know why - I don't write the spam rules, google does. Maybe you offended someone at Google??
So your comments stay there until I come in to take a look for them. I do not delete them. I post them. But it takes awhile - I'm not always on-line here - but I'm here a lot.
Stan
Martin,
Okay so you don't disagree that fine tuning doesn't work.
You don't disagree that there are a plethora of examples of religious nutjobs.
You don't disagree that the God of the bible is an anthropomorphic horror.
Yet you don't think that should hold any weight in the probability of the existence of a god?
Sorry, if there are thousands of reasons to think a thing false, and the reasons to think it true are so incredibly sketchy such as First Cause Arguments, then I hold that it is entirely reasonable and justified to conclude a thing false.
I suspect you didn't actually read the third link. Just saw the title and jumped on the counter argument. It is easily summed up though.
Claim: There is no milk in the fridge.
Counter: You can't prove a negative.
Claimant: Opens fridge, proving the negative assertion that there is no milk in the fridge.
You can cry category error if you like. Maybe milk is there is some spiritual sense.
You didn't provide a reason that ends with "there is no rainbow-gold".
You didn't define theism.
I thought calling fallacy in no way disproved the actual argument? How can you say that and then call fallacy on my arguments without actually addressing the arguments. THAT is a fallacy fallacy.
Jeremy,
It's easier to show the reasoning if you do it in argument form.
1. If the position of rainbows is subjective and the position of gold is objective, then there can be no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow
2. The position of rainbows is subjective and the position of gold is objective
3. Therefore, there can be no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow
Both premises are reasonable to accept and are more probable than their negations. Premise 1 is true because of the disparate nature of the two objects: gold sits in one place, a rainbow moves when you move. If this is true, then it's impossible for the pot of gold to be at the end of the rainbow because the end of the rainbow depends on the position of the observer, whereas the gold does not.
And premise 2 is true as well: rainbows do indeed move when the observer moves, and gold does not.
From these two premises, you can reasonably (though not mathematically 100%) prove that there can be no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
So try doing the same with your arguments and see how they stand up.
You say: "Yet you don't think that should hold any weight in the probability of the existence of a god?"
And then you say: "Sorry, if there are thousands of reasons to think a thing false..."
A thousand fallacious arguments do not add up to a sound argument. Everything you have provided is guilty of the genetic fallacy or argument from ignorance.
Check it:
1. If the religious followers of God are nutjobs, then God does not exist
2. The religious followers of God are nutjobs
3. Therefore, God does not exist
Clearly, premise 1 is false. God's followers could all be crazed baby-eating lunatics, yet this still wouldn't be evidence that God does not exist. Not one bit. It's guilty of the genetic fallacy: "a line of 'reasoning' in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself."
This argument is fallacious. You can chuck it out. If you are an atheist because of that, you are reasoning very poorly.
Then you say: "You don't disagree that the God of the bible is an anthropomorphic horror."
Again, the argument doesn't work:
1. If the God of the Bible is anthropomorphic, then God does not exist
2. The God of the Bible is an anthropomorphic horror
3. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist
Obviously, premise 1 is false. The Bible was written by human beings, who anthropomorphize everything. Since they anthropomorphize lightning, and the prairie, and the earth itself, I guess we can conclude that those three things don't exist either, no? Of course we can't. Again, this is guilt of the genetic fallacy.
If these are the only reasons you can come up with to think that theism is false, then there is a defect in your reasoning on this matter.
So, again, can you provide non-fallacious justification for thinking that theism is false? Something that doesn't appeal to the origin of belief in God, or the character of believers?
Martin, you are ignoring the details of my argument. You are again referring to materialist gold, not rainbow-gold.
Your insistence on strawmaning rainbow-gold into the material is a category error.
Despite that, your first premise fails. Even if gold does not move in the manner that rainbows do, you cannot logically claim to definitively know that somewhere, at sometime, there does not exist gold at the end of the rainbow.
(I really hope the absurdity of the argument isn't lost. Nor its relation to the arguments presented here against the atheistic position.)
The reasons listed were not intended to be logical disproofs. Merely some reasons why the claims of theism fail. If theism fails, then surely it is reasonable to conclude theism false?
If you have an example which would add veracity to the truth claims of theism, I would love to hear it.
You again neglect to define theism.
I'll attempt a logical disprove regardless.
1. Theism claims a personal god exists.
2. Theistic claims fail to line up with observable reality (ie: are contradictory, inconsistent, false)
3. Theism is therefore false (ie: not real)
4. If theism claims a personal god exists, and theistic claims are false, then a personal god must not exist.
Obviously there is still the "no black swans" argument... I'm just saying, it seems like all swans are white. If you'd like to present to me a black swan (or a reason why black swans probably exist), I would love to see/hear it.
If you find fault with this argument, I'm going to have to insist on a comprehensive definition of theism before attempting another refutation. I'm rather tired at shooting at moving targets blindfolded.
Even if gold does not move in the manner that rainbows do, you cannot logically claim to definitively know that somewhere, at sometime, there does not exist gold at the end of the rainbow.
Sure, you could make that argument. But you'd be at the disadvantage to try to show that a metal that is heavy is somehow able to move around like a rainbow. If it is, then it doesn't appear that it would fit the definition of gold any longer. But the point is, my argument is a reasonable inductive argument against the existence of gold at the end of the rainbow. It is rational to believe those premises, and the conclusion follows logically from them.
What I want to know is: what is your similar argument to my rainbow argument, that allows you to conclude that theism is false?
Merely some reasons why the claims of theism fail. If theism fails, then surely it is reasonable to conclude theism false?
It isn't reasonable because it's argument from ignorance. See the above quote from Introduction to Logic by Gensler. The arguments for theism may fail, but God may still exist. To take the position that God does not exist requires positive arguments against his existence.
You again neglect to define theism.
Theism has been fairly well defined for a long time now: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/
1. Theism claims a personal god exists.
2. Theistic claims fail to line up with observable reality (ie: are contradictory, inconsistent, false)
3. Theism is therefore false (ie: not real)
4. If theism claims a personal god exists, and theistic claims are false, then a personal god must not exist.
I'm not sure what logical form that is, but to be sure that your conclusion follows properly from the premises, you should put it into a strict format. I'll try to do that. I find modus ponens to be useful:
1. If the claim that a personal God exists does not line up with observable reality, then the claim that a personal God exists is false
2. The claim that a personal God exists does not line up with observable reality
3. Therefore, the claim that a personal God exists is false
Premise 2 is where this argument could be pretty easily challenged by a theist. One of the ways of showing that a personal God exists is by pointing to objective morality. If objective morality exists, then this may support theism over atheism. Also, the ontological arguments attempt to show the existence of an all-good God, which could then be used to infer the existence of a personal God.
Ha, I would think it reasonable too if theists didn't counter my same arguments with 'category error'! Remember, we're talking about rainbow-gold, not gold. Rainbow-gold is Intelligently Seeded by leprechauns. I don't have to demonstrate anything. It is you that is taking the position that there positively is no rainbow-gold.
(self depreciating eye-roll)
If morality is objective then I suppose that might be a good reason to pursue that line of thinking.
In my understanding, objective morality is the position that what is moral, is always moral, regardless of personal viewpoint. For instance, if killing people is wrong, then it is always wrong to do so, even in self-defense or to protect loved ones.
Why do you think this it is the case that morality is objective?
Can you give me an example of an objective morale? (Theistic based)
Feel free to redefine.
"An ontological argument for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone.[1] The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist."
Is that what you mean by an ontological argument? C'mon, that's crap. No offence. "The argument states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible chocolate cake, then it must exist." Mmm sky-cake.
I must be referring to the wrong argument..?
It's easy for the theist to challenge it .. might be a bit harder for them to back it up.
I just skimmed through the link, but it seems to describe an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing god. Is that consistent with your position? If I can rationally demonstrate that such a being logically cannot exist, do I win?
Ha, I would think it reasonable too if theists didn't counter my same arguments with 'category error'!
The proposition is that a non-physical being exists. If you respond with: "I won't believe it until I see physical evidence" then you are, indeed, making a category error.
In my understanding, objective morality is the position that what is moral, is always moral, regardless of personal viewpoint.
That would be absolute morality. Objective morality simply means an action is wrong even if everybody thinks it's right. I.e., slavery was still wrong in the South even though everyone in the South thought it was right.
So, a theist could make an argument that "scores a point for theism" even if not proving the existence of God per se:
1. If materialism is true, then objective moral values do not exist
This is a plausible premise. David Hume came up with the old is/ought problem: a full accounting of the physical facts of a situation do not seem to bring about an "ought".
2. Objective moral values exist
This premise too is plausible. Most ethicists are moral realists, meaning they believe in the existence of objective morality of some kind. It jives with out collective moral sense. For example, the fight against Nazi Germany seemed like a fight of good against evil.
And from those two premises follows the conclusion: "Therefore, materialism is false." Score 1 for theism as opposed to naturalism.
Is that what you mean by an ontological argument? C'mon, that's crap. No offence.
Philosophers have struggled with the ontological argument for centuries. I wouldn't throw it away so handily. For instance, your chocolate cake parody does not have an intrinsic maximum: it can always be bigger, more chocolatey, more icing, etc. There is no such thing as the greatest conceivable chocolate cake. However, a greatest conceivable being DOES have an intrinsic maximum: you can't know more than everything, and you can't do more than anything. Once you are omnipotent and omniscient, you are maxed out.
The more recent modal form is not easy to refute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form
If I can rationally demonstrate that such a being logically cannot exist, do I win?
I want to know your specific reasoning that such a being either is unlikely to exist or cannot exist.
Right. So my description of rainbow-gold is a description of a non-physical object. I want to know on what grounds you dismiss this non-material claim.
I'm not clear on your concept of objective morality. Your example seems in line with what I was thinking. ie: Slavery is wrong despite slave owners insistence to the contrary. If it is right, it is right, regardless if some think it is wrong.
1. So according to Hume, no objective moral values?
2. The fight to expand Nazism throughout the world likely seemed 'good' if you were a Nazi. I'm not sure that's objective, it seems positively subjective. If you are a Nazi, Nazi=good. If you are anyone else, Nazi=bad.
Our collective moral sense seems very .. not collective. What I mean is that there is a tremendous amount of discrepancy between what individuals, societies and cultures can agree upon as moral/good.
Which seems to imply there is no objective morality, and thus no reason to suppose there is a god dictating objective morality. Even if there was, I'm not sure why morality is still not subjective, with God being one of the subjects.
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
Never mind that we seemed to agree that the God of the Bible is an anthropomorphic horror. So .. not sure what morality God is dictating?
Objective morality seems a tenuous interpretation at best. Subjective morality seems much more in line with observation.
re: Ontological Argument.
Actually, I'll defend that chocolate cake parody another step. There is a -subjective of course- ultimate chocolate cake.
http://www.mqm.biz/Photos/Brownie%20Chocolate%20Cheesecake.jpg
More icing, chocolate, etc would destroy the perfect balance of the existing flavours. It is already perfect. You can't be better than perfect.
Read that Planting argument. It doesn't seem any more reasonable.
If it is necessarily, possibly, necessarily possible that there is a God, therefore it is necessarily true?
C'mon man, what b.s. is that?
That's not logic, that's word games, and poor ones at that.
Hm, doesn't seem fair that I have to tell my rebuttal before you establish if a logical rebuttal is sufficient to negate the claim. I wouldn't want you to shift the goalposts on me.
meh
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=The_three_O_paradox
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Please don't just shift the argument to something else.
Stan,
Thanks! I hope you didn't mind an answer a big tongue in cheek :)
Right. So my description of rainbow-gold is a description of a non-physical object. I want to know on what grounds you dismiss this non-material claim.
Because "gold" is a heavy physical metal. Non-physical gold would seem to refer to something that can no longer be considered "gold". It might be something else, but not gold. And I await justification for believing in this non-material matter. I could then weigh the two justifications against each other, and see which has the better case.
Which seems to imply there is no objective morality, and thus no reason to suppose there is a god dictating objective morality.
Disagreement is not evidence against an objective reality, otherwise you would have to chuck out the physical world as well, as physicists are divided between no less than 12 different interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Never mind that we seemed to agree that the God of the Bible is an anthropomorphic horror.
You'll notice the argument never makes reference to the Bible. The Bible is a collection of stories written by human beings, warts and all. It's not surprising that it's full of such horrors. So fundamentalism and Biblical literalism needs to be thrown out. So what?
Objective morality seems a tenuous interpretation at best. Subjective morality seems much more in line with observation.
Observation seems to indicate objective "oughts", not subjective. In fact, you could make a case that if you are committed to rationality, then you should accept objective "oughts." If you think someone "ought" to not believe in something without evidence, then you are affirming the existence of objective "oughts." Otherwise, who cares if someone believes something without evidence? That's right for him. And believing with evidence is right for you. There are no objective "oughts." But everyone constantly acts as if there are. You probably think a pedophile "ought" not rape little children. You probably think religious believers "ought" not believe without empirical evidence.
You really "ought" to stop doing that if you think "oughts" are subjective.
If it is necessarily, possibly, necessarily possible that there is a God, therefore it is necessarily true?
Graham Oppy, an atheist philosopher, devotes many chapters to dealing with ontological arguments. It's not that easy to refute. The wording of that version is a bit too formal. Here is an easier to understand version:
1. It is possible that God exists
If there are no logical contradictions in the idea of God, then it's logically possible that God exists.
2. If it's possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world
A "possible world" is just a way of saying "a way reality could be." So if it's possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world. The flying spaghetti monster appears to be logically coherent, so he exists in some possible world as well. But a square-circle is logically incoherent. It does not exist in any possible world.
3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds
God, being the greatest conceivable being, would by definition exist necessarily and not contingently, as a contingent thing depends on something else for its existence (people, for instance). The number 3, by contrast, is necessary and not contingent. It exists in all possible worlds. God, if he exists, is necessary and thus also exists in all possible worlds.
And the rest of the argument follows logically:
4. If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world
5. Therefore, God exists
The best place to attack the argument is premise 1.
Martin,
Non-physical gold would seem to refer to something that can no longer be considered "gold".
I covered this. It only turns into material gold when you actually catch it.
God is frequently referenced as a being who is both physical and material. It is only when skeptics question that material claims that the theist retreats to "the land beyond space and time".
And I await justification for believing in this non-material matter.
Exactly. Yet surely it makes no sense to consider yourself 'agnostic' as to the existence of rainbow-gold?
Disagreement is not evidence against an objective reality
I didn't mean to imply that it was. I was pointing out that everyone seems to have their own subjective morality. Thus the theory of objective morality seems contradictory with observation. It is the observation that is the evidence, not the conclusion.
You'll notice the argument never makes reference to the Bible.
I was referring to objective morality which I assumed was dictated by God. Seeing as Gods bestselling book describes a horrific God, it would seem God is a poor choice as a moral dictator.
Observation seems to indicate objective "oughts", not subjective.
It is of course subjective as well. I am the subject doing the observing, thus my observations are subjective. The key word is I, not ought.
Of course everyone thinks they are morally right. And few if any people actually agree 100% with each other as to these moral truths. This is moral subjectivity.
You really "ought" to stop doing that if you think "oughts" are subjective.
Are you saying if I don't think morals are objective, that I should refrain from commenting on them? Because that sounds positively immoral.
There are no objective "oughts."
Right .. so why are we arguing about this?
Graham Oppy, an atheist philosopher, devotes many chapters to dealing with ontological arguments
Yeah just looked him up. He indeed seems to devote many chapters to shredding the nonsense that it professes.
"One general criticism of ontological arguments which have appeared hitherto is this: none of them is persuasive"
"An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition.
However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument."
http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/ontological-arguments/#ObjOntArg
Haha that's a great start.
I could then weigh the two justifications against each other, and see which has the better case.
Exactly right. And the ontological justification is the best argument for theism? It's silly. It's basically saying God by definition exists, therefore God exists. If that's the best argument, theism truly has a horrible case.
Do accept the Three O's Paradox? (ie: God as you described is contradictory and thus surely non-existent?)
Jeremy,
Here are some of the arguments for objective morality: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/05/case-for-moral-objectivity.html
And ones against: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-argument-against-objective-moral.html
I can tell you that although the arguments for objective morality are not perfect, most of the ones against can be tossed out right off the bat. For instance, in the third argument, good luck supporting premise #2. And the first argument is about disagreements, which is not indicative of a non-objective reality. Just replace morality with "shape of the earth."
Objective morality has a better case, and most ethicists believe in it.
And the ontological justification is the best argument for theism? It's silly.
Silly? Consider what atheist philosopher J. N. Findlay had to say about it: "If a being like God were to exist, his existence would be necessary. And his existence would be manifest as an a priori, conceptual truth. That is to say that of all the approaches to God’s existence, the ontological argument is the strategy that we would expect to be successful were there a God, and if they do not succeed, then we can conclude that there is no God."
Of course, new ontological arguments are coming out all the time, so it's difficult to say that they have failed just yet. Philosophy is not over yet. Here is a recent one that has very few unjustified assumptions: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3292725
As for the three Os paradoxes, each one has to be considered separately. One thing I can tell you is that when people make scientific claims, and then I turn to the peer-reviewed literature and can find nothing on it, this gives me at least prima facie reason to dismiss it. Same goes for philosophy. The last widely agreed disproof of theism was Mackie's logical disproof involving evil and an all-good being. It is generally considered to have been refuted in the 1970s by Plantinga, and I don't see peer-reviewed atheists offering any new disproofs in the literature. If they aren't, there is probably a reason for that. For instance, the conflict between God's foreknowledge and free will rests on a modal fallacy.
Although, at least the three O paradoxes are finally a valid reason to be an atheist, unlike the other things you have offered.
re: link.
I think all the cases are flawed. I'll use the III argument since you referenced it specifically.
If the common health and happiness of humans are by what we judge morality, then obviously one subjective morality can be superior to another.
Subjective morality can be improved, whereas objective morality is static.
Yes this can be discussed in greater detail and the individual concepts can be debated. Maybe some people have different yardsticks to measure morality. Obviously this actually is the case. It again seems to point to an individual, subjective, morality.
Look, if morality is objective, then why don't we all agree on what is moral? Why is there even a debate?
Of course there are common moral themes throughout cultures as well. However I think there are much more reasonable explanations for this than "goddidit". (common ancestry, living together without killing each other is preferable to everyone killing each other, etc)
If I am reading the Finlay quote properly, he is basically saying if God exists, the ontological argument would be convincing. Since the ontological argument is unconvincing, there is no god.
I could argue his reasoning, but I agree with his conclusion. So, yeah the argument is silly. Ridiculous. Preposterous.
That last link is the same damn argument. It's just harder to refute because its harder to make any damn sense out of it.
It doesn't matter how you wrap the answer, you can't define god as existing and then say god exist by definition. And call that reasoned or convincing.
Three O's Paradox:
re: Plantiga and his free will defense.
I hate this line of reasoning. I find it repulsive.
God allows babies to starve, villages to be wiped up by tsunamis and pretty much every form of life is forced to struggle until it dies in pain so that you have the privilege of deciding to rape your kids, or not. Yay God is sooo good for giving us free will.
There are also a ton of atheist responses to the problem of evil and the free will reply.
Try googling "god is a paradox". There is tons of information on the argument.
Try googling "plantinga refuted"
Here's the first link
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/fwd-refuted.html#disproof
(circa 2007)- just flipped through it but seemed pretty sound.
I'm glad you at least think the fact that the concept of god is paradoxical that it is a legitimate reason for being an atheist.
I've yet to hear a valid argument for theism. Surely you have something better than ontological arguments?
Are you a rainbow-gold agnostic, theist or atheist?
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of rainbow-gold.
3. Therefore, rainbow-gold exists.
Silly, right?
Hey Martin,
Been doing a bit more research on objective/subjective morality. Can you give me a source for your statement:
"Objective morality has a better case, and most ethicists believe in it."
Particularly the "most ethicists believe .." part. Can't find anything that says this.
I did notice a quote I that seemed to put into perspective the gulf between objective/subjective morality.
"Objective morality is a contradiction, subjective morality is a tautology."
That makes sense to me. Your internal viewpoint cannot be objective, morality is necessarily an internal viewpoint.
?
?
Subjective morality can be improved, whereas objective morality is static.
Subjective morality cannot be improved. That's like saying your love of chocolate ice cream can be improved. Improved relative to what? Subjective means opinion. Objective means fact. If morality is objective, then we could "discover" it over time, slowly. Like with the external world. If morality were subjective, then over time it would just change but it wouldn't improve, like with fashion.
Does morality show signs of change, or improvement?
Look, if morality is objective, then why don't we all agree on what is moral? Why is there even a debate?
Look, if the external world is real, then why don't we all agree on what interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct? Why is there even a debate?
It doesn't matter how you wrap the answer, you can't define god as existing and then say god exist by definition. And call that reasoned or convincing.
The key term is "necessary" existence. Your objection does not apply. Necessary existence is an attribute. Some items have contingent existence (like people and rocks) and some have necessary existence (like numbers). The "Greatest conceivable being" would, by definition, have necessary existence. Hence, if it's logically possible for such a being to exist, then it exists. The argument works and is not silly. The question is whether such a being is logically possible.
God allows babies to starve, villages to be wiped up by tsunamis and pretty much every form of life is forced to struggle until it dies in pain so that you have the privilege of deciding to rape your kids, or not. Yay God is sooo good for giving us free will.
You misunderstand Plantinga's response. The purpose of the free will defense is to offer a coherent method of resolving a logical contradiction. The response does not have to be plausible.
I've yet to hear a valid argument for theism. Surely you have something better than ontological arguments?
Valid? They are all logically valid. The question is whether the premises are true or not.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
This premise is more likely false than true. You could be hallucinating, or nutso. Just because you perceive it doesn't mean it is objectively true.
Particularly the "most ethicists believe .." part. Can't find anything that says this.
Here: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=30&areas_max=1&grain=coarse
Scroll down to "moral realism".
Your internal viewpoint cannot be objective, morality is necessarily an internal viewpoint.
This is true of anything. You might as well be a solipsist. All you have are your internal sensations. This was Descartes' problem.
I just read through this thread. I hesitate to comment because I don't move in analytical circles I'm certainly not the logician. Nevertheless, here is what may be a rather simplistic response. I ask " What IS morality?" The clear recogniton of relativity in the human condition moves me in the direction of the consequentialism of the naturalist. Jeremy- "Why don't we all agree on what is moral?" Good question, it does make sense. But....... when I move in that direction, it occurs to me that morality ceases to me moral. No? A scientific/ naturalistic take on things always seems to reduce everything to function/utility. That seems to devalue the "value" of the words morality/virtue. To me ,there's nothing very moral about what works. Subjective morality is indeed a tautlogy. On the other hand, I do get that objective morality is also a contradiction. Can this be resolved? Well, forgive me if you find the rest of this as some kind of irrelevant nebulous mystic babble, but let me try to articulate something here. The absolute can "contain" the relative, but the relative cannot "contain" the absolute. Because morality IS objective (in a Platonic sense), this naturally leads to "perspectives" of a REAL good and beautiful. I really dig these discussions, but it appears to me that the rational analysis of the the human conditon results in a kind of spinning mental acrobatics. Kind of like the eyes trying to see themselves. I suspect that many would regard folks like myself who have migrated to an esoteric view of things as an abandonment of rationality. But i would say just the opposite. Something greater than reason and sense must be present in order for knowlege to be possible. If you really "think" about it, the ABSOLUTE cannot not be- or nobody has any business talking about "intelligence"
Post a Comment