I am an atheist because the gods presented to me in my youth are:Summary: Fester60613 has made his points above, all of which seem to hinge on evilgod, presumably that of the Bible/Catholicism.
• All loving – while providing the perfect vehicle of hatred and bigotry for their followers.
• Omniscient – except when the intervention of a God is desperately needed.
• Benevolent – while children suffer and die, while women are humiliated and tortured and slain in barbarous fashions simply because they are women.
• Conflicted – “Heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry” but also “kill them all – men, women, children, animals and trees.”
• Afflicted by Munchausen by proxy syndrome – “I’ll kill my son so you will love me more.”
• Misogynistic
• Used by the international criminal Pope Benedict XVI to assist in the cover up of an international conspiracy to sexually abuse children.
• Unworthy of my praise, my devotion, and my worship.
And other reasons too numerous to mention.
Fester60613
United States
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
From PZ's Place, Fester60613, USA, On Why I Am An Atheist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments:
The logic:
1. If God existed he would be exactly as the Christians describe Him.
2. The Christians describe what I interpret to be a bloodthirsty, insane, unlikable God.
3. My negative interpretation of Christians' portrayal of God is the only valid one.
4. A God that one must interpret in such a way could not possibly exist.
5. Therefore the Christian God does not exist.
6. Therefore, by premise 1, theism is false.
7. Therefore atheism is true.
QED
It seems to me that premise 1 is obviously false, premise 2 is highly subjective, premise 3 is utterly without support, premise 4 is reasonable, and conclusion 5, 6, and 7 fail completely due to the failure of the premises.
Interestingly, atheists seem almost to a man to act as if premise 1 were valid. Many of their arguments for atheism are made up of arguments against Christianity, as if the truth of theism logically depended on the truth of Christianity, which it does not.
A further analysis:
All loving – while providing the perfect vehicle of hatred and bigotry for their followers.
Incendiary with no logical content. Also, anyone paying attention knows that institutionalized atheism has an undeniably worse record in this regard, so the point is completely neutralized as a reason to embrace atheism.
Omniscient – except when the intervention of a God is desperately needed.
Most atheists regard the idea of God intervening in the physical universe to be a revolting, primitive, and inelegant idea, so it's a little rich to hear the lack of intervention leveled as a complaint. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I guess. But besides that, the premise seems to be: "If God existed, nothing bad would happen to anyone ever, at any time."
Benevolent – while children suffer and die, while women are humiliated and tortured and slain in barbarous fashions simply because they are women.
Conflicted – “Heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry” but also “kill them all – men, women, children, animals and trees.”
These are linked. God is to be blamed for the crimes of men, and when he unleashes judgment on men for their crimes (Canaan, Sodom and Gomorrah), well, he is to be blamed for that, too. Meanwhile, when GOP Presidents (generally theists) fight Jihadis in order to prevent the mayhem mentioned in the first point of the pair, the selfsame atheists will shriek about Nazi Republicans imposing theocracy.
Afflicted by Munchausen by proxy syndrome – “I’ll kill my son so you will love me more.”
This is devoid of rational content. No serious Christian looks at it this way, so this is merely a slander.
Misogynistic
Oh, the horror! XTians believe in preventing women from being killed in their mother's wombs! MISOGYNY!!
Used by the international criminal Pope Benedict XVI to assist in the cover up of an international conspiracy to sexually abuse children.
Political agitprop.
Unworthy of my praise, my devotion, and my worship.
This is not a separate reason, but merely a reiteration.
And other reasons too numerous to mention.
No doubt. Atheists seem to have an awful lot of those.
Most of this objections are because of the evil that men do because of the Fall. It is no God's fault that the evil catholics do there evil things. It is the Fall when human's brought evil into the world by disobeying the God that made them.
Fester60613 who chose his name from the Satanic TV program Adams Family is a God hating idiot who is on the path to destruction for his blasphemy.
'All-loving' is a liberal deception of God. God loves the elect. He came to save the elect. The rest are nothing but a mthod for Him to show his power by there desctruction.
PZ a vile no-nothing who banned me for no reason is spreading the fifth that these disgusting blasphemous athiests write because of his hatred for God. We have already won. It has been known since before the Fall. We win.
Ah, now here is the theism I am more accustom to. Thank you Storm.
Matteo, your "analysis" is a blatant straw man and otherwise not worth addressing. But what else am I doing here.
1. The god being rejected is the Christian god.
2. The Christians describe what I interpret to be a bloodthirsty, insane, unlikable God.
3. I interpret this to be a negative character trait in a deity, and wouldn't worship him if he was real.
4. The god is also described as infinitely loving. Which contradicts (2.)
5. Following the law of non-contradiction, the Christian god cannot exist as described.
6. Therefore, Christianity (as defined by the bible) is false.
I'll leave it there. Your a Christian I assume, so I won't bother to extrapolate that into how every other religion is false because, you already agree with me there, right?
Most of your second post can be refuted by the Epicurean Riddle of Evil. Storm has resolved this by claiming god only loves the elect. I guess he is a determinist.
I also find it telling that Stan just banned two atheist for Ad Hominem attacks (people who otherwise contributed a great deal to this conversation), yet leaves Storm around.
God hating idiot
on the path to destruction
Vile no-nothing
Filth
Disgusting
This is constructive? Hmm. Maybe it's just early.
Matteo,
In the December 19 thread, you accused atheists of only going after easy targets. I asked you for your strongest argument for theism. You have not responded, but I would enjoy very much if you would.
Jotunn,
I asked you for your strongest argument for theism.
I've provided this multiple times. The First Way (PROPERLY understood; most Internet versions, especially from atheists, are wrong), and Leibniz.
And I explained at least some of the errors in it Martin. Your defense that no one properly understands your argument doesn't help your case. If the argument is so incomprehensible, what use is it?
Let me think. I believe I pointed out how your argument violates the laws of thermodynamics. I believe I pointed out that it was internally inconsistent. I believe I pointed out that it uses Special Pleading. I believe I pointed out that it in no way concludes with any specific deity.
What else do you want?
You agreed to toss out the entirety of the bible. So frankly, I don't even know what you are arguing for. Some vague notion of a first cause like Stan I suppose.
Weak.
Jotunn,
And that's why I was trying to go slow in the other thread, and just examine one premise from one argument:
Axiom: an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of not-P, otherwise the explanation is circular
Premise: If [the spacetime system is all that exists], then [the spacetime system] has no explanation for its existence
Agree? Disagree? Why or why not?
Martin,
It doesn't matter how slow you go. If the argument is weak, it is weak.
If the spacetime system is all that exists, then by its very definition it is not contingent.
Something must exist, because absolute nothingness is a logical impossibility. You cannot even imagine absolute nothingness.
Okay? You can't even get your foot in the lobby door with this argument, never mind all the way to Yahweh or whatever god you are presupposing.
Oh right, you said the bible was the work of bronze age barbarians or some such. What god do you believe in? Because Aquinas was Christian... How can you toss out the very god he was arguing for, while advancing his arguments as valid?
Axiom: an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of not-P, otherwise the explanation is circular
i am sure that is not what you mean but........ does it mean that the group of all the things that exist must be explained by something that does not exist?
Premise: If [the spacetime system is all that exists], then [the spacetime system] has no explanation for its existence
sorry i am no philosopher but again, doesnt that mean that an eternal higgs field is thus a sufficient explanation? it appears to us as all that exist; it appears to be infinite. conceptually, it works, and we have no way to escape it so we cannot know what's outside of it.....
Jotunn,
Nothing you've said addresses any of my points.
If the spacetime system is all that exists, then by its very definition it is not contingent.
That is not what "contingent" means. Contingent means that something is logically possible not to exist. As you correctly point out, "nothing" is logically impossible and so cannot exist. But no particular thing is necessary. Our universe is not necessary because it is logically possible that another universe existed in its place, or a teddy bear, or a bowl of fruit.
In fact, this fits right in with Thomistic arguments for theism, as in that system "God" just means "existence itself." Since no particular thing has to exist, but SOMETHING has to exist, then the only common denominator to all of them is just existence itself. Which is exactly what Aquinas says that "God" is.
Either way, that is off track. The universe did not logically have to exist, and is thus contingent, and so the premise remains:
"If [the spacetime system is all that exists], then [the spacetime system] has no explanation of its existence."
Problems with that premise? I am not arguing for 100% proof, here. Just a reasonable conclusion, in the same way that "Socrates is a man" is a reasonable conclusion, even though he could have been an alien or a god for all we know.
Reasonable? Yes or no?
Martin said...
"The universe did not logically have to exist"
"Our universe is not necessary because it is logically possible that another universe existed in its place, or a teddy bear, or a bowl of fruit. "
Logically? I'm interest to see this logic.
As you correctly point out, "nothing" is logically impossible and so cannot exist.
so you don't believe that a god created the universe out of nothing?
but if it was not out of nothing it means there was always something; why would that something have to be a god?
why cant the universe come from something like a black hole?
(read other thread if you dont know what I mean by 'like' a black hole)
Reasonable? Yes or no?
errr, not at all... you dismiss too many options out of hand as if you assume a conclusion
Logically? I'm interest to see this logic.
OK:
1. Everything that can be coherently conceived to have gone differently is contingent
2. The universe can be coherently conceived to have gone differently
3. Therefore, the universe is contingent
It's logically valid, so your only escape is to hold that one of the premises is false. Premise 1 is true by definition, so that is true. Premise 2 is true because cosmologists are always describing how the expansion could have gone if the gravitational constant were different, or if there were less matter, etc. So you can't hold that premise false either.
In short, there is no escape from the conclusion.
Eternal,
does it mean that the group of all the things that exist must be explained by something that does not exist?
It means what it means. To explain elephants, you have to appeal to not-elephants (e.g., the ancestors of elephants). To explain the existence of mountains, you have to appeal to not-mountains (e.g., plate movement).
You can't explain the existence of elephants by appealing to elephants because that is what we are trying to explain in the first place.
sorry i am no philosopher but again, doesnt that mean that an eternal higgs field is thus a sufficient explanation? it appears to us as all that exist; it appears to be infinite. conceptually, it works, and we have no way to escape it so we cannot know what's outside of it.....
The higgs field would be part of the spacetime system. By "spacetime system" I mean: matter/energy, space, time, physical laws. I.e., what physics would study.
I did address your points Martin. If spacetime is all that exists, and it is logically impossible for nothing to exist, we must conclude that it is logically impossible for spacetime to not exist.
It is absurd to say that a bowl of fruit might exist in its place. You can't even say if the physical laws were different, a logically different universe might exist. If the physical laws were different, the universe may never have formed.
" "God" just means "existence itself.""
No it doesn't. If that's all it meant, people would just say "existence". And no one argues for the existence of .. existence. Aquinas was a Christian, and that entails a tremendously more complex concept of God than "existence".
Sorry Martin. Your argument is without hope of evidence, thus it is absurd.
Or you know what? Just as a hypothetical, lets assume all your arguments are correct. Why don't you skip ahead to the part when there is a god that cares if I believe in him. If you want to be really ballsy, why not even pick one that people actually believe in. Not some vague philosophical concept. Theism is indefensible, and mental gymnastics like these arguments are evidence of gods no-existence.
Also, there is no honesty in the world of AtheoMaterialism, so you are just wasting your time with me anyways. My goal is to convince random strangers over the internet that god isn't real, and I'll say or do anything to meet that end. I'd be pissed off it wasn't so transparently laughable.
Jotunn,
Good grief, you have some serious ADHD-of-the-comment box.
Axiom: "an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of not-P."
Is that a reasonable axiom or not? You would have to maintain that an explanation of P can be P, if you wish to dispute it. But then you would have to support that and show your justification for believing it.
If spacetime is all that exists, and it is logically impossible for nothing to exist, we must conclude that it is logically impossible for spacetime to not exist.
If it is logically impossible for nothing to exist, then this says nothing about the possibility of something existing in place of the spacetime system. The only requirement is that something exists, but what that something is is not important.
So, the premise still stands, coming from the above axiom:
"If [the spacetime system is all that exists], then [the spacetime system] has no explanation for its existence."
To dispute this, you would have to maintain that the above axiom is wrong, and give support for your justification.
'Scuse me Martin, but after painstakingly detailing how the comments of my last conversation were relevant to topic, I have little desire to repeat the process again here. Try and pay attention.
Axiom: "an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of not-P."
Is anything non-contingent besides god? I asked this last time and you gave no answer. The answer is of course no, and so your entire argument is a case of special pleading. If something else is non-contingent, you must explain why that is not a possible cause of space time.
If it is logically impossible for nothing to exist, then this says nothing about the possibility of something existing in place of the spacetime system.
I addressed that. A bowl of fruit right instead of the universe? Wtf. And I'm the one dealing with absurdities. Also, saying I have ADHD makes you look like an asshole. Way to avoid all my points though.
1. Everything that can be coherently conceived to have gone differently is contingent
2. The universe can be coherently conceived to have gone differently
3. Therefore, the universe is contingent
1. Everything that can be coherently conceived to have gone differently is contingent
2. God can be coherently conceived to have gone differently
3. Therefore, god is contingent
Axiom: "an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of not-P.
Explain god in terms of not-P. Does this argument have any hope of evidence? If not, then it is absurd.
Let me guess, your version of god is the only one that can conceivably exist, therefore he isn't contingent. Bulletproof.
Wow, what a knockdown argument. Oh, let me guess. I don't understand it properly.
I said I accepted ALL your arguments, so get to the punch line.
"If spacetime is all that exists, and it is logically impossible for nothing to exist, we must conclude that it is logically impossible for spacetime to not exist."
No. This easily shown to be false since before the Big Bang, space-time didn't exist.
Is space-time contingent for all possible worlds? Yes, Martin already stated a couple of reasons why, therefore it isn't necessary.
Since it is contingent, the explanation of P has to be Not P.
Merely stating that a == a because a == a isn't anything more than descriptive and circular. Unless I misunderstand him, Martin is asking for prescription causation.
Jotunn,
You are racing around all over the place. I never mentioned "God", so there is no reason for you to bring it up. The ONLY thing in consideration is the axiom and the premise. These play one small role in one argument, and they must be considered as separate things, entirely apart from any leaping into the conclusion that hasn't even been stated yet. Which is what you are doing.
Do you feel these are reasonable? Why or why not? Again, no leaping ahead to "God" or anything else. It is ONLY that axiom and that premise under consideration.
martin,
i understand your concept of the group 'P' that requires 'non-P' explanations
what i dont understand is how you avoid the paradox that, if we have a set 'P' that include all that exist, then by your same logic it needs a 'non-P' to explain it... something that does not exist
Eternal,
That is not a paradox. It is a proposition with an unprovable conjecture for a premise:
IF [only P exists], THEN [non-P is not needed to explain it].
The premise is conjecture, not fact; it has no proof. This statement is the basic failure of Philosophical Materialism: Materialism claims this without either Material evidence or logical support. To base a proposition on an empty conjecture is a logical failure.
Note: a paradox is a specific type of logical construction which can be neither true nor false because it is internally contradictory.
what i dont understand is how you avoid the paradox that, if we have a set 'P' that include all that exist, then by your same logic it needs a 'non-P' to explain it... something that does not exist
The only thing that is included in P is the spacetime system (matter/energy, space, time, physical laws). To state that that is ALL that exists is to presuppose that naturalism is true, which is the very thing in question.
So, again, I am asking if this is a reasonable, if not 100% known, premise. Or at least more reasonable than its opposite:
"If [the spacetime system is all that exists], then [the spacetime system] has no explanation for its existence."
Because, again, you would need to reach outside the spacetime system to explain it (because it is contingent), but if naturalism is true (i.e., all that exists is the spacetime system), then the spacetime system has no explanation for its existence. It just exists, inexplicably.
That is one premise of a three premise argument. I'm trying to settle that before moving on.
So is that a reasonably justified premise to take?
@Stan and Martin
... a paradox is a specific type of logical construction...
sorry for the confusion, I simply meant that it was obviously wrong to claim that something non-existent is responsible of things that exist, even though it seems logical using the axiom presented by Martin; because that it my issue really, and I thus don't understand why you guys seem to want to prove me wrong on something since I did not even make a claim... all I am saying is that I don't get where this "'P' needs a 'non-P'" gets us to.
so again sorry for the confusion with the spacetime stuff, i was not talking about that for now; Jotunn was I believe.
moreover, I don't know what you mean by presupposing naturalism is true or accepting Philosophical Materialism. the things I believe in surely don't depend on accepting these since I am not even sure what they entitle.....
therefore, going back to Martin's statements in order to stay focused and settle that before moving on as he said...
Axiom: "an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of not-P."
Is that a reasonable axiom or not? You would have to maintain that an explanation of P can be P, if you wish to dispute it.
I am still trying to visualize exactly what you mean with this axiom. that's why I gave the example of
'P' = 'things that exist',
which yields the absurd notion that P, things that exist, requires a non-P, things that don’t exist...... but apparently you guys think that it assumes naturalism or something like that....... while I just don't understand what 'P' can or cannot be? can 'P' be anything or not?
you put the qualifier 'contingent' in front of P but not in front of 'not-P' so I have the feeling that what you mean is either:
an explanation of a contingent P must be in terms of non contingent P?
or
an explanation of a P (contingent or not) must be in terms of non P (contingent or not)?
I understand that you already gave examples with something like, to explain mountains you need a non-mountain, but that's actually why I ask what 'P' can be because in the mountain example, the 'not P' is also a contingent existing thing (tectonic plates), so at what point do you get a 'P' that requires a non-contingent 'P'? what fits into that 'P' category? what fits into the 'non-P' category in that case?
by the way, there are still a few questions "on the side" that remained unanswered...... I believe Jotunn asks what things are non-contingent? and I asked what the difference between an infinite god and and infinite black hole is?
@Russell
...before the Big Bang, space-time didn't exist...
I think that this is an over simplification of both what we know and what we can observe. saying that space-time did not exist before the Big Bang is as relevant as saying that there is an infinite amount of matter in a black hole. both are conceptual representations of things we simply cannot observe due to the limit imposed by an event horizon
for the same reason, it is thus possible to posit, conceptually, that space-time is eternal and infinite. it cannot be proven nor observed since it is purely conceptual, but as long as it fits with the observation, we can assume the proposition to be true. same thing goes for gravity that appears to always pull in all directions, infinitely, or entropy which always increases.
again, this thus goes back to my question of what does an infinite god brings to the picture? at least the things I just mentioned, even if defined as non-existent, help us progress with our understanding of the universe. an infinite god on the other hand does help to explain anything, so even if I cannot prove it does not exist, I just don't see why I should believe it does? or perhaps I miss some explanations that an infinite god can yield?
eternal,
If the explanation of P (not-P) is contingent and also requires an explanation or not is irrelevant. The ONLY premise is that if the universe is ALL that exists, then there is no explanation of the universe because there would have to be something else then.
The option of the universe being self-explanatory, non-contingent, necessary, etc., is shown to be non viable from my above argument.
So the ONLY thing in consideration is that premise.
To take the next step, then, the premise considered is the same as this premise:
"If naturalism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence."
Martin,
Don’t let my interruption here stop your logical argument; my input is from general logic, not from the specific stance you are pursuing.
Eternal,
Your presupposition of Materialism is apparently so natural to you that you don’t see that you are using it. When you say that non-p is non-existent, you appear to mean physically, materially. Otherwise there would not be the confusion you appear to project. But there is no reason to limit existence to physical existence, except ideologically. And that ideology is Materialism. But logically there is no reason to so limit existence.
” moreover, I don't know what you mean by presupposing naturalism is true or accepting Philosophical Materialism. the things I believe in surely don't depend on accepting these since I am not even sure what they entitle.....”
This statement can be taken two ways; I’m not sure how to take it.
However, what would happen if you envision a Venn diagram, where a circle represents P. Outside that circle is !P (not P). The total existence represented in that diagram is E = P & !P. So if P is physical existence, then !P is non-physical existence.
But you say:
”'P' = 'things that exist',
which yields the absurd notion that P, things that exist, requires a non-P, things that don’t exist...... but apparently you guys think that it assumes naturalism or something like that....... while I just don't understand what 'P' can or cannot be? can 'P' be anything or not?”
Under this notation of yours, then the Venn diagram above would be this:
P = Q & !Q,
Where
P = possible things which exist,
Q = Material things which exist,
!Q = non-material things which exist.
And for the next level higher, the Venn diagram would be this:
J = All possible things;
J = P & !P
Where
P = possible things which exist,
!P = possible things which do not exist.
And the next level would be this:
K = all things possible and impossible;
K = J & !J
Where
J = All things which are possible
!J = All things not possible
So for a complete statement of possible and impossible existence, then:
K = J & !J = P & !P & !J = Q & !Q & !P & !J.
Stated verbally:
All things possible and impossible include (a) material things which exist; (b) non-material things which exist; (c) possible things which do not exist; (d) all things not possible.
Materialism will hold that (b) cannot exist; but it cannot show any viable reason for that position, and it goes directly against logic which is shown time and again.
(continued)
Your question about the difference or similarity of an infinite god to an infinite black hole seems to be an imponderable with no bearing on the subject at hand. Why is purple like a desk? Unless you can state a reason for looking at specific aspects, the question is without any obvious value or answer. What similarities do you see? If you list your observations, then we have something to discuss; otherwise, not.
”for the same reason, it is thus possible to posit, conceptually, that space-time is eternal and infinite. it cannot be proven nor observed since it is purely conceptual, but as long as it fits with the observation, we can assume the proposition to be true.”
It goes directly contrary to the mathematics derived by Hawking, which cancels any confidence in “fitting with the observation”. There is no observation of pre-Big Bang that conflicts with Hawking’s math that I know of. So it cannot "fit" with the observation.
”again, this thus goes back to my question of what does an infinite god brings to the picture?”
This is a conclusion being jumped to, not one which is posited in the argument being made at this point. Since it is not posited at this point, then it is not relevant.
There is no reason to presume that the existence of a non-contingent entity is contingent upon its explanatory power. In fact, if it exists and is denied, then all alternate explanations are false. Alternate explanations which cannot be proven using material techniques to provide material results are no more explanatory than any other fabrication. The non-contingent entity argument at least has logic on its list of explanans. And from that, deductive explanans can be made which preserve logical power.
"If naturalism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence."
That is not the case. Nor is this a claim of naturalism. It is entirely conceivable that something exists beyond or within the universe which provides a naturalistic explanation for its existence. There are several mathematically (logically) coherent concepts hypothesizing this. Thus explaining P in terms of P and demonstrating your axiom false.
Jotunn,
"There are several mathematically (logically) coherent concepts hypothesizing this."
Sources please. Otherwise this is an empty claim, upon which you base your conclusion.
Also, being natural, meaning material, what is the source of your sources? Or did these material sources create themselves (non-contingent)? And how could part of the universe have created the entire universe? That issue alone falsifies the possibility of coherence.
Jotunn,
It is entirely conceivable that something exists beyond or within the universe which provides a naturalistic explanation for its existence.
A "naturalistic" explanation would just be more universe. What I'm saying is that if [matter/energy, space, time, physical laws] are all that exist, then [matter/energy, space, time, physical laws] have no explanation for their existence.
Martin,
What you are proposing is that there cannot be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe.
I disagree. I'm not going to continue to explain why I disagree on this point.
I accept your premise despite disagreeing with it. We'll call it engaging in a hypothetical. Some might think it absurd, but perhaps by engaging in this thought experiment we can learn something about how logic is applied. Please go about demonstrating how this is an argument for a specific god.
Please don't exclaim about me jumping ahead. This whole issue was about an Argument for the Existence of God. This is your best one too, right?
What you are proposing is that there cannot be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe.
The whole point of the premise is that if there is a "natural" explanation for the universe, then that is just more nature and thus not an explanation for nature. What about THAT natural explanation? Does it have a natural explanation too? And so forth. Say it goes to infinity. Then you have an infinite chain of natural explanations that ITSELF needs an explanation.
Which just leads back to the same core premise: "If [nature is all that exists] then [nature] has no explanation for its existence." This is because nature is contingent, as proved by my earlier argument, and so cannot be self-explanatory. IF it has an explanation, that explanation would have to be outside "nature".
Problems?
And this premise is plausibly the same as: "If naturalism is true, then the universe has no explanation for its existence."
Which, by logical contraposition (if a then b = if not b then not a) is equivalent to: "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then naturalism is false."
Yeah. I get it. I really do. I disagree.
The whole problem of the premise is that if there is a "supernatural" explanation for the universe, then what about THAT supernatural explanation? Does it have a super duper natural explanation? And so forth. Say it goes to infinity. Then you have an infinite chain of super duper natural explanations that ITSELF needs an explanation.
Problems? You seriously can't see the problems?? The logic must be consistent, else it is clearly special pleading.
BUT! I don't care. I accept your premise (for the 4th? time). Demonstrate how this is (the best!) argument for gods existence. Because it seems incredibly lame to me so far.
C'mon I'll help you out.
Let's say the First Way is rock solid. Let's say that a super natural force is required to uphold existence itself. Let's say this force is known as god.
Please argue why this force cares about if I believe in it or not. Please explain how it effects my life. Please explain why I should listen to any religious person claiming to know what this force wants. Please argue why it is a deity of a specific religion.
Else, I am done here.
Jotunn,
The logic IS consistent, but I haven't gotten to the other premises yet. Again you jump around all over the place.
And I am not arguing the First Way, but rather Leibniz. As for a personal God, that would come later and I am not arguing that now. I'm ONLY trying to start at the very beginning, to show how the belief in GENERIC deism/theism can be shown to be more reasonable than belief in naturalism. The step from deism to personal theism is outside the scope of what I am doing here. I'm only trying to plant a tiny starter seed.
So if you accept the premise that "If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then naturalism is false", then it isn't a great leap to go from "naturalism is false" to "theism is true." By theism I mean the only philosophically interesting version: GENERIC (non-religious) Western monotheism, which stretches back to Plato and Aristotle; the IEP explains: "Theism is the view that there is a God which is is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. "
In modern academic philosophy, the only two plausible competing worldviews are naturalism and theism as stated above. Either the universe was created by some "goddish" rational agent (theism), or it was not (naturalism). Granted, there are other possibilities as well, but they are minor and not generally taken very seriously.
So, back to the premise, it could plausibly be seen to be: "If generic theism/deism is false, then nature has no explanation of its existence."
Which contraposed is:
"If nature has an explanation of its existence, then generic theism/deism is true."
Is that still a reasonable premise? Remember, this is not intended to be a 100% mathematical proof, but only reasonable along the lines that "Socrates is a man" or that "All men are mortal." Neither one of those you could prove either. You would need a time machine to prove the first one.
The whole point of the premise is that if there is a "natural" explanation for the universe, then that is just more nature and thus not an explanation for nature. What about THAT natural explanation? Does it have a natural explanation too? And so forth. Say it goes to infinity. Then you have an infinite chain of natural explanations that ITSELF needs an explanation.
it's christmas so i cannot go back to all the previous comments but that is exactly why i come back with the black hole example....
it is not a red hearing or an attempt to ridicule, my point is simply that black holes are infinite, so to posit that an infinite natural cause is inacceptable prevents you, and Stan, from exploring these possibilities. the infinite god scenario is no more, or no less, plausible for the same reasons.
however, the difference is that there is no reason to worship a black hole obviously, and there is no need to assign agency or a gender or any form of anthropormism to a black hole. god on the other hand, because of the tendacy of humans to see pattern, is seen as a kind of super human, a grand designer
he is still labelled as infinite and thus non-real, non-existant
i don't think there is much more to say... if you reject an infinite universe, and infinite chain of causes, a cycle of natural possible exaplanations, then i don't see any reason to accept an infinite god. logically speaking, thats special pleading
Merry Christmas to you all!
Mmhhmm. That rather sounds like a false dichotomy. Not X, therefore Y.
You are also rejecting existing naturalistic explanations. Ones that are mathematically and thus logically coherent. For example string theory, M theory, and loop quantum gravity. I'm not saying those are correct, but that you can't simply dismiss them.
You also did not address the special pleading issue. The universe MUST have an explanation of its existence, but god is exempt.
You are just positing an infinity to escape a infinite regress. Which .. creates an infinite regress..
Also, if god is moral perfection, then explain how a morally perfect being can create a system for which suffering is intrinsically necessary for the existence of life.
Or are we going to disagree that intentionally causing suffering is evil? Classic problem of evil. Please don't respond with free will. Suffering is not required for free will. I am not suffering right now, and I can make choices. My choices are not contingent upon the existence of suffering.
I am not all over the place. You raise these points (morally perfect god) and so I address them. There are simply so many problems with what you are suggesting, it is a challenge to be concise.
I think eternals points were spot on as well.
but only reasonable along the lines that "Socrates is a man" or that "All men are mortal."
We know men exist. We know men die. Neither claim is contentious. Socrates never claimed to be divine.
Finally, if this is The Strongest Argument for the Existence of God .. it still seems incredibly flimsy. I mean .. do arguments like this actually convert people to a specific religion? I do not think so. Arguments like this are constructed by apologists to provide reasons for why they already believe.
eternal,
I think that I see your argument, which centers around the word "infinite" which you take to mean something special when applied within (inside) the universe. Black holes are infinitely small, and infinitely dense; they do not have infinite mass; see this from NASA:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html
They are merely stars reduced in size, infinitely.
They are not posited to have any infinite existence, unless "infinitely small" qualifies. There is no comparison when discussing something with the ability to create the universe within which black holes exist with something which has the mass of a star, but is infinitely small.
If this is not what you mean, then what is it that you mean?
Jotunn,
Mmhhmm. That rather sounds like a false dichotomy. Not X, therefore Y.
I explained why it isn't. There are a dozen interpretations of quantum mechanics, but Copenhagen and many worlds are by far the two ones taken seriously. Thus, a person would be entirely reasonable in holding that many worlds is true if Copenhagen were shown to be false, even though there is a teensy possibility that some of the minor theories could be correct.
You are also rejecting existing naturalistic explanations. Ones that are mathematically and thus logically coherent. For example string theory, M theory, and loop quantum gravity. I'm not saying those are correct, but that you can't simply dismiss them.
Lordy, lordy, lordy...
"If [nature] is all that exists, then [nature] has no explanation for its existence." So M theory, string theory, etc are all more nature, or more [matter/energy, physical laws, space, and time]. As I said above. If that is ALL that exists, then those things have no explanation for their existence. Right?
You also did not address the special pleading issue. The universe MUST have an explanation of its existence, but god is exempt.
I don't see where I mentioned that God exists, or that the universe MUST have an explanation. All I mentioned was: "If [nature] is all that exists, then [nature] has no explanation for its existence." And how it is logically equivalent to: "If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then theism is true."
Perhaps the universe doesn't have an explanation for its existence. I never mentioned anywhere that it MUST, as you say.
Jotunn,
Just time for a few comments:
(1) String theory and brane theory are based on shaky mathematics, where a ratio containing infinities in both the numerator and the denominator is allowed to cancel the top infinities with the bottom infinities in order to produce the equations used to predict strings, branes, etc.
This mathematical monkeying around would not be allowed in the field of Mathematics, but in cosmology, anything goes whether it is mathematically reasonable or not. In this case, it is unreasonable and you should be quite wary of flying in airplanes designed using such math techniques.
Many physicists do dismiss them. Even the cosmologists admit to their shakiness.
(2) Special pleading. Here is the situation being encountered:
Which is more reasonable:
(a) solutions requiring infinite regressions, or (b)solutions not requiring infinite regressions?
The standard philosophical answer is (b).
Your position is that (b) is exceptional because it is reasonable, therefore it is Special Pleading making it not reasonable. (internal contradiction)
It is your analysis which has the internal contradiction and is non-coherent; finding a single correct solution to a problem does not make that solution Special Pleading just because it is different from the infinite numbers of incorrect solutions.
(3) "You are just positing an infinity to escape a infinite regress. Which .. creates an infinite regress.."
That's totally incorrect. A single being with infinite qualities is not an infinite regression of sequential beings.
(4) "Also, if god is moral perfection, then explain how a morally perfect being can create a system for which suffering is intrinsically necessary for the existence of life.
Or are we going to disagree that intentionally causing suffering is evil? Classic problem of evil. Please don't respond with free will...
(snip)
I am not all over the place. You raise these points (morally perfect god) and so I address them."
Really Jotunn. Re-read what Martin said. He said that those issues were down the road. Martin has posited one single step of logic. One (1) (uno). You really are all over the place, pursuing things not even posited, except by your personal extrapolations. Could you just stick to the one step, please? Attacking what you presume to be the second step down the road rather than the proposition given you is both a Red Herring, and a failure to launch an actual argument.
Let's face it, if you can't defeat this logic sequence, taken one step at a time, then neither can you support an "evilgod" argument for declaring god doesn't exist. If you fail to disprove that a non-contingency is rational, parsimonious, and logically necessary, then you certainly can't disprove it with mere opinions of its morals.
(5) ” ’but only reasonable along the lines that "Socrates is a man" or that "All men are mortal.’
We know men exist. We know men die. Neither claim is contentious. Socrates never claimed to be divine.”
Again, missing the point. The point is that you cannot prove these things, either specifically or universally. It is impossible to provide material, incontrovertible evidence as proof. If you accept them, you do it logically, not on the basis of material evidence. There is no rational basis for rejection of those posits, and you have accepted that they are valid on a purely rational, logical basis.
(6) ” Finally, if this is The Strongest Argument for the Existence of God .. it still seems incredibly flimsy.”
And yet you seem to do everything in your power to avoid addressing it. If it is so flimsy, why not prove it wrong? Accusations of a “flimsy” argument without actually addressing the argument itself are flimsy accusations, somewhat on the order of an Ad Hominem, where you denigrate the argument rather than address its substance head on. That’s rather an admission of inability to argue against it appears.
The word "infinite" , as in God as the infinite personal being, seems bound to be perplexing. I find the following passage to be insightful:
"The philosophical idea of God is an analogy of the infinite in finite terms, i.e. in positive, concrete and objective ideas. But these terms cannot be used in the same framework of thought as the negative terms of metaphysic (via negativa) without hopeless confusion.
Because the infinite is not opposed to the finite, being all inclusive, there is no real problem of creation, i.e. of how it is possible for the infinite to produce the finite. The infinite includes the possibility of the finite in principle and by definition. It produces things by becoming finite, without ceasing to be its infinite Self. Yet it is not the One as opposed to the Many, but includes both unity and multiplicity.
(This next part may be objectionable to classical theists.)
The logician's idea of God cannot do full duty for the metaphysical infinity. For God is One, and to say that the universe is a self-limitation of God is to say that all things are one. This would be a monism or pantheism which excludes the reality and significance of finite things. But the infinite includes the finite in a unity (or non-duality) which does not obliterate distinctions." - Alan Watts
Watts has not clarified the actual problem, which is: infinity of what?
If there is an infinity of pop-beads in an infinite chain reaching to infinity, that does not mean that pop-beads are everything which exists. Infinity is not a thing in itself; it is a descriptive quantity of things, a numeric symbol like fourteen, or thirty-eight. Fourteen is not an existence, it is a quantity, and so is infinity.
So saying that a black hole, for example is infinite, is incorrect. A black hole is singular: one black hole. It has some features which are infinite, in this sense: it is infinitely small (dimensional characteristic), and infinitely dense (mass per unit size). It is not an all encompassing infinite material X,Y,Z existence, nor does it have infinite mass, being the result of one star collapsing, nor infinite energy, nor is it non-contingent.
I don't think there are many metaphysicians who subscribe to Watts' statement defining (rather: not defining) the issue.
I did address the prime issue. Multiple times.
I've said I accepted your premise.
Now, please go about explaining the universe.
Jotunn,
I've said I accepted your premise.
So just to be clear, you accept that:
"If [nature] is all that exists, then [nature] has no explanation of its existence."
And you accept that this is the equivalent of:
"If naturalism is true, then the universe has no explanation for its existence."
And you accept that this is plausibly the equivalent of:
"If theism is false, then the universe has no explanation of its existence."
OK, on to the next premise:
"Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."
This is presupposed all the time in science. If something happens, or something exists, we immediately set about looking for the explanation of it. Some things, like mathematical objects (if they do indeed exist), would have an explanation by necessity. The pythagorean theorem is just necessarily true; nothing explains it. It's true by its own nature.
We presuppose it all the time in investigating any situation. We've never seen a counter example to it.
So the premise is more reasonable to accept as true than to deny as false.
Can we expand the definition of "universe" to include potential bubble universes, and any other potential "naturalistic" explanations? I believe your premise remains unchallenged. As you have said, the answer is just "more universe".
So we can say that:
All of existence has no explanation for its existence.. It exists by necessity of its own nature. That is, to exist.
Existence cannot, not exist. For to do so would be contrary to its very nature. And be logically incoherent (as we have agreed pure nothingness is indeed nonsensical).
"Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause."
So I will accept this premise as well.
Jotunn,
Can we expand the definition of "universe" to include potential bubble universes, and any other potential "naturalistic" explanations?
Yes, I included that originally when I said "spacetime system." I use the word universe for short, but that would include bubble universes, multiverses, etc.
The long version is: space, time, mass, energy, the laws of physics. That's what I mean when I say "universe."
If THAT is all that exists, then THAT has no explanation for its existence.
Which is plausibly equivalent to, via the noted steps above:
"If theism is false (i.e., if naturalism is true, i.e., if all that exists is space, time, matter, energy, and the laws of physics), then the universe (i.e., space, time, matter, energy, and the laws of physics) has no explanation for its existence."
If you are OK with that premise, and the next one, then the third and last premise is:
"The universe exists."
So the full argument is:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then theism is true
3. The universe exists
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence
5. Therefore, theism is true
4 and 5 are conclusions that follow DEDUCTIVELY, which means that the only escape is one of the three premises. I doubt you would wish to deny premise 3. Which leaves premises 1 and 2, both of which you agreed with. But you need to deny one if you wish the conclusion to be false.
Martin,
You cannot simply assert that the universe has an explanation for its existence without providing said explanation... which is what you are supposed to be doing.
1. If Existence exist necessarily, theism is false.
2. Existence cannot, not exist. (We agreed on this, Nothingness is incoherent.)
3. Therefore Existence exists, "necessarily of its very nature."
4. Therefore theism is false.
Existence = universe, space-time system, potential bubble universes, alternate dimensions, etc etc etc.
You essentially asserted 1. You agreed to 2. I can see how you can argue against 3. Therefore 4. MUST follow.
Jotunn,
There is no assertion. The argument is logically valid, which means that if all three premises are true, it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false. So you can forget 4 and 5, since they follow logically. You can surely forget 3, since I'm sure you are not a solipsist. So you can cross all that off the list.
Which leaves just 1 and 2. You agreed with 2. Which leaves just 1. If you deny 1, you need to hold that the spacetime system is the one thing that doesn't require an explanation, and you need to justify that some how in a non-ad-hoc way.
If you deny 1, you need to hold that the spacetime system is the one thing that doesn't require an explanation, and you need to justify that some how in a non-ad-hoc way.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause.
It is in the necessity of the nature of Existence to exist. Existence cannot not exist. I'm pretty sure we agreed on this.
Who says Existence is the only thing that doesn't require an explanation? There are a myriad of philosophical questions which may never be answered, and indeed which may have no answer.
Also, this is supposed to be an argument for the existence of god. The strongest one. And you are shifting the burden to me to demonstrate why the universe exists without explanation. (Which I think I gave a fair accounting for anyways.)
You specifically said that the universe has an explanation for its existence. And obviously since you are arguing for theism this explanation involves some sort of deity. (OR am I jumping around too much here?). What you are supposed to be doing is providing justification as to why God is a good explanation for the existence of .. existence.
Not say, the Universe MUST have an explanation, therefore God! I mean really.
Jotunn
I never said this was the strongest argument. In fact, it's just a starter.
Now remember, the argument is logically valid, so the only way to deny the conclusion is to deny one of the premises (and show your work). I see nothing in your comment that supports the negation of either premise.
Jotunn,
I wanted to stay focused, but I feel I should also add that the strongest arguments for God, unlike the one I gave, are actually the Thomistic arguments. They all trace to something that is just Existence itself. Look what Aquinas says here:
"It is evident, therefore, that an intelligence is form and an act of existing, and that it has its act of existing from the First Being which is simply existence only; and this it the First Cause, God."
All five of Aquinas' famous arguments trace to something that is just Existence itself. Not a being among beings, but being itself. You can see an article that expands on that concept here.
That is, in fact, what God is conceived to be on classical theism, which stretches from Greek philosophy all the way through most of Christian history primarily Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). What do you think YHWH means?
"Theistic personalism", the idea of God as an invisible man, is a more recent invention of the evangelicals, and considerably less defensible. That's why they emphasize "faith" over reason. But this is a fairly modern invention.
So what you've done in your argument for Existence, here, is just follow in the footsteps of classical theologians, like Aquinas, and come to the same conclusion. In trying to argue against God, you've actually ended up arguing for Him.
Well, I asked for the strongest argument, and you responded with this. Why would you not present your most convincing argument??
I don't know how I can more clearly explain why your argument is not valid.
God != Existence. Existence = Existence. The term "God" carries far more weight than simply "existence".
Existence exists necessarily. Thus existence has no need for an explanation, thus theism is false.
I bolded that part. I reiterated our common agreement emphasizing the point. I justified why the explanation was not ad hoc special pleading. I pointed out that you are shifting the burden.
I layed out using your own terms how theism must be logically false.
This follows as logically as your own argument (if not more so - I think more so). I've outlined the 4 key points above. If you cannot refute them, you must accept them.
Honestly, this "sophisticated" argument sounds suspiciously like "Well then where did the trees come from??" I am trying to be very charitable here, but you are making it hard on me.
Jotunn,
I note that you have not shown which premise is false. You agreed with both. Therefore, you have rational basis for denying the conclusion.
As for Existence = God, I showed you links to how classical theism does in fact conclude that, and you have not responded to that.
Martin,
I am clearly arguing that the universe (including all potential universes) exists necessarily.
The concept of "God" is not required to explain something which by its very nature cannot be otherwise. Existence cannot not Exist.
Which means that I reject your conclusion reached at 4. It does not logically follow.
You now want to say that God = Existence and thus exists necessarily.
Your links clearly outline that God has features beyond mere Existence, and so your definition of God as "Existence" is rejected as unsupported. Also, a definition of "God" as "Existence" renders "God" superfluous.
This is very much the type of horrible argumentation I have heard repeated for the existence of god. Not only is the logic highly suspect. Not only is does the argument come off incredibly presupposed to the existence of what it is attempting to demonstrate. It is incredibly, incredibly unconvincing.
You want to hold to some sort of syllogistic logic ideal. This is to be commended to some extent.
1. If Existence exist necessarily, theism is false.
2. Existence cannot, not exist. (We agreed on this, Nothingness is incoherent.)
3. Therefore Existence exists, "necessarily of its very nature."
4. Therefore theism is false.
You've agreed to the premises, and the conclusions follow DEDUCTIVELY. If you cannot refute them, you have no rational basis for denying them.
Your response is to equate god to existence, rendering this entire conversation moot. No one is disputing that existence exists.
I am clearly arguing that the universe (including all potential universes) exists necessarily.
You are arguing that Existence exists necessarily, but not our universe or any other universe. Anything could have existed. The only requirement is that something exists, but no particular thing needs to exist.
The attributes of Existence are laid out in my infographic of Aquinas.
It is clear that the universe is not a necessary existence; at one point it did not exist at all. If it were even a mere potential prior to existing, it required being brought to its potential by something else. This is just material science. Arguing against science is futile, right?
Even Hawking argues that something else (gravity) prexisted mass/energy, space/time, which is our particular universe.
Jotunn,
Your first premise is false, unless it presupposes Philosophical Materialism, which declares that there can be no non-material existence, which is internally contradictory. So Premise 1 is false.
Your entire thought process hinges around Philosophical Materialism as a presupposition:
"Your links clearly outline that God has features beyond mere Existence, and so your definition of God as "Existence" is rejected as unsupported. Also, a definition of "God" as "Existence" renders "God" superfluous."
This is only valid within the false ideology of Philosophical Materialism. You have incorrectly defined "existence" by using the Materialist definition, not the open argument definition, which you reject, based on Philosophical Materialism. You might as well just declare that "Philosophical Materialism is true, and I don't have to prove it, it's just true."
Because that is what you are doing.
Here's my own definition of existence, it's as valid as Philosophical Materialism any day:
Existence includes material and non-material possibilities and potentialities and actualities, which makes Philosophical Materialism and Atheism, which are irrationally reductive, superfluous.
Now I'll get out of the way, Martin: sorry for the interruption, sort of.
As we have clearly established, "existence" and "universe" include other possible universes.
the first premise is the inverse of Martins 2. Ie: if the universe is contingent, theism is true. I made the same objection previously. That it is presenting a false dichotomy. However you cannot reject this premise without invalidating your own argument as well.
I'm also not arguing for PM, I am arguing against theism. Total red herring.
No, of course you are not directly arguing for Materialism, you are embedding Materialism in your argument as an unstated, yet obvious, premise. All premises, stated and unstated, must be true if the argument is to be true.
Your statement below is only valid if existence is pre-defined as material:
"God has features beyond mere Existence"
Predefining existence reductively is prejudicial and works only as a circular argument. You are attempting to define the answer in the premises, creating a false "tautology":
IF [X because of Q], THEN Z
X,
THEREFORE [Z {because of X (because of Q)}].
Where,
X = existence;
Q = Philosophical Materialism;
Z = Theism is falsified.
But of course, this argument is circular.
And also, Q is false, so the assertion that X is true is also false. So the entire proposition is false.
You have not proved the converse of the original premise true, except circularly, which is false, and the unstated premise of PM, which is false.
So your first premise is false.
Jotunn says,
"False dichotomy".
Then present the other options.
And recognize that "our universe and all other universes" is a material supposition. Unless you agree that other universe might exist in a non-material, (non-XYZ space, non-time, non-mass/energy) fashion. In that case, material existence is not "necessary". And if this is a false dichotomy, then present the other options for this decision also.
As we have clearly established, "existence" and "universe" include other possible universes.
And as I've clearly responded, "existence" does not entail "a spacetime system." Existence entails ONLY that something exists, not that that existing thing be a spacetime system (no matter how many). To say as much is to embed metaphysical materialism into your premise, and thus beg the question against theism from the start.
>the first premise is the inverse of Martins 2. Ie: if the universe is contingent, theism is true
That is not the inverse of my premise 2. My premise 2 is:
"If naturalism is true, then nature has no explanation of its existence."
The inverse of which is:
"If nature has an explanation of its existence, then naturalism is false."
You are arguing that Existence is necessary, and classical theism would agree with you, but then you are arguing that Existence entails a universe specifically, when there is nothing about Existence that entails that space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws are what must exist. There is nothing necessary about those things. The only necessary thing, per your argument which is the same as Aquinas', is that Existence exists.
Jotunn,
I should have pointed out that I did not say that you were arguing for PM, Jotunn. I said it was a presupposition around which you argument hinges. So your charge of Red Herring is false, since you claim I said something which I did not say. You cannot ignore an argument with such claims.
"If nature has an explanation of its existence, then naturalism is false."
And as you have argued, if naturalism is false, theism is true. I have accepted that for simplicity. So my inverse ("1. If Existence exist necessarily, theism is false.") still seems accurate.
"You are arguing that Existence is necessary, and classical theism would agree with you, "
Agreed.
but then you are arguing that Existence entails a universe specifically, when there is nothing about Existence that entails that space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws are what must exist. "
No I am not.
Existence happens to comprise a universe, but a universe as we know it is certainly not necessary. Something is necessary.
For us to argue over it, this universe is necessary. Anthropic Principle.
So what we are left with, is we have Existence, which as we observe is filled with Material.
We agree on this. ?
You are arguing for:
the·ism
noun /ˈTHēˌizəm/
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures
Is this not a fair, yet reasonably vague, definition of a deity?
Does your argument come even mildly close to upholding this position?
You are arguing that if the existence is contingent, theism is true. And if existence is necessary, theism is true. Well isn't that convincing. Speaking of tautological word games.
So what we are left with, is we have Existence, which as we observe is filled with Material.
We agree on this. ?
But existence itself is not a material "thing." Anything could logically exist. But Existence itself is not a "thing." The material things that exist in our universe participate in existence, but are not existence itself.
Does your argument come even mildly close to upholding this position?
The Leibniz argument above was only a starter, but Thomas Aquinas does in fact uphold this position. As you can see from my infographic, Aquinas extracts the same attributes from Pure Existence as you can see listed here.
Existence, as we have defined it, is the accumulation of all material things. It is all possible universes, dimensions, etc. it is not immaterial. It is necessary by it's very nature, as nothingness is incoherent.
If anything can logically exist, then why posit theism?
Sorry, Martin . Your starter argument is going no where. Introducing more arguments based on a flimsy starter argument will produce nothing constructive. I've also noted several major issues with Aquinas at the very beginning of this thread.
Is it too much to acknowledge that these "best" arguments are, at worst, theological word games. And at their strongest, unconvincing.
Is this what convinced you that theism is true?
"Existence, as we have defined it, is the accumulation of all material things."
That, then, is the underlying source of circularity. Define Q as true, then show that Q is true because Q is defined as true.
Where exactly was that agreed to? I came in late.
Existence, as we have defined it, is the accumulation of all material things.
That is not Existence, as other things could logically exist as well. A disembodied mind, for example. Or Platonic objects. If those things can exist, then Existence itself is not identical to "all material things." Existence stands apart from them.
Jotunn said,
"Is this what convinced you that theism is true?"
Interesting. It was illogic like you persist in that first convinced me that Atheism is false. No reality based logician (e.g. enigineer) would use faulty logic like that above. The reason should be obvious, but apparently is not. If a device were to be designed using circular or infinite regression logic, it could not possibly work. Any engineer who blindly insists on circularity would be out on his ear due to failure to produce real world working systems.
Likewise in worldviews: circularity and infinite regression are ideology based, not logic deductions based on grounded principles. So the claims of rationality and logical worldviews by Atheists are blatantly false.
Since I value true principles over ideology, I left Atheism behind to search for whatever might actually be true.
So the question, Jotunn, becomes, do you believe you can prove the truth of your denialist worldview? If so, then show your proof; if not, then why would you believe it?
I thought I posted this already, but maybe it didn't go through because I was sending via mobile. (It's longer this time.)
Martin, can you describe how it is logically possible for a disembodied mind to exist? I think Platonic objects exist as ideas. Then again, so do disembodied minds.
Regarding the Existence issue: I am using the term "Existence" instead of Universe because we initially agreed that Universe was to comprise multiple dimensions, alternate universes, infinite bubble universes, etc. Not just this universe. I will use the term Multiverse instead. You cannot claim the Multiverse could conceivably be different because it theoretically comprises all potential realities.
I feel it costs me nothing to assume that Material exists necessarily. We cannot create material. We have not seen material destroyed nor created. Just change states. If it cannot be created or destroyed, is it not necessarily eternal. If it is eternal, does it not exist necessarily?
We have infinite examples of material, and zero examples of the immaterial (word games and fanciful imaginations aside). Where does the preponderance of evidence fall? On the side with all the evidence, or the side with zero evidence?
Anyways, we are no where near establishing any good reason to think any particular or generic god is a plausible, never mind reasonable, assumption.
Stan, you just want to switch the subject, which I am not going to bite at.
That, then, is the underlying source of circularity. Define Q as true, then show that Q is true because Q is defined as true.
Yet you cannot demonstrate that my definition of "Q" is not true. So yes, in many ways atheism seems tautologically correct.
1. Atheism is the position that there are no gods.
2. There are no gods.
3. Hence, atheism is true.
Show me a god, (who's definition is not incoherent or superfluous) and you might just find yourself with a new convert here.
The point is that you cannot demonstrate that your claim is true; so your thought process is no more than an opinion.
Your demand to be shown God is completely dependent upon the unstated presuppositions that God (a) is material so that you can be shown; (b) would performfor you to your demand; (c) that the existence of a deity is dependent on your personal observation.
There is no reason to believe that any of those to be the case. Your demand is irrelevant to the proposition that a first cause exists.
And since you don't care about the circularity of your position, or your inability to provide support for your premises, your dedication to logic and rational processes is definitely in question.
Material cannot be created or destroyed and thus requires no first cause. This is a law of thermodynamics, not just my opinion.
Again, you have shifted the burden of proof to me. Despite the parameters of this debate to be the best reasons to accept theism. The unstated demands you attribute to me is pure straw man.
You provide no reason for me to accept your claim as true. None. You don't even try.
Jotunn,
1. Material which is now described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not exist at the time of the Big Bang.
2. The conservation of mass/energy applies only after the Big Bang, when mass/energy actually exist, not before or during.
3. In a syllogicstic statement of deductive logic (which you attempted), the second premise must be proved, because it is an assertion of implied truth. If you imply truth in a declaration, then it is up to you to provide evidence of that truth, otherwise there is no reason to accept the syllogism as valid reasoning. That evidence may be a series of deductive syllogisms which end in axioms. Each and every syllogism in the chain requires proof of the second premise. That is the way deductive logic works.
If you deny that then you deny the value of logic in your position.
4. The proposition has been made, it is up to you to disprove it. Denial that it has been made seems to indicate complete defeat.
So far you have made circular arguments and stuck by them despite the error; you have claimed physical characteristics for the pre-Big Bang noon-physical existence - Category Error; you give no evidence for your syllogisms - basic logic error, and you reject logic procedures in the rejection of burden of proof for your own syllogisms.
Please address these logical lapses, and either say why they are valid for your case only (i.e. go ahead and Special Plead); or correct them and resubmit.
1.& 2. The BBT describes an Expansion of matter. Not its creation. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You are wrong. Google some science.
3. It is a fallacy to require the universal disproof of a negative claim. Demanding such is simply absurd.
4. No coherent proposition has been made.
You continue to shift the burden of proof. Defend your own world view.
You continue to avoid doing so, which seems to demonstrate how indefensible it is.
The Best Reasons to Accept Theism
Martin has volunteered that "the universe exists, therefore God". Did you want to try your own hand?
"you have claimed physical characteristics for the pre-Big Bang noon-physical existence"
What? I did no such thing. I didn't say anything about a "pre-BB" state.
"you give no evidence for your syllogisms"
I'm assuming you mean "No gods exist", because the rest were agreed upon by participating parties. This is a baiting question designed only to shift the burden of proof and is inherently fallacious as it requires exhaustive knowledge of the universe, and a working definition of theism/god, which you also fail to provide.
Honestly, it sounds like you are more interested in rhetoric than actually having a conversation. And so I say; Good day!
Jotunn said,
”The BBT describes an Expansion of matter. Not its creation. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You are wrong. Google some science.”
Jotunn, that is incorrect. Read some Hawking.
”It is a fallacy to require the universal disproof of a negative claim. Demanding such is simply absurd.”
If a claim, even or especially a universal claim, is made under Materialism, then it requires the same proof that Materialism makes of any other claim. Otherwise the claim is without evidence as required by materialism of all knowledge, and is therefore merely opinion… without evidence: blind belief: pure ideology.
” No coherent proposition has been made.”
Having proved nothing presented here to be non-coherent yourself, you make this charge in a vacuum.
”You continue to shift the burden of proof. Defend your own world view.”
You continue to reject the necessity for any support of your own position. These “points” which you are making here are without any value in defending either Atheism or Materialism. You appear to have given up, and are attempting to derail the conversation from pointing to your responsibility for supporting your position under the conditions required by your ideology, Materialism.
”You continue to avoid doing so, which seems to demonstrate how indefensible it is.”
As stated before, this blog is about Atheist positions and the logical analysis of Atheism. Since you cannot defend either Atheism or Materialism, you are engaging in Tu Quoques and denial of responsibility.
You commented in previous comments above:
”Material cannot be created or destroyed and thus requires no first cause. This is a law of thermodynamics, not just my opinion.”
Then you say,
”What? I did no such thing. I didn't say anything about a "pre-BB" state.
You said that material existed prior to the Big Bang; it cannot be destroyed according to your erroneous interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics, which you personally extend to before the Big Bang in order to provide phony information about the Big Bang.
(continued)
(continued from above)
Jotunn said in earlier comment, above:
”"Existence, as we have defined it, is the accumulation of all material things."
I responded,
”That, then, is the underlying source of circularity. Define Q as true, then show that Q is true because Q is defined as true.
Jotunn responded,
”Yet you cannot demonstrate that my definition of "Q" is not true. So yes, in many ways atheism seems tautologically correct.
1. Atheism is the position that there are no gods.
2. There are no gods.
3. Hence, atheism is true.
Show me a god, (who's definition is not incoherent or superfluous) and you might just find yourself with a new convert here.
I responded:
”The point is that you cannot demonstrate that your claim is true; so your thought process is no more than an opinion.
Your demand to be shown God is completely dependent upon the unstated presuppositions that God (a) is material so that you can be shown; (b) would performfor you to your demand; (c) that the existence of a deity is dependent on your personal observation.
There is no reason to believe that any of those to be the case. Your demand is irrelevant to the proposition that a first cause exists.
And since you don't care about the circularity of your position, or your inability to provide support for your premises, your dedication to logic and rational processes is definitely in question.”
From the list of your logic errors which I give you, you choose this response,
”"you give no evidence for your syllogisms"
I'm assuming you mean "No gods exist", because the rest were agreed upon by participating parties. This is a baiting question designed only to shift the burden of proof and is inherently fallacious as it requires exhaustive knowledge of the universe, and a working definition of theism/god, which you also fail to provide.”
Wherein you inadvertently list the reasons why your position of materialism is untenable: You cannot prove it: it is inherently fallacious as it requires exhaustive knowledge of universe and theism/god, which you don’t have.
Moreover it is false that it was agreed to by all parties: it is an absurdity which you demanded in order to make your circular argument. Which you then expanded into an even more fallacious argument and then wouldn't address the fallacies within it.
Your final crack implies that your inability to support your own claims is due to rhetoric. You've been given adequate space to defend your ideology. Now you crumble into senseless accusations, aka Ad Hominems.
Good day to you too. And I presume that you will shut the door behind you. Actually I will do that for you. Your future access is denied.
It is not possible to have discussions with someone who denies the fallacies he is using, and denies responsibility for supporting his position with the evidence his position requires. That's the problem here, not rhetoric.
Wow! I'm SOOOO pleased to have started a discussion with my post @ PZ's site.
I'm highly amused by some of the theist commentary.
Continue! Please!
Post a Comment