Here is just part one, The Problem of Predisposition, which he seems to think drives all personal philosophies:
I. The theist defines a god. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.This is abjectly ignorant of actual Theism. By making up a phony Theist, Henson has predicated his entire argument on a completely false premise. Actual Theism observes physical reality (empirically) and then deduces whether non-physical observable traits which exist could have physical, deterministic causes. If not, what sort of causes must they have, if they are not independent “causes without a cause” themselves. This is a legitimate thought process, and is entirely different from the Atheist thought process which eliminates a priori the ability of a non-physical process to have any other source than deterministic physical causes. This Atheist restriction is without any rational reason; it is dogma only.
Henson’s definition is a Straw Man. Atheists charge opponents with creating Straw Men in virtually every argument situation, and rarely if ever is their charge correct. Yet Atheists use Straw Men constantly in their own arguments, as is demonstrated here. It’s as if they fear that which they use the most, as robbers fearing being robbed because that is what they do and are familiar with.
Here the charge of Straw Man is legitimate. Henson has fantasized a target to attack in further arguments. Because he actually has fully defined his target, his argument might be valid regarding that target. The issue is whether that target represents actuality, and it quite obviously does not, except in Henson’s mind.
Because he conceptualizes Theists as fools, this entire work is seen to be an exercise in Atheist bigotry.
But for grins, let’s at least take a look at his second proposition.
II. The theist rejects thousands of other definitions of god without considering most of them.False in the first place: Theists are aware that other gods are worshipped and that if they exist they are subsidiary to the creator of all of them, rendering them rationally trivial.
In the second place that is immaterial to any claims that a deity does not exist; it is merely the basis for a Tu Quoque Fallacy and nothing more.
This is interesting; a compendium of logic errors in a paper titled "Dossier of Reason". Let’s do the next one:
III. There are billions of people who reject the theist’s particular definition of god, who have as little regard for the theists (sic) definition of god as he does for their definition of god(s).This is an appeal to popular opinion fallacy, which has no bearing on either facts or truth; it is used as prejudicial data, but it is not evidence for the lack of a non-physical agent.
IV The theist’s choices in defininig god are very likely determined by culture, accident of birth, and childhood indoctrination.
While this has some credibility in terms of demographics, it has no bearing on whether a non-physical agent actually exists; it is another set of prejudicial data which is without any truth value regarding the actual subject. And it includes the fallacy from number I, above, assuming that the deity is created by humans as the first premise in the argument (circular).
V. The Outsider Test.This is a bogus assumption which assumes that there are no logical arguments to be made, and proceeds to attack arguments which are neither necessary nor sufficient, nor even useful for the actual subject at hand. All logical arguments are ignored as if they do not exist. This is prejudicial to the maximum, and has no value in determining the credibility of actual Theist arguments.
That’s it for part one. I see no need to continue, since every argument is false or prejudicial and non-essential. In terms of philosophy and logic, this paper is a non-starter.
40 comments:
1) Mr. Henson was a youth pastor. I don't think it is a legitimate argument to accuse him of being ignorant of theism. Nor does it seem likely he considers all theists to be fools.
Nor do many atheists. One is not a fool for being indoctrinated from birth to believe things later derided as an adult.
Your points merely serve to attack the man, rather than the argument.
2) Your description of theism actually seems to refute your straw man charge.
By defining theism as such, you have defined god as the non-physical cause of physical reality. Correct?
His premise seems accurate. Theist defines god. To dispute this seems utter nonsense. The unbeliever may have an incorrect definition of the theist idea of god. But this comes no where near an objection to the Problem of Predisposition.
Also, you have defined Deism. Not Theism. The Problem of Deism is ALSO addressed.
3) This is a legitimate thought process
If by this, you mean a legitimate way to actually learn anything about reality, I disagree. It sounds like an argument for fantasy. "Could this have a non-physical cause? Could that cause be an Invisible Unicorn? It could be an Invisible Unicorn!"
4) Atheist thought process which eliminates a priori the ability of a non-physical process
Demonstrably false in thousands of cases where theists become atheists. The assumption in all these cases has been the existence of a god.
5) II. The theist rejects thousands of other definitions of god without considering most of them.
False in the first place: Theists are aware that other gods are worshipped and that if they exist they are subsidiary to the creator of all of them, rendering them rationally trivial.
I need not dismiss Yahweh as Cthulu is superior thus Yahweh is rationally trivial? Really is that your stance here?
There are thousands (if not millions) of other gods worshiped fervently throughout human history. All these gods but one are rejected by your typical American theist.
So the second proposition is obviously true.
The points of III, IV, V you seem to dismiss as separate answers to a question no one asked. They are points supporting the original premise.
The theist defines god. He defines it based primarily on his culture and personal experiences. He has no issues dismissing other faiths/experiences, often without even giving them any serious consideration.
How you can seriously dispute this, I have no idea.
6) All logical arguments are ignored as if they do not exist.
Cosmological Arguments
Teleological Argument
Ontological Argument
Argument from Beauty and Goodness
Moral Argument
Argument from special knowledge or special revelation.
Argument from free will and faith
Argument from Pascal’s Wager
ARE ALL ADDRESSED.
So what do I call this? Ignorance? Laziness? Are you just hoping no one else reads that far?
TL:DR
Your response is full of fallacy, ignorance and fantasy.
Your only point which could have some legitimacy is to accuse him of a straw man when he claims that the theist defines god.
And then you define god.
”1) Mr. Henson was a youth pastor. I don't think it is a legitimate argument to accuse him of being ignorant of theism. Nor does it seem likely he considers all theists to be fools.
Nor do many atheists. One is not a fool for being indoctrinated from birth to believe things later derided as an adult.
Your points merely serve to attack the man, rather than the argument.”
Interesting. You agree that it is derision, but not with my comment that he considers Theists fools. This is cognitive dissonance to the point of rational non-coherence.
If a man is attacking others as fools, and he is, then he is subject to the term bigot; I stand by that.
Being a youth pastor does not necessarily accredit one as a knowledgeable Theist. That is a version of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
” 2) Your description of theism actually seems to refute your straw man charge.
By defining theism as such, you have defined god as the non-physical cause of physical reality. Correct?
His premise seems accurate. Theist defines god. To dispute this seems utter nonsense. The unbeliever may have an incorrect definition of the theist idea of god. But this comes no where near an objection to the Problem of Predisposition.
Also, you have defined Deism. Not Theism. The Problem of Deism is ALSO addressed.”
First point: Deduction is absolutely not the same thing as definition. Deduction involves rationally arriving at a conclusion based on grounded premises and proper syllogistic format; definition involves forcing a meaning onto a word. Entirely different. Not knowing this basic concept does not make for valid argumentation and reflects on your rational credibility. His premise is not only not accurate, it is false.
Second point: Yes, I defined deism, because the basic premise of Theism, that God exists, was erroneously described; this also applies to Deism.
” 3) This is a legitimate thought process
If by this, you mean a legitimate way to actually learn anything about reality, I disagree. It sounds like an argument for fantasy. "Could this have a non-physical cause? Could that cause be an Invisible Unicorn? It could be an Invisible Unicorn!"
Hypothesis, deduction based on grounded premises, and testing Reductio Ad Absurdum are standard logical procedures. You appear to be totally ignorant of disciplined, syllogistic logic at even the most fundamental level. Arguing unicorns is a sure sign, because unicorn arguments are false analogies, a fundamental error in logic.
Your materialist concept of reality is used here to insert the Category Error into your argument, yet another logic error on your part.
” 4) Atheist thought process which eliminates a priori the ability of a non-physical process
Demonstrably false in thousands of cases where theists become atheists. The assumption in all these cases has been the existence of a god.”
Then let’s discuss these thought processes which assume that a god exists:
There is a god, and it is:
(a) evil
(b) not visible in the physical universe
(c) doesn’t answer prayers
(d) Should show himself on my command
(e) [any other argument you choose]
Let’s have a go at this thought process. You choose, and elaborate on the logic. But use actual logic.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
” 5) II. The theist rejects thousands of other definitions of god without considering most of them.
False in the first place: Theists are aware that other gods are worshipped and that if they exist they are subsidiary to the creator of all of them, rendering them rationally trivial.
I need not dismiss Yahweh as Cthulu is superior thus Yahweh is rationally trivial? Really is that your stance here?
There are thousands (if not millions) of other gods worshiped fervently throughout human history. All these gods but one are rejected by your typical American theist.”
Appeal to popular opinion fallacy. In this case probably false. In any case it proves nothing regarding the existence of a non-material agent (one who can influence his creation should he wish, for Theism). The existence of a single non-physical agent is all that is needed, necessary and sufficient to support the logically deduced concept. Here you have defined a competing, prefabricated concept to compete with a rational deduction (which you apparently don’t comprehend). So your comparison is yet another Category Error of which Atheists are so fond, and vulnerable.
” The points of III, IV, V you seem to dismiss as separate answers to a question no one asked. They are points supporting the original premise.”
The original premise/conclusion is logically false. And these supporting premises are false, as is demonstrated. None of the premises can show causality for the conclusion of error in basic theism. They are all purely prejudicial.
” 6) All logical arguments are ignored as if they do not exist.
Cosmological Arguments
Teleological Argument
Ontological Argument
Argument from Beauty and Goodness
Moral Argument
Argument from special knowledge or special revelation.
Argument from free will and faith
Argument from Pascal’s Wager
ARE ALL ADDRESSED.
So what do I call this? Ignorance? Laziness? Are you just hoping no one else reads that far?”
The reference obviously was to the part which I reviewed. There is no provision in that section for the possibility of justified belief, and it is directly stated that the opposite is the case, that Theists fabricate the deity. Apparently you missed that. And that is still another Category Error: insisting that I should have considered Section Q, when I specified that I was reviewing Section I.
Your arrogance and superiority attitude is belied by your inability to comprehend the most basic concepts in modern logic, concepts which are at the front of every freshman logic textbook. This persistent illogic renders your personal attack moot and trivial, and demonstrates the level of your personal powers of rational analysis.
Such attacks, when you are blatantly wrong, should be embarrassing to you, not to mention the wider Atheist community.
godless materialist,
I don't think it is a legitimate argument to accuse him of being ignorant of theism.
I can prove right now that he is ignorant of theism. Check out my description of Aquinas' cosmological argument: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/02/aquinas-first-way-express-version.html
Really read it. Understand it. Ask questions. Don't attempt to offer any objections right now. That's not the point. Just read it slowly and carefully. Read the longer version.
Then, go back and have a look at the Dossier of "Reason's" description of the argument. It's so mangled it's not even wrong.
"There are thousands (if not millions) of other gods worshiped fervently throughout human history. All these gods but one are rejected by your typical American theist.”
There are an infinite quantity of numbers which might serve as the answer to two plus two. All of these numbers but one are rejected by the so-called "sane person". The fools.
The Dossier of Reason was incredibly interesting. I haven't finished reading it yet.
"I. The theist defines a god. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns."
Just means that a theist has a definition of God in his head and a theist has ideas about his nature, etc.
This is true. I know that as a theist I have/had ideas about God's character and nature. If I didn't then God would be a nothing. A valueless non-entity. Now that I think of it even calling God a "He" is defining his nature as male.
What stops me continuing reading Stan's reply is he says the theist doesn't define God and then defines God. I'll have to come back to this.
More proof of the supernatural that so-called atheists will deny. Demons attack house. Newspaper article. Mordern Day.
http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8512:goblins-attacks-family-burn-down-homestead&catid=38:travel-tips&Itemid=18
The days are coming when so-called atheists will see this.
Martin...
You said regarding Aquinas' cosmological argument:
Really read it. Understand it. Ask questions. Don't attempt to offer any objections right now. That's not the point. Just read it slowly and carefully. Read the longer version.
Yet, when we tell you Marting why it is WRONG over and over again, in details, slowly, point by point, you ignore the rebuttal, walk away and come back to Stan's blog for comfort and re-assurance in your non-atheist-non-theist irrelevant position.
Two examples on two unimportant sources:
On Stan's blog
WeAreSMRT forum
I really don't understand why someone like you, who appear to not deny basic sciences like biology, can be so against the idea of not believing in gods. Are you afraid of something or what?
Don't you see that Stan is the one with the cognitive bias here? He is simply not able to consider a world devoid of divine intervention. Yet you, Martin, is much different. You understand that humans did not need the intervention of any god to become who they are. We are animals. Extremely intelligent ones yes, but we are "just" animals. That's it. No god needed.
The rest is anthropology, sociology, history, biology, psychology and of course theology; because it's just so f*ing interesting to explore the stuff human made up over the years... LOL
Take care dude.
If I were knowledgeable in terms of modern psychology, I'd try to assemble a generic, psychological profile about the narcissistic, cult-llike conduct of most of its more outspoken members.
Failing the understanding of at least the basic premise of Theism in general, or al least, the most frequent failure to understand the very basic premise of Classical Theism is what render these discussions useless and energy-wasting, and it is known where the ignorance is coming from.
Fortunately, no every Atheist is like that (this is a rather experiential issue, and that is demonstrably true, with the extra limitation imposed by the positive assertion of the falseness of the thesis defined in Theism), but at the same time, Atheism is accepted when most of its outpoken proponents, rather get too rushy conclusions in a negative, emotional state (denialism), which then begins to manifest that very well known narcissistic conduct, which is seen within every fundamentalist group, e. g.
Racists, Xenophoics, Hooligans, Religious Fundamentalists, Free Software Fanatics, Anarchists (these are most of the time violent atheists, like those Zeitgetist pushy members), and so on.
What I always find curious about 99% of atheists I've ever met, is that what they deny, is the concept of Classical Theism, even when most of them don't seem to understand the logical arguments that support classical theism. On the other hand, I don't see them doing serious arguments against Panteism, Panentheism or Animisn without resorting to straw men almost every time.
If most of the outspoken Atheists attack the concept of Classical Theism by supporting organizations which depend on the acceptance of the definition of Secular Humanism, or any other political mean, and don't admit their lack of understanting of the definition posited by Classical Theism, then I frankly don't see any posiblity of how could they understand concepts like Pantheism, Panentheism, and Animism(which are also associated with the most generic concept of Theism), without throwing any blurb whatsoever.
That is one of the reasons why I find Atheism is rather self-limiting for an individual to try and correctly induce different sources of knowledge.
Some strongly held positions need to be well known and well argumented so it is possible to know if they could be rationally addressed, until what principle.
What is really difficult at least for me, is to clarify the boundaries between the plausiblity of the divine experiences and where it is possible to begin to induce that experience with logical arguments, because of the nature of knowing that source of knowledge itself (being myself an apprentice to mystic).
At least in my humble experience, is that the concept of Classical Theism, the concept of Panentheism and the concept of Animism, all seem to be true, even if are mutually-exclusive when taken from the same first principle.
This is why I say, that there is a frontier where some logical arguments may fail proving for Theism when being analyzed with some evidentiary weight, but unfortunately, some people seem to carry away way too far with this just for the self-satsfaction of giving some prejudicial opinions.
Obviously, if many of these atheists were honestly researching, discussions of these topics would be much more amenable.
Fortunately, there's always evidence which may favor the possibiltiy of making Theism as an accepted truth, it depends if somebody honestly looks for it or not, or finds it in a way that the individual may understand, without inmediately resorting to hasty associations, but the correct definitions which may lead to correct associations (something that may take years).
Kind Regards.
I looked at Martin's description of the cosmological argument.
The biggest problem with the conclusion is that the argument against the possiblity of an infinite chain of ordinary objects, each moved by some previous object, seems transparently question-begging. On the face of it, Aquinas is saying: There must be a first mover, since if there weren't there would be no first mover. But that is a terrible argument: nothing could be less convincing.
Martin. That is a different Cosmological Argument. Just because he didn't address your pet argument doesn't make him ignorant.
Matteo. Yes, there are an infinite number of gods posited. What makes yours more likely than the rest?
This is the problem of Presupposition. The vast majority believe in the gods of their parents, because that is the culture they were raised in. The explain to the child what god is, what he commands, what he has done in the past, what he wishes us not to do. This is Henson's initial premise which Stan disputes.
This seems overwhelmingly obvious, yet he dismisses the entire argument because he claims this premise is a straw man.
I'm sorry, but for a blog that trumpets the use of reason and logic, I can't imagine a more emotionally driven knee jerk rejection than the one given.
The "logical" response has been to declare the atheist thought process illegitimate (no logic provided for this), to Tu Quoque that it is the atheist that presupposes, to invoke atheist "dogma", to claim atheists insist on straw men, to compare them to robbers, to claim the atheist regards the theist a fool.
And that's just by the third paragraph, yes?
godless said,
"This is the problem of Presupposition. The vast majority believe in the gods of their parents, because that is the culture they were raised in. The explain to the child what god is, what he commands, what he has done in the past, what he wishes us not to do. This is Henson's initial premise which Stan disputes".
That is false, entirely. Henson's first premise is that Theists make up god. He makes this definition the basis for the "Theism" which he attacks. His premise is false, so his arguments are false and trivial, not being related to actual Theism. This is precisely a Straw Man.
I'll repeat this is a different way, since it seems so hard to understand:
I dismiss the entire argument based on the Straw Man of the very first statement, which claims that it is true that Theists "define" a deity, i.e. make one up. The entire remainder of that section is based on that creation, so the entire section is based on that Straw Man. Since his definition of Theist and consequently Theism is false, his arguments cannot address anything which is actual, and therefore they are without value.
The use of obviously prejudicial data obviously has no bearing on the actual existence of a non-material agent, and the presentation of that data is intended to Poison The Well.
The entire first Section is based on logical error.
The charge of emotion is rejected due to the entire lack of evidence; if you make charges, then you must provide evidence or they are rejected.
"The "logical" response has been to declare the atheist thought process illegitimate (no logic provided for this),..."
The logic was absolutely provided, which you ignore:
" Actual Theism observes physical reality (empirically) and then deduces whether non-physical observable traits which exist could have physical, deterministic causes. If not, what sort of causes must they have, if they are not independent “causes without a cause” themselves."
Not to comprehend the difference between syllogistic deduction and definition is a serious logical flaw, one which Henson exhibits and which several of the commenters here exhibit. If Henson or any of you wish to attack Theism, then you should attack it as it is, not as you fantasize it.
On the other hand, if you wish to attack your fantasy, which Henson has defined, then go ahead but understand that it is not rational and is not worthy of discussion here.
"to Tu Quoque that it is the atheist that presupposes,..."
Henson has obviously presupposed his fantasy Theist. Obviously. The charge of presupposition while actually doing exactly that himself is a display of maximal irrationality.
"to invoke atheist "dogma",..."
Yes, absolutely: No non-physical agent can be considered because non-physical entities cannot be possible, a priori, by declaration, not by evidence or logic. That is the most common Atheist position I have found, and it is Philosophical Materialist dogma, because it is a belief without proof either evidence or logic, dogmatically held.
"to compare them to robbers"
That can't be a problem within the Atheist Moral Tenet Handbook, can it?
"to claim the atheist regards the theist a fool."
Absolutely; anyone who makes up a fantasy and then believes it would be so considered.
To any Atheist interested:
The Article so-called "Dossier of Reason" is not giving the correct premise regarding the definition of Classical Theism (which is simply called "Theism" in the article, for the sake of simplification).
That article is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the concept of Classical Theism, it doesn't matter if Mr.Henson was a Pastor or not.
Even the bogged down concept of Classical Theism in Wikipedia gives a clue, but the author of DoR (abbreviating Dossier of Reason) is, in the first instance, confusing Classical Theism with Theistic Personalism, and is TP (again abbreviating Theistic Personalism) what is attacking, but then conflates the whole concept with CT (abbreviating Classical Theism).
About the Outsider's Test of Faith, well, I'm afraid the arguments are not well addressed. The question of God is not exclusively a scientific one (scientism), and also fails to address the argument of Demarcation made by Karl Popper.
These type of Atheists should have a better understanding of those concepts, before bashing every believer in sight, please, please try to understand what the argument of Classical Theism posits.
Kind Regards.
eternal,
Your time has come. You make no cases, you make unsubstantiated inferences and insults only. The last time you were here you revelled in your ability to puke on stuff just because it was fun.
Go have some fun somewhere else. You will not be commenting here again.
godless materialist,
That is a different Cosmological Argument. Just because he didn't address your pet argument doesn't make him ignorant.
That is THE cosmological argument. The one that stretches back to Aristotle. The oldest. Does the Dossier of "Reason" address it? No. It's not even wrong.
Similar holds for all his other arguments, aside from the biological design arguments.
P.S.,
The biggest problem with the conclusion is that the argument against the possiblity of an infinite chain of ordinary objects, each moved by some previous object, seems transparently question-begging.
You must have missed the entire article, then. Look at the longer one. He has quite justifiable reasons for claiming that the series has a first cause. HINT: Not the difference between accidental and essentially ordered series.
P.S. said,
" But that is a terrible argument: nothing could be less convincing."
That is not an argument, that is an opinion, and an unconvincing one. How about making an actual refutation?
Henson's first premise is that Theists make up god.
No, it isn't.
Is that seriously what you are reading?
He said the Theist defines god.
If you want to know about god, you ask a theist.
If you want to know about Christianity, you ask a Christian.
The same goes for any other faith.
It is the faithful that tell everyone else about their faith.
THAT is what the premise is. It is the very antithesis of a straw man. He is literally saying that YOU define YOUR position.
I completely fail to comprehend on what basis you reject this.
Henson has obviously presupposed his fantasy Theist. Obviously.
Yeah it is so obvious. Pretty much every youth pastor I've ever met presupposes atheism. /s
I'm seriously wondering if this entire blog is a Poe.
Rob, thank you for your comment. I had the same reaction.
What stops me continuing reading Stan's reply is he says the theist doesn't define God and then defines God.
I'm glad I'm not the only one!
Storm! Those were GOBLINS not DEMONS! Goblins are way easier to kill than most demons. Demons you usually need a magic sword. You can just chuck rocks at goblins.
I guess you just don't understand theism..
Are you fucking serious Stan??
He explained why it was a bad argument.
The biggest problem with the conclusion is that the argument against the possiblity of an infinite chain of ordinary objects, each moved by some previous object, seems transparently question-begging. On the face of it, Aquinas is saying: There must be a first mover, since if there weren't there would be no first mover.
I think it is obvious you have zero interest in an actual discussion.
You just ignore everything the man said, pull his last line out of context and mockingly respond.
That is not an argument, that is an opinion, and an unconvincing one. How about making an actual refutation?
Yonose. I don't know what you mean by "classical theism". Would you care to DEFINE it for us?
This is a major hurdle (which the DoR addresses). Each theist has their own definition of god.
It is always the case that the theist can claim (honestly) well that's not what I believe.
So, as the premise asserts, the theist defines god. If you say "that's not theism" it is because it doesn't match YOUR definition.
Regardless, the premise seems indisputably true.
Especially since Stan has himself provided a definition himself.
godless materialist,
He explained why it was a bad argument.
And I just explained, a few comments up, how the commenter apparently just skimmed and did not read.
"Rob, thank you for your comment. I had the same reaction.
What stops me continuing reading Stan's reply is he says the theist doesn't define God and then defines God.
I'm glad I'm not the only one! "
If you cannot differentiate in your minds the difference between a deduction and a definition, then you will not comprehend much of anything that is written here. That is because actual, known and accepted rules for disciplined logical deduction are used here; these can be found in any freshman logic book.
If you wish to learn how actual logic works, then you should go learn it.
"Are you fucking serious Stan??
He explained why it was a bad argument.
'The biggest problem with the conclusion is that the argument against the possiblity of an infinite chain of ordinary objects, each moved by some previous object, seems transparently question-begging. On the face of it, Aquinas is saying: There must be a first mover, since if there weren't there would be no first mover.'"
I'm sorry, I thought he was kidding - it is transparently not question begging, which is circularity. It is the opposite of that in the sense that it assumes that infinite regress is not a satisfactory answer to problems of motion. So it takes a linear progression and stops, not at the beginning, but at a place which he justifies.
If you want to challenge the justification, then do that. But the argument is not circular. Sheesh. Do you honestly think that a thousand years of philosphers would not have found that? Let's get serious here.
godless,
A good place to understand what Classical Theism is, begin with the simple, bogged down definition found here.
Even if every single theist defines theism itself differently, every time different from each other, the arguments are not well addressed, because he would have given more definitions of theism, other than his botched down definition.
In DoR is obvious how he conflates different concepts of theism.
That doesn't seem to be a hurdle, when his definition is more akin to Theistic Personalism than anything else.
Research further, then we may talk.
Kind Regards.
"There must be a first mover, since if there weren't there would be no first mover."
Sorry, that's just wrong. Aquinas argued that if there were no first mover there could be no second movers. Your "refutation" is sophistry and misrepresentation of the purest kind.
Why, oh why, do atheists expect to be taken seriously when they keep pulling this kind of crap?
Yonose.
So, as a theist, would you think this "classical theism" provides a fair definition of god?
Even if every single theist defines theism itself differently, every time different from each other,
I have found this to be the case. Every theist views god differently.
Which seems to further reinforce his premise ....
Why is "not moving" considered the default state? Is there any reason behind this or is it based on gut feeling?
godless said,
" 'Even if every single theist defines theism itself differently, every time different from each other,'
I have found this to be the case. Every theist views god differently."
And every Democrat views government differently; that doesn't mean that there is no government, that it doesn't have a real form, which in its entirety cannot be understood.
This objection is perpendicular to the question of whether there exists a non-physical agent which created the universe and has the ability to interact with it.
You completely ignored the intitial characterization which was given in the link, and took yonose's half sentence improperly. So your comment is without any merit regarding the actual subject.
The actual subject is whether Theists create the deity, or whether they deduce the deity.
If the position is that they create the deity as a fantasy, then that position must be accompanied by actual evidence of its veracity. How do you intend to prove it, directly and without non-necessary prejudicial implications such as Henson used?
Go ahead.
godless,
You also ignored this:
"Classical Theism holds first of all that in order to establish the nature of God we have to prove His existence. This is done by a posteriori methodology which proceeds from the effect to the existence and nature of its cause."
This is a pointer to deduction, not to definition.
Redefining deduction to be tautological to definition takes the Atheist conversation outside of rational discourse, and deliberately into irrationality.
Lex,
Why is "not moving" considered the default state?
No one ever said it was. I linked to Aquinas' cosmological argument on my blog: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/02/aquinas-first-way-express-version.html
Stan. I ignored nothing. I asked if the link provided constituted a fair definition of what god is to Yonose.
I elaborated that every theist, in my experience, has a different definition of god.
I further feel that you are simply splitting hairs.
Your deduction necessarily results in a definition. Otherwise we are just talking past each other.
What is god?
a non-physical agent which created the universe and has the ability to interact with it.
This sounds like a definition to me.
godless,
"So, as a theist, would you think this "classical theism" provides a fair definition of god?"
Yes, is one plausible, standard definition. I would appreciate you stop putting that in quotes, as if it were invented by me.
"I have found this to be the case. Every theist views god differently."
Give me some empirical evidence, that every single theist has a definition which completely differs from one another (I don't know, something like a FLAT hystogram for the sake of representation, where every single theist has a different, specific definition of theism, which does not fit with every other standard definition).
Also, take in count that it is logically plausible, to subscribe theoretically to a religious exclusivism and at the same time, practicing in a pluralistic manner.
Nevertheless, if your statement quoted above is true, then religious pluralism whether in theory or in practice, would not be possible, and what you seem to ignore, is that the statement is demostrably false.
Now you wonder why religious pluralism, at least in praxis, would not be possible??
Because then, every single theist would ascribe to himself/herself a different, personalised state of religious exclusivism, something that is not even true within Theistic Personalism, so it is demonstrably false.
If that were the case, then why would be a New Atheist(a common, post-modernistic, specific type of) be staunchly criticizing organized aspects seen in some spiritually-driven religions, while at the same time, would try to use another invented definition regarding the use of the word Theism, without at least trying to study the very basics of theology and/or theosophy??
The concept of Classical Theism is defined from the source of knowledge ready to be studied and practiced, from theology and theosophy. It is not needed to be deduced again. Why so?
As I've said, research further.
Kind Regards.
godless,
By the way, you should differentiate an interpretation from a definition. By deduction you may get to a interpretation which may lead to a definition OR may not lead to it, not the opposite.
So a deduction does not necessarily lead to a definition, but may lead to circular reasoning. A definition may not need to be deduced again as such, and that procedure is only for reviewing purposes.
Kind Regards.
"Your deduction necessarily results in a definition. Otherwise we are just talking past each other."
Definitions come in several varities. here is one list from "logic, An Introduction" by Ruby:
1.Definition By Word Substitution..
2.Extensive or Denotational definition.
3. Intensional, connotative, or analytical definition.
Gensler, in "Introduction To Logic", lists,
1. lexical Definitions.
2. Stipulative Definitions.
3. Explanatory Definitions.
Copi, in his "Introduction to Logic", lists,
1. Stipulative.
2. lexical.
3. precising.
4. theoretical.
Further, meaning has extension/denotation, or intension/connotation; Connotation has subjective, objective, conventional.
When Henson says,
"The theist defines a god [not the god]. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns", he is clearly saying that the theist denotes or assigns those characteristics. In other words, makes them up.
Why would you claim otherwise?
And why would you claim that hypothesis with empircally grounded premises, proper syllogistic structure and tested coherent results is the same thing as denotative definition? That conclusion would render science moot.
Please give your reasons.
he is clearly saying that the theist denotes or assigns those characteristics. In other words, makes them up.
Perhaps that is the case because there is nothing objective to point to in order to describe the idea of god?
Perhaps this point is reinforced because nearly every theist has a slightly (or wildly) different conception of god?
Perhaps the point is further reinforced by the theists posting their agreements that they have a definition of god.
I mean this is practically tautological.
Theist has conception of what god is.
Therefore, there is necessarily some semblance of a definition attached to it.
How do we know of god? From theists.
In what manner? They describe his nature, character, actions and concerns.
You have provided yourself several times a passing semblance of a definition.
I think this is more than enough to support the premise.
To clarify.
Premise
"The theist defines a god [not the god]. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns"
Support
Stan, Rob, Yonose (did I miss someone? Marvin?) have provided definitions of god.
In other words, makes them up.
Well you are only making it up if there is no god. If there is a god you are accurately describing reality. Like how someone "made up" gravity.
So I completely fail to see how this is a non-starter for you.
Oh and thanks for posting that definition of deduction. I've never witnessed a more perfect example of splitting hairs.
"Oh and thanks for posting that definition of deduction. I've never witnessed a more perfect example of splitting hairs."
You have not answered the question, you have only ridiculed it, the juvinile's response.
You apparently claim that only physical things can have objective definitions (a concept unique to yourself).
"Perhaps the point is further reinforced by the theists posting their agreements that they have a definition of god.
I mean this is practically tautological.
Theist has conception of what god is.
Therefore, there is necessarily some semblance of a definition attached to it."
You have avoided the question. Are these definitions denotative? If so, why? You are now floundering around and saying nothing in regard to the question at hand: can you show that denotative definitions are tautological to deduction/conclusions?
Why have you not addressed this? Why do you think that your inductive conclusion (based on incorrect understandings) is truth? Explain why it is truth.
"
How do we know of god? From theists.
In what manner? They describe his nature, character, actions and concerns.
You have provided yourself several times a passing semblance of a definition.
I think this is more than enough to support the premise."
Your "analysis" is incorrect: knowing of god from theists is one step removed from the actual question which is how can anyone, theists included, know about God. You insist on radical reductionism and in corrupting meanings in order to support your position. We'll keep pointing that out for you.
"You have provided yourself several times a passing semblance of a definition.
I think this is more than enough to support the premise.
To clarify.
Premise
"The theist defines a god [not the god]. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns"
Support
Stan, Rob, Yonose (did I miss someone? Marvin?) have provided definitions of god.
In other words, makes them up.
Well you are only making it up if there is no god. If there is a god you are accurately describing reality. Like how someone "made up" gravity.
So I completely fail to see how this is a non-starter for you."
This is a non-starter for sure. You have not and apparently cannot admit to the claim which Henson makes.
So you want to refute criticism of his idea by claiming that it is not his idea. Yet that concept is exactly the basis of his entire claim set. Denying that he means what he obviously means and predicates his argument upon is irrational.
If you choose to actually address the issue of whether his definition is denotative/stipulative and whether a deduction is denotative and stipulative, then actually do so.
Otherwise you are just pissing up a rope.
I specifically addressed the question. You're totally off the rails bud. But it's cool, I'm pretty sure everyone else gets it.
There is just no arguing with some people.
Your argument is that it seems like a definition to you.
There is nothing more to your argument than that.
Until you address the full set of issues raised by your "seems like" argument, nothing you present here has any weight.
"There is just no arguing with some people.
Yes, I'm sure that you find it difficult arguing against actual reasoning, and fully presented cases, especially when all you have is that it seems in such and such a way to you, therefore you win.
Hey Stan. It's cool really. Don't define god. Just don't be surprised when no one knows what the hell you are talking about.
God? What's that? Oh I can't define it, I might lose an internet argument.
Lotta other theists have the balls to say "Ya, I have an idea of god. I think he is like this and this and wants us to do this."
Like every theist in the world. Except you. It's some immaterial "deduction" which demonstrated nothing and impacts nothing. Yet still IS a definition.
Is Jesus god? Does that not in itself provide a semblance of god's nature, his character, his actions and concerns?
You're not going to deny Jesus is god just to help you lose an internet argument are you?
See, here is the thing. This is not about you. It is about Henson. You can think whatever you want based on what "seems" to you, but that has no bearing on what Henson is saying in his paper. Henson is saying that Theists make up God. And that is false. So the premise underlying his entire work is false.
"
Like every theist in the world. Except you. It's some immaterial "deduction" which demonstrated nothing and impacts nothing. Yet still IS a definition."
If you cannot use terms correctly then you really have no business trying to impress those who can and do.
Atheists commonly take the opposite approach, which is that common sense is no reliable indicator for what is actual; then they turn around and claim that their own personal "common sense" is actual truth.
This is internally contradictory, of course, and non-coherent: irrational.
The need to pursue irrational arguments demonstrates that Atheism is necessarily an irrational stance which cannot be defended using disciplined logic, much less actual material evidence.
Henson is saying that Theists make up God.
Okay for the last time, that is not what he's saying.
He's saying theists have a God Hypothesis. You have an IDEA of god. A composite in your head of what god is. This is simply not disputable. You look like a fool for insisting otherwise.
You interpret this has him saying
"Theists are herp derp retards who make up imaginary friends and name him God."
You are so emotionally wedded to your position you refuse to even entertain the possibility you are wrong.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle"
Instead of just answering the simple question, you insist on misinterpreting his paper.
I dunno man. Refusing to confirm Jesus is god seems an awful lot like denying him.
If I believed in nonsense, I might be worried for your eternal soul now.
But hey, no worries, he seems like the forgiving type. Maybe not over internet arguments though. People take that shit seriously.
Oh I realize that if you agree Jesus is god, that constitutes a proper definition.
I feel you are in quite the double bind and instead of choosing you just pull the escape cord.
Post a Comment