[Originally posted Monday, July 9, 2012; godless has still not provided answers with actual evidence to back up his claims, and has not refuted the basics which he has claimed don't even exist, nor has he addressed the obvious logic failures in his claims. The challenges which godless faces are now in bold. ed.]
Because the following exchange with godless has gotten lengthy I have made it into a post.
godless,
If you're still around, here is a list of things from previous threads for you to address, some of which you have avoided for the term of your duration here.
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
3. Regarding Hitchens and unsupported claims:
godless:
”Yes you can. I've said at least twice now. You can rack up all the unsupported claims made which have been validated, and rack up all the unsupported claims made which have never been validated, and deduce a probability of the likely truth of future unsupported claims.”
Stan:
Interesting. Where is the link to this fascinating calculation? Where is the data? How many claims have been included in this data? Or is this just more bullshit, with no actual calculations, only a fairy tale to cover up for a Jump To Conclusion?
Without data for evidence, this can be dismissed – without evidence.
So provide the data, method of data taking, etc.
4(a). godless:
This is always way theism is so tenacious and impossible to disprove. You provide evidence or reason on one theists interpretation and a billion others chime in "well that's not MY god".”
Stan:
godless, brace yourself: I am going to wake you up by yelling at you. You have reverted in a knee-jerk fashion to your old, failed arguments. Time to wake up, bro.
We’ve been through this too many times now. SHOW ME the theists who deny the basic theism syllogism. Provide EVIDENCE of their denial of that deduction. You are making claims without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence!!
4(b). Show why it is not necessary to disprove the basis for Theism, without the excuse that there might be other definitions. If Theism is false, then all definitions of Theism are false. Disprove the one (1) definition which you have been given here by me.
godless:
” If the people that supposedly believe this bullshit can't agree, and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.”
Stan:
”The actual question du jour is why should anyone not dismiss your rejections, when you have not proven that theists will reject the basis for Basic theism, the necessary and sufficient conditions which even you do not refute after being provided with them time and time and time again. Your argument is not against Basic Theism - which you are now actively avoiding: ACTIVELY AVOIDING. You want to argue ecclesiasticism as if that were the actual basis for Theism, so that you can AVOID ARGUING AGAINST THE ACTUAL COMMON BASIS FOR THEISM. You are making excuses, not arguments.”
The rational evidence has been given to you; there is physical evidence for you to refute (still there at Lourdes); your claim ( "and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.") is blatantly and obviously FALSE.
Disprove the rational and physical evidence presented to you. WITHOUT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, YOUR CLAIMS MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
5. godless:
”Theists frequently make tangible claims on the nature of reality. There is no Category Error requesting evidence of such extraordinary claims.”
Aside from the issue that your complaint is not relevant to the ACTUAL RATIONAL BASIS FOR THEISM, you have been given claims of tangible evidence to refute – the claims made at Lourdes, 150 years ago – and you have not refuted and cannot refute those EITHER.
However, your position blatantly disregards the specific issue of (a) demanding PHYSICAL evidence, of (b) NON_PHYSICAL existence. That is a Category Error.
Your comment does not reflect the question you must answer:
Why are you comfortable with logic errors in your thought process?
Is it just this(?):
godless:
And if you don't make tangible claims on the nature of reality? Who cares? Your claim is then meaningless. Literally immaterial.”
First: Provide evidence showing specific material evidence that a deductive claim has no meaning. WITHOUT EVIDENCE, YOUR CLAIM MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Second: You have confused the two separate definitions of material: (a) physical, vs. (b) pertinent. When you confuse definitions, you demonstrate your own confusion.
Third: And if you don’t “care”, then why not go somewhere else to waste time?
6. Stan:
”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.
godless:
Right. Which is why your insistence on placing a burden of evidence on atheists is dishonest.”
It is made specifically in order to illuminate the exact demand made by Atheists on Theists, and which you made just above: your demand is intellectually dishonest and your complaint is Special Pleading for poor Atheists, who can’t prove their own claims. If your demand on Theists is OK, then it is also OK to make that same demand on Atheists. [Prove this wrong]
7. godless:
”You can't ever prove a negative. Certainly not something with such a flimsy immaterial description such as theism”
Stan:
First you say that Theism must have material components (and I say, here: refute Lourdes);
And here you say that non-material existence is flimsy and can’t be proven. ( I say: then you admit that Atheist's demanding such evidence is a rational failure under Philosophical Materialism, that failed philosophy, and that Atheism, being without logic or evidence is flimsy and can't be proven).
Most importantly, proving a negative is absolutely and definitely possible if only material existence is considered as you wish: I can prove that you are not now present in this room. So if Materialism is your only source of knowledge, then you can prove negatives of material things, IFF you do not make ridiculous, universal, material claims. Atheism is a ridiculous, universal, material claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.
"Flimsy" is an excuse for no action on your part. None. Excuses only. Flimsy excuses. All without evidence in their support.
8. godless:
”But it is just because theism is such a flimsy, immaterial, undefinable, extraordinary, evidence-less, etc etc etc BULLSHIT claim, that it is dismissed.”
Stan:
”You are radically asleep, hoot. Both logical and physical evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you do claim it does not exist. Other than that you avoid it like the plague, in fear of what would happen to your ideology, I suppose. Claiming that there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, and the evidence given to you proves that your claim of no evidence is wrong, false, and irrational.
This is getting boring, repetitively going through your persistent failures to engage with actual arguments. Kindly at least engage the arguments being made, OK? One last time, if you cannot do the following, you and your Atheism have failed:
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
77 comments:
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
1. Theism is the claim. There is no evidence to support it. The "logical deductions" which lead to theism I do not accept. I've never seen a logical argument for a deity which I found to be both sound and valid. Certainly not convincing. Thus the claim is not accepted.
2. Refute the claims that Allah split the moon for Muhammad. When you figure out why that's a stupid argument for the existence of Allah, you'll know why using Lourdes is a stupid argument.
Because anyone can make an "irrefutable" unsupported claim. Try googling pseudoscience and religion for data on unsupported claims.
Can't make it any simpler for you Stan.
Couple more points.
Re 3) You don't think it rational to be skeptical of unsupported claims? Well I have bridge in Alaska to sell you then.
Re 4a) Yonose provided a definition of "basic theism", which I addressed. You later in the conversation said "that's not even the claim of basic theism" (paraphrased). Soo YOU are a theist who is rejecting the "basic theist claim". Emphasizing my point, theists can't even agree on theism.
Re 4b) Your claim of theism is not falsifiable. If you think this lends strength to your position, you are not even wrong.
Re 5) See previous post Allah and the moon.
Re 6) ”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence."
Right. Exactly right. /thread? Your words Stan.
You can certainly however prove/deduce an existence, provided such existence ... exists.
That's why YOU have the burden of proof. Atheists have the burden of rebuttal. Don't agree? Stop making a claim of theism, I'll stop making a claim of atheism, and let's see who is actually impacted by the result.
Re 7) Re 6. Thanks for summarizing for me.
Atheism is a ridiculous, universal, material claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.
No. Atheism is a rejection of a claim. Theism is the ridiculous, material/immaterial claim made without evidence. Lourdes?; Re Allah and the moon.
Re 8) I have been presented with neither reason nor evidence to accept the claim of basic theism, never mind it's material, real-world manifestations of a specific religion.
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.
Because of these reason, I do not accept the claims of "basic theism".
godless, there is only one thing missing from your response: as an atheist, you most likely believe that there is no god and also that the material is all there is. you can justify these beliefs, but Stan thinks you cannot, and will come back to you with that challenge (since he cannot prove his god exists!!).
Unfortunately, (or not ;-)) I was banned a long time ago from this blog and will not abuse the lack of moderation to come back (and waste more time...:))
godless,
There is no evidence to support it.
There is plenty of evidence to support it. I've linked to the First Way multiple times.
What seems to lack evidence is materialism. Even Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher, has a whole essay about this. Reality is precisely backwards from what many atheists seem to think...
Hugo,
Yeah, but frankly Stan's inability to demonstrate the existence of his god should be reason enough to reject his claim.
Martin,
Yes you have. First off, this isn't "evidence", this is an "argument".
You've also admitted you don't find this "argument" convincing enough to turn you from 100% agnosticism. So frankly if YOU don't find your own arguments convincing, why should I bother explaining why I don't find it convincing.
But we both agree, the argument falls under the category of "Not Convincing."
"Thus the claim is not accepted."
godless,
First off, this isn't "evidence", this is an "argument".
That's what evidence is: "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
So frankly if YOU don't find your own arguments convincing, why should I bother explaining why I don't find it convincing.
I don't think you should worry about what I think. This is about the evidence, not me. You claim there is no evidence for God's existence, and I am highly doubtful of that claim. That is a positive claim that must be supported by evidence, and so far I don't see very much to support it.
godless says,
"Yeah, but frankly Stan's inability to demonstrate the existence of his god should be reason enough to reject his claim."
And your refusal to produce a refutation of the actual evidence (physical and logical) provided to you is reason enough to reject your rejection.
I don't really care what you think. My point is that you don't buy your own argument, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why it sounds like rubbish.
You already know it is unconvincing. Maybe you just don't know why.
If you want to research reasons why Aquinas is unconvincing, I suggest Google.
And your refusal to produce a refutation of the actual evidence (physical and logical) provided to you is reason enough to reject your rejection.
Funny Stan, cause I directly responded to each of your points.
We gonna play this game again? I'm bored already.
godless says,
"1. Theism is the claim. There is no evidence to support it."
Absolutely false. Refute the unrefuted claims re: Lourdes. Until you do that you cannot claim "no evidence", which you do constantly, and despite being reminded of that failure.
"The "logical deductions" which lead to theism I do not accept."
It's not about what you can accept. No one but you cares about what you accept. It's about what you can prove, being a materialist, using materialist techniques. So far you've not proven anything except that you have a religious belief system containing no actual facts and avoiding those which you cannot deal with.
"I've never seen a logical argument for a deity which I found to be both sound and valid. Certainly not convincing. Thus the claim is not accepted."
Since you have made this assertion many, many times without ever attempting to falsify even the logic behind basic Theism, your claim of "convincing" refers not to disciplined logic, but to emotional refusal.
"2. Refute the claims that Allah split the moon for Muhammad. When you figure out why that's a stupid argument for the existence of Allah, you'll know why using Lourdes is a stupid argument."
This is a specific admission that you have no refutation. So much for the mystical powers of empirical knowledge being the driving factor producing evidence-based belief. You have no evidence for your beliefs and you cannot/will not refute the material evidence provided to you. Your only position is that it is a stupid requirement. And then there is this:
"Because anyone can make an "irrefutable" unsupported claim. Try googling pseudoscience and religion for data on unsupported claims."
The Lourdes claim is specifically supported with existing material evidence, so that argument fails. And so does this:
"Re 3) You don't think it rational to be skeptical of unsupported claims? Well I have bridge in Alaska to sell you then."
It is specifically the supporting evidence that you refuse to deal with.
"Re 4a) Yonose provided a definition of "basic theism", which I addressed. You later in the conversation said "that's not even the claim of basic theism" (paraphrased). Soo YOU are a theist who is rejecting the "basic theist claim". Emphasizing my point, theists can't even agree on theism."
You don't know whether I'm a theist or not. My position is that Atheists have no proof, material or logical to support their position, yet they claim logic and evidence as their own. You fall into that group.
And you cannot show that the basic premise of Theism is not common to all Theists: that is another universal statement which you cannot prove. You have just one argument to deal with and you won't do it, even though you complain about a lot. A LOT. To refuse to do it (over and over) based on such a petty complaint indicates that you know in advance that you can't do it. So you refuse your intellectual responsibility to demonstrate the falseness of the assertion which you claim is false.
(continued)
(continued from above)
"Re 4b) Your claim of theism is not falsifiable. If you think this lends strength to your position, you are not even wrong."
Of course it is not falsifiable; that is the nature of claims made that are not addressable by physical experiment. That is the failure of Materialism: it cannot prove experimentally that Materialism is valid. Read Popper.
It's like we are starting from scratch here, having to rehash all your old, refuted arguments.
”Re 6) ”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence."
Right. Exactly right. /thread? Your words Stan.
You can certainly however prove/deduce an existence, provided such existence ... exists.”
Only if you use the proper technique to match the type of existence. That is what you refuse to accept, not due to empirical proof in your support, but out of sheer denialism.
”That's why YOU have the burden of proof. Atheists have the burden of rebuttal. Don't agree?”
Certainly I agree. That’s why you have the burden to show proof of the falseness which you claim for both the logical deductive argument (which you are avoiding), and the physical evidence (which you are avoiding). The claims have been made, the evidence has been given: the burden of rebuttal is yours, so make your refutations instead of merely rejections and complaints.
Your case so far is just that you “don’t accept” the evidence given you. That's not a rebuttal, it in merely rejectionism.
”Stop making a claim of theism, I'll stop making a claim of atheism, and let's see who is actually impacted by the result.”
See, you really don’t understand what’s going on here. My claim is this: you cannot make any rational or material case for your Atheism; all you can do is assert, without evidence or logical support, that you “don’t accept” the evidence given to you. (which you avoid addressing directly).
So you comment on the issues but you don’t address them. You reject them but you don’t even attempt to refute them. Here it is laid out:
” Atheism is a ridiculous, universal, material claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.
No. Atheism is a rejection of a claim. Theism is the ridiculous, material/immaterial claim made without evidence. Lourdes?; Re Allah and the moon.”
Merely claiming that there is no evidence does not make the evidence go away. You cannot wish it away; you must either actually refute it or admit that you cannot. You do neither; you just squirm. Rejection of a claim is not valid without adequate refutation; just denying it is not a valid reason because it contains no reason and no reasoning.
And for the Nth time, requiring the wrong testing technique for a given type of evidence is false: Category Error.
Even more bizarre is this:
” Re 8) I have been presented with neither reason nor evidence to accept the claim of basic theism, never mind it's material, real-world manifestations of a specific religion.”
First, no one cares what you accept; what is it that you can actually prove or disprove in support of your worldview? You cannot even refute the evidence you have, or you would. So your claim of “…been presented with neither…” is obviously false.
Second, (!) you are now admitting to “it's material, real-world manifestations of a specific religion”??! Bizarre, to say the least. Maybe you didn’t mean that the way it appears.
” Because of these reason, I do not accept the claims of "basic theism".”
You have given exactly no reason(s) except that you don’t accept them. And you do that in the face of evidence which you refuse to address head-on. You resort to disparaging the evidence, then denying it exists.
So the problem remains: refute the evidence given to you, or admit that you cannot. If you cannot, then admit that you have a belief system based not on material evidence nor on logic, but on sheer denialism and nothing else.
Bored.
Refute that Allah split the moon.
This is how I'm dealing with your "evidence". By providing an example there is no way in hell you accept, with MORE supporting evidence than what you offer.
Can't just wish it away Stan. This isn't squirming. This is me telling you your argument is bad, and to develop the awareness to recognize WHY it is bad.
'Cause let's face, doesn't matter what I say it's just gonna bounce off your head.
You don't know whether I'm a theist or not.
HAHAHAHAAH I'd love to argue with someone with the balls to support what he actually believes. I got Martin throwing down arguments for a god he doesn't believe in, and now you won't even own up to being a theist.
You admit you have the burden of proof. So PROVE IT. You can't prove shit, so my rejection of your claim is rational.
godless,
My point is that you don't buy your own argument, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why it sounds like rubbish.
I get this alot, from atheists. Every excuse in the book not to address the evidence. Smells very fishy to me.
Properly addressing Aquinas can't be done with a couple blog posts. If you've studied him you wouldn't hesitate to concede this.
Not wanting to write a 3000 word essay isn't "every excuse in the book".
I'm simply not willing to spend the time attempting to point out where I think it fails only to hear the inevitable "you don't understand the argument".
You know what is fishy? Repeatedly forwarding an argument you don't find convincing.
I don't have unique objections. Use Google and you'll find a plethora of issues with the arguments presented.
When are the "nature is all there is" bunch ever going to admit that they are, indeed, making a positive claim?
Atheism is not a default. An argument for naturalism has to be made. Are those arguments better than theistic arguments?
Atheism is the default position as it is the absence a belief. The word means not-theism.
If you want to claim that naturalism is more likely than theism (which I am also happy to do), there are certainly arguments to support it.
I find the most basic arguments FOR naturalism to be infinitely more convincing than the most esoteric and "sophisticated" of the arguments for theism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
godless,
Atheism will always be a positive claim, which is the anti-thesis, and then, when possibly correct, the use of axioms and methodologies, to lead to some possible conclusion in a fixed set, to then, deny the premises which are suggesting the warranty, of believing in a Greater Reality regarding his/her metaphysically and ontologically oriented nature, of the knowledge we have from such non-material entity, while at the same time, such arguments do not directly and/or explicitly address, whether is experienced the presence of such entity or not by every single individual (That in many parts of this whole contintent's cultural profiles, is known as God).
I put it like that myself, without making big charges, even if I think I should make universal statements. But at the same time, I see problems with the over-simplification of the definitions of theism in generic dictionaries: they do not explicitly address the difference of having a personalistic, or non-personalistic view, of such entity, and how could both be adressed, not just logically, but also with the justification of the experiential. That's why the possible understanding of this source of knowdlegde has ramnifications, too. This is why there's Theology and Theosophy, to address the problem from different perspectives. Nonetheless, the issue is not limited to Christianity at all, but to every religion where it is claimed, that itself is oriented to the knowledge of the spiritual.
The crux of the problem you should admit you have is, touting arguments as "convincing" or not, should not be an effectively enough method to conclude that arguments should be ignored.
I'll put my own example. I'm sceptical at some claims regarding ufology and many, if not all, at cryptozoology. The fact that some analysis brings to unexpected conclusions and may be debunked in certain context where it works, should I inmediately imply that the whole set of ufology and the whole set of cryptozoology are pseudosciences and as such every way ufologists and cyptozoologists use their metholodogies to try to prove something are always wrong?
Then how do I know that? If you ask me, I admit that still, I know very little about them to make a conclusion. Still sceptical of many claims, and some few that make me think without mere hasty associations, I haven't elaborated myself on that issue yet, because of lack of time to review everything, and may also be lack of interest and thorough learning of the many possible hypotheses.
From that Full Stop and on, I've sealed that my presupposition about it is: still remains as a not well elaborated opinion, and should be left as such, irrelevant to the conclusive addressing of arguments whether supporting, and/or againtst, ufology and cryptozoology.
Now you see what many people here, more aggresively or not, try to mean with this? If not, it is an obvious reason why, people, who may respectfully –or disrespectfully– disagree with you, would rather ignore your reasons.
Kind Regards.
Re: godless
We have recently been discussing the complete inversion of the moral and intellectual process (logic) of those who inhabit the worlds of Atheism, the political Left, and some but not all homosexuals. That intersection of those demographic subcultures, I refer to as AtheoLeft. Because Atheism entails the rejection of traditional and historical absolutes, the concepts of traditional and historical morality and logic (among other things) are rejected. (Note 1) These are not merely “not accepted”, they are declared null and void, and objectionable, and finally onerous.
When the AtheoLeft discusses morality, the discussion is of New Morality which replaces the old, onerous moralities. (Note 2) When the AtheoLeft discusses logic, the discussion is of the New Logic (personal opinion) which replaces the old, Aristotlian disciplined inductive/deductive logic, which has no place in their agenda-driven minds.
Attempts to bring about discussions of morals produces charges of bigotry, precisely because the AtheoLeft has in mind a hard definition of New Morality which the traditionalists fail and are heretical in even discussing alternatives.
Attempts to apply Aristotlian disciplined inductive/deductive logic brings forth charges from the AtheoLeft that the proposition under consideration is too stupid to apply any actual thought to.
This brings me to godless, who embodies these characteristics (nearly) perfectly.
Rather than address the issue of cultural degradation due to moving the line of acceptable behaviors based on the force of the proponent, he declares curses: “homophobia” (you're mentally ill); “bigoted assholes” (you're morally evil).
Rather than produce a rational refutation of the deductive argument for theism or the material evidence of a known claim of a miracle, he declares that because he can’t prove Q, then the argument for P is useless.
Then he claims that not accepting his logic means that traditionalists who use disciplined Aristotlian logic are impervious to his superior reasoning.
For the casual reader I wish to point out: I am not godless, by which I mean that I did not create godless as a sockpuppet/strawman in order to demonstrate the New Irrationality. godless is real as far as I know, and seems to actually think the way he comes across in his comments.
(continued)
(continued)
godless doesn’t believe in traditional logic, he believes in the output of his own thought process.
He doesn’t believe in traditional (fixed) morals, he believes in the output of his own form of altruism, an emotion which he claims to apply situationally. Despite that, he does have fixed morals which pop up regarding Equality, which he applies unequally by redrawing the line of moral acceptability where he sees fit, and then condemning those who object.
He doesn’t believe in civility, he believes in name-calling as a consequentialist tactic.
He doesn’t believe in respect for any beliefs other than his own, because his own are correct regardless of the lack of material evidence or rational logic for support. He feels that disagreement with his views has no basis and is due not to legitimate logic or existing material evidentiary challenge, but due merely to obtuseness and inability to comprehend his superior reasoning. So he ignores any responsibility for demonstrating the falseness which he claims, and merely responds with refusals based on his perception of the stupidity of the argument. This he couches in terms of “prove it” (note 3), while rejecting the evidence and logic out of hand and without refutation, and with no response of an evidentiary or logical nature. This is denialism in service to an ideology.
Finally, he seems not to comprehend why it is that he finds people who do not recognize the superiority of his New Morality (relativist for him, fixed for the Other), or the superiority of his thought process over traditional Aristotlian disciplined logic.
godless is real, and not my sockpuppet/strawman; he is a fine example of the complete inversion of thought and morality which is part and parcel of the AtheoLeft.
Note 1. Also rejected are concepts of civility, except as required in the pursuit of objectives, and then only temporarily.
Note 2. When the Golden Rule is discussed, it is conceptually changed into a contract wherein the recipient of the New Altruism is required to pay back in kind.
Note 3. Direct quote: ”So PROVE IT. You can't prove shit, so my rejection of your claim is rational.” This claim is made in the face of material evidence and logical deductive arguments which he will not address directly.
Yonose,
Thanks for the response and all, but it's really hard to wrangle out what you are trying to say. Sorry in advance if I am misunderstanding anything.
Of course atheism is not a positive claim. You assert the existence of a "Greater Reality", and I am not accepting the assertion.
I am not saying I know with certainty that no such "Greater Reality" exists.
I am saying I see no reason to accept the claims of theism.
Your examples of UFOs and Cryptozoology are relevant (although I'm sure Stan would call them Category Errors).
You do not accept the claims that a bigfoot exists. Could such a creature exist? It is not impossible. It just seems incredibly unlikely, and there is no "convincing" reason to accept the claim.
The crux of the problem you should admit you have is, touting arguments as "convincing" or not, should not be an effectively enough method to conclude that arguments should be ignored.
I'm not ignoring arguments. For example I've examined Aquinas in some depth. Enough to know attempting to explain why it is unconvincing is rather futile. Or at least an exercise in exhaustion.
So really, I think we are on a very similar page in many ways. I feel I have been exposed to enough theistic arguments to conclude that it is incredibly unlikely that I will ever find a convincing one.
As such I am skeptical of all theistic (and supernatural) claims (having never been exposed to a convincing claim).
So to bring back to my starting point, having not accepted theistic claims, I hope you can understand how atheism is NOT a positive claim.
Now you see what many people here, more aggresively or not, try to mean with this? If not, it is an obvious reason why, people, who may respectfully –or disrespectfully– disagree with you, would rather ignore your reasons.
I believe I do understand, correct me if I am wrong.
Just because every argument for theism I have been exposed to has varied from laughably horrible to respectably unconvincing, I cannot eliminate the possibility that their conclusion is nonetheless accurate.
And I don't! There may indeed be some "Greater Reality"!
I just don't see a reason why anyone would believe this. First Mover Argument? Come on...
And really, if theism was relegated to academic arguments, I probably wouldn't care enough to even address them. But theism is used everyday by theists to assert their
subjective morality on others, and claim it divine. I think this is worth combating.
Besides, if people want to ignore my reasons, it seems counterproductive to make multiple posts mocking my supposed avoidance of presenting my reasons.
Cheers.
godless said,
”Real. How can I possibly take this guy seriously?
Stan, your own words shame you more than any name calling I could do.
"Thus any New Rights will have to be seized, because they are not likely to be granted democratically."
Riight, just like in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and yes
(6) of the United States.”
Since you claim not to live in the USA, maybe you don’t have the following facts to work from:
The homosexual marriage legislation was rejected in every state where it was allowed to be decided democratically, by popular vote: 34 states. In each of the states where it is now allowed it was instituted by judicial fiat, in other words it was dictated by non-democratic means, by unelected officials with jobs for life, unconstitutionally legislated outside the legislative process. In other words, de facto dictatorship of liberal judiciary acting illegally.
”These bastions of dictatorships, anathema to democracy, have fostered in their thought control policies and permit the amorality of gay marriage.
Oh but those countries let everyone rape women, and fuck kids and goats too, so you must be making a legitimate point comparing homosexuals to rapists and pedophiles.
Hey did you know Google has a campaign to legalize gay marriage? Better switch Bloggers.”
Sarcasm is not an argument, it is juvenile denigration, not worth the bits to transmit it.
”Hahah but really, it's cool. The only support you've got in this thread is Fred, and his posts are so nonsensical I can't even begin to address him.”
More juvenile denigration.
”Point being that whether you like it or not, society is going to accept that gays have all the same rights that straight people do.”
Yes. Three generations have been undereducated and are informed by sit-com television. Pedophilia is next; the wheels are already in motion at the APA.
”Your ranting just makes you look like an ignorant bigot. Sorry if you can't see past the name calling.”
You’re not “sorry” about anything. Your faulty perception of your self-endowed moral and intellectual perfection clouds your judgment, as is demonstrated by the juvenile nature of your “insults” which you mistake for arguments. Or if you don’t mistake the insults for arguments, you at least hope they will suffice in their stead because you have no arguments. You have no case for your belief system; you demonstrate that in every comment you make here. You are now recycling your phony excuses for not making an actual case. So you are right on one count: “boring”.
”Yeah I'll probably be back. Shit is wrong on the internet!!”
You’ve already violated your promise to leave here for more moral climes.
re: Stan
Sounds like persistent avoidance and a whole lot of squirming there Stan.
Stan takes no burden to demonstrate the incoherence of Allah splitting the moon ... a feat attested to by many reputable witnesses, yet feels justified in waving his hand in the direction of Lourdes, claiming that this is somehow "the face of material evidence".
Ie: HIS stupid argument MUST be addressed, but MY stupid argument can be avoided.
So rather than address my actual points directly, Stan feels justified in summarizing his caricature of my position, whilst avoiding presenting any actual real evidence or argument (despite multiple claims of having done so).
To the casual reader, if you are so dedicated to have come this far. I have no concerns of you confusing me with Stan.
"Despite that, he does have fixed morals which pop up regarding Equality, which he applies unequally by redrawing the line of moral acceptability where he sees fit, and then condemning those who object."
I like this. What Stan is referring to his how I'm okay with gay marriage but not with pedophilia, bestiality and rape. In his mind, this is an unequal redrawing of the moral lines.
Pretty much sums up this conversation I think?
I was going to post all the states that actually legalized marriage via votes by elected representative in the House/Senate. That's what happened in Washington and Connecticut.
Iowa legalized it via a court case which found that "denying the right to marry to same-sex couples was incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitutions of most states".
I'm just.. not going to bother with the rest.
I am sorry. I feel bad I can't change your mind. You see sarcasm and react to that rather the recognize the point made. You flat out ignore the facts posted.
I wish I had the articulation and patience necessary to get through to you, but alas, I lack the moral and intellectual perfection you claim.
This mere "absence of belief" business is misleading. Buddhists are atheists. But they often refer to themselves as non-theists. Why? To differentiate themselves from "atheists", who are , in fact, materialists.
The absence of belief stuff is grounded in a commitment to naturalism- right out of the gate.
Human prediction and control=ultimate truth of reality?
Why?
.. Pretty sure Buddhists often refer to themselves as "Buddhists" to differentiate themselves from "atheists". But sure, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion...
I don't think the supernatural claims of Buddhism are true either. But I can quote those who claim to witness enlightened monks literally transcend matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_body#List_of_those_reported_to_have_attained_the_rainbow_body
Is it irrational to reject Buddhism now? What with all this "Evidence"? Eye witness testimony - just like at Lourdes! Do we all make the positive claim that Buddhism is false, or do we simply fail to be convinced by the arguments for Buddhism?
Is it rational to suppose that Buddhism is true because I cannot provide material evidence to counter the claim of these eye witnesses??
I posted arguments for naturalism Chris, did you bother reading? How do you find they compare to the Prime Mover Argument for Theism?
"Human prediction and control=ultimate truth of reality?"
I don't know what this means.
The absence of belief stuff is also disengenous, because they DO have at least one positive belief: that all theistic arguments are failures.
That is a positive belief that must be supported by evidence. Which is why I keep harping on godless to produce some evidence about why it is weak. He needs to support his claim.
He tells me to Google for it, but unfortunately the Internet distorts the argument so badly that most objections are not even wrong.
To my knowledge, there ARE no good refutations of it. What happened instead was that Thomism was set aside, and modern materialism was put in its place.
godless:
You should admit that Atheism is a positive claim. Analogously, scepticism to Ufology and Cryptozoology, are positive claims.
That's what I'm trying to say. Analogous but not equal to mine, in the context of the claimant (that is, you) being an atheist, it is still your opinion.
I think you still have a strong, denialist position about those arguments. I'm just sceptical of cryptozoology and ufology. Whether or not, arguments are compelling to me, I don't declare them all false right away. It is still my opinion with bad foundations, and even when many UFOs were/are confused with UAVs, there is no reason why that statistical improbability shoud make it a lost case as a whole, more so, when I'm lacking of the knowledge of many of the metholodogical concepts ufologists use to make research, and how to they design their own ways of making research. It may be a badly designed experiment of resesarch pattern.
Maybe, instead of them being wrong, I am. It is not possible to universally explain. You have to be knowledgable of what you try to refute.
Time will tell, that is, if I want to research more thoroughly about the topic.
Improbability is different to Impossiblity and is different to non-existence. Or is improbable, or is impossible, or it does not exist, in a determinate context, or even in a correlation where a co-determinate is present.
Whether arguments are "compelling to me", is not an objective way to measure a value judgment in an axiomatic process.
Chris,
Zen Buddhism is a kind of "theistic" buddhism. The doctrine of Zen Buddhism and in certain way, doctines of Hinduism and Sikhism, may be observed from a theosophic perspective.
This is why I refer the concept of God, in one of the many manes, as a "Greater Reality" rather than the name of God only, which is also correct. Classical Theism and Zen Buddhism are practically equivalent, from a Theosophical perspective.
Martin,
Well put.
Kind Regards.
K, I posted a response to Chris. It posted but is gone now. Google messing up or am being deleted?
Martin,
It's hardly disingenuous. That's like saying all naturalistic arguments are failures. Where's the proof of that?
It's disingenuous to shift the burden of proof to the critic of the positive claim by saying "You DO have a positive belief! You positively believe my claim is false!"
The Internet gets the argument wrong? Seriously? I'm sure there are plenty of sites who mess up the argument, but I'm sure there are plenty who articulate it properly as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
http://www.h2g2.com/entry/A2669303
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml
I'm sure you can find plenty of reasonable objections if you care to look.
You want a personal objection? It's not an argument for theism, but for deism. There is nothing personal logically reached via the Prime Mover Argument. So as an argument for theism, it logically fails.
I have only quibbling academic issues with deists.
I believe Thomism was set aside because his paradigm was centered around such an incomplete understanding of reality.
Ie:
- geocentric cosmology
- heavier objects falling faster than lighter objects
- aether as the fifth element
- rejection of possibility of a natural vacuum
- teleological explanations
Yeah I could go on and on. But like I said, we are looking at least at a 3000 word essay to do Thomism justice.
godless,
First you claim that there is no evidence, then you cite two (2) claims which you do not refute. Because you cannot refute them, you think they are ridiculous and you use one to ridicule the other, which has actual existing physical components for you to apply materialist techniques of investigation and refute.
You assert, apparently, that (1) there are claims which exist and that at least one has physical evidence which you cannot refute and (2) because you cannot refute the claims, the claims must be ridiculous.
Assertion (1) is true and valid; assertion (2) is not valid except in your mind as an excuse... it is your claim that there is no evidence, followed by your excuse which is ridiculous.
Yonose, etc
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Atheism is a criticism of theism. Not vice versa. Skepticism of UFOs is a criticism of UFOs, etc.
Maybe, instead of them being wrong, I am. It is not possible to universally explain.
That's right. It is not possible to universally explain. That's why theism holds the burden of proof. It is the positive claim.
I conceded I could be wrong in the previous post. We are of a like mind.
We all agree the physical world exists. ... Right?
If you want to tack anything else on to that, you are the one making the positive claim.
I said I am fine with saying that I BELIEVE naturalism to be true, and linked to supporting arguments.
Which no one has bothered to address.
Stan,
Nope. Keep trying.
2. Refute the claims that Allah split the moon for Muhammad. When you figure out why that's a stupid argument for the existence of Allah, you'll know why using Lourdes is a stupid argument.
Is using the claim that Allah split the moon for Muhammad a valid evidence for the existence of Muhammad?
Yes? Then you must accept the existence of Allah.
No? Then why not.
Ohh I feel like you are so close... probably just wishful thinking though.
WTF
I just replied to Martin and that post was up, and now it's gone.
I replied to Chris, the post was up and now it's gone.
I'm done. Let me know when you either figure out what is wrong with your blog, or decide to stop deleting my posts.
I don't think that's Stan. I know blogger has had issues recently.
It's really frustrating. Hopefully they are in some spam folder or something because I really don't want to type that all back out.
@godless: you are a troll, sir, and a juvenile troll at that. That much is clear.
Further, you appear to be the center of the universe. That much is also clear. Else why would the cry "I don't care!", various expletives and your repetitive string of insults and 'sarcasm' pass for reason.
Stan asked in an earlier blog post what we thought was the essence of a man. I stand by my answer (and that of Jack Nicholson's character in the movie 'As Good As It Gets') - reason and accountability.
You don't appear to have enough of either to join the grownups. You need not respond to this, as nothing you say makes much sense - so far most of it translates to an incoherent screech of spiritual pride, outraged that the world should not conform to your personal wishes, no matter how mad they are nor how much they conflict with each other.
So put a sockpuppet in it and amuse yourself elsewhere.
Kids... what're ya gonna do?
I get it Steve, you got nothing but insults. Good contribution. But I'm the troll? Kids indeed.
Martin,
I linked to a couple university papers on Aquinas. Sorry I actually read through a bunch to find some I thought best represented the arguments .. I really don't want to do it again.
Yonose,
I provided arguments on the burden of proof and the nature of a positive claim. That was a little easier to find again.
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed""
Atheism is a criticism of theism, as such it does not shoulder the burden of proof.
Atheism is not a positive claim. Our common assumption is that the material world exists. If you wish to add to this (theism, super-naturalism, etc), you are making the positive claim.
Furthermore I granted I was willing to present reasons for why I BELIEVE the natural world is all that exists, and linked what I felt were strong arguments for naturalism. Certainly stronger than the Prime Mover as an argument for theism... And no one responds to them.
How the fuck this comes off as insults, trolling, arrogance or sarcasm is beyond me.
"Atheism is a criticism of theism, as such it does not shoulder the burden of proof."
It does shoulder the burden of providing evidence why those criticisms are valid, justify the criticisms or it's merely denialism.
ReasonableDoubt,
I could've not said that better.
Kind Regards.
It does shoulder the burden of providing evidence why those criticisms are valid, justify the criticisms or it's merely denialism.
It depends on the claim.
Example (1)
If someone makes a vague unsupported assertion such as:
Atheism will always be a positive claim, which is the anti-thesis, and then, when possibly correct, the use of axioms and methodologies, to lead to some possible conclusion in a fixed set, to then, deny the premises which are suggesting the warranty, of believing in a Greater Reality regarding his/her metaphysically and ontologically oriented nature, of the knowledge we have from such non-material entity, while at the same time, such arguments do not directly and/or explicitly address, whether is experienced the presence of such entity or not by every single individual
Such claim can be dismissed out of hand for multiple reasons. It lacks clarity, it is vague and uses ill-defined words such as ontology, non-material and metaphysical.
Example (2)
A link to an actual argument was provided in this thread. This argument is logically valid and can be discussed. Merely saying that it is wrong is not sufficient. It is clear and simple enough to be analyzed by anybody and the reasons to reject it need to be explicitly listed, otherwise charges of 'denialism', to use your own words, are warranted.
Note
This does not change the principle that Atheism IS the default position, as it is a position of disbelief. The default position is ALWAYS to not believe.
However, since most of humanity is raised in a religious context, I do support the idea that Atheists have some burden of proof when it comes to rejecting their parents' religion. Rejecting the religion because it's 'not cool', 'stupid' or 'for old people only' is not rational.
"It does shoulder the burden of providing evidence why those criticisms are valid, justify the criticisms or it's merely denialism."
I think this is valid.
My criticism have been the nature of the evidence provided.
1) A logic argument
2) "Lourdes"
1) I have actively presented naturalism as a counter-argument to theism. If naturalism is likely true, theism is likely false. No one has addressed any of the arguments for naturalism.
I did write a post including several criticism of Prime Mover. The post was deleted somehow.
I'll throw what I think are some of the strongest objections.
1) Assumes the natural state of things is not motion.
2) Does not, in itself, argue for theism (only deism).
3) Posits an infinity to escape an otherwise infinite regress. So you are multiplying assumptions without justification. Much more parsimonious to say the universe itself is infinite.
Here are some expansions and other issues.
http://www.h2g2.com/entry/A2669303
You are right, there are a lot of people that seem to horribly confuse the argument. So if this is a strong argument for theism, why do so many people barely comprehend it? (ie: Argument from Incoherence.)
Are these criticism justified?
2) I'm trying to demonstrate why Lourdes is not valid evidence via an analogy.
Am I under a misconception? Is there something about Lourdes that is different from my claim?
People seem to be just denying the argument rather than addressing it. Or perhaps the point is not that obvious?
These are my criticisms, many of which I've presented several times. I hardly think it is reasonable to claim I have not attempting to provide justification for my rejection of theism.
PM,
Why do you mean that, the definition should be dismissed out of hand because of my choice of words?
Please elaborate. There are some valid criticisms out there in the web, from the bunch.
As a counter-argument and clarification of your claim of my suggested definition being worthless:
I'm suggesting a definition of what a possible description of the nature of a special type of non-material entity would be. Instead of calling the Greater Reality just God, or just G-d, or just Allah, and so on, I'm referring to the many cultures, by the development of their religious practices (there's a co-determinate between culture and religion), to generalize the concept of a possible description, without specifying if the view should be entirely personalistic of not, of the nature of being, of such entity (hence the use of ontology, metaphysical).
Now I humbly ask you this:
Why referring to the possible metaphysical, ontological characteristics or properties, would make this argument void?
I begin with a presupposition of my own, for you to refute and/or elaborate:
"Of course the etymological concept of metaphysics is an oxymoron, according to physicalists, but if there's criticism, at least some elaboration is expected."
Please look at these basic, rather chopped-down definitions (as is with wikipedia's nature) more closely, without immediately resorting to denialism:
The first two are more related to Christianity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Personalism
I've seen the argument for classical theism many times before. As you can see, in this case, it is just a graphical way of resorting to different analogies, so the main point of the argument should be much easier to digest. Although from a logical perspective I admit it still has some problems regarding the intricate nature of the claim, it is still a good attempt to describe the possible nature of that entity, more accordingly, to the people who have had some sort of spiritual experience. The name of the concept is more akin to a primitive definition of Chrisitianity, but many characteristics of the definition named as Classical Theism, are also found within more insulated cultural groups at ancient times in history, far from what is called the foundation of the western civilization.
(continuing below)
(continuing from above, last one)
If you read more closely, I'm implying that, by the possible description and knowledge some people have and had, of the nature of that "Greater Reality", there should be a warranty of belief, for the existence of such.
Please don't ignore this:
http://www.arielspeaks.com/Philosophy/Metaphysics_Introduction.html
From a Theological, and even, from a Theosophical perspective, there's a lot of metaphysics involved.
About theosophy, people should not just focus in criticizing Blavatsky's works. Theosophy is just a concept named after a more pragmatic twist which tries to continue from another, succinctly different scope. The rest of this huge task, is the study of the whole body of work regarding mystical experience in humans, from ancient cultures to the present.
If you want to know more about why I'm suggesting arguments and definitions in perspective, please read more about studies made with the concept of Comparative Religion.
Something analogous, but just for the sake of the analogy, as does not work with every element from the previously mentioned context, happens with the use of the Baconian Method itself. Some scientific discoveries may have huge philosophical implications, because of the possible conjectures which have to be posited, in order to make new scientific work. But be aware, that also, scientific discoveries should also accomplish different axiom-conclusion systems, in order make a whole line of discoveries coherent. Unfortunately, specifically in physics, that does not happen quite well from the 1930s, but that's a discussion for another day.
The logical principles which are used in modern physics –for example–, exist to explain the functional parts of the atom, by a representative theoretical model, but they are not utilized to explain, how the ultimate form of the atoms really are, yet.
Possible conjectures (inductive), and the discovery and ulterior interpretation of the nature of everything which is at humanity's reach (deductive), may be said as a possible source of knowledge, whether you like it, or not. Whether there are positive or negative consequences for humanity or social group or individual, by assimilating some worldviews, need to be more thoroughly addressed.
"This does not change the principle that Atheism IS the default position, as it is a position of disbelief. The default position is ALWAYS to not believe."
Why should mere belief be of bigger priority than analyzing the axiomatic process behind opposing worldviews?
"However, since most of humanity is raised in a religious context, I do support the idea that Atheists have some burden of proof when it comes to rejecting their parents' religion. Rejecting the religion because it's 'not cool', 'stupid' or 'for old people only' is not rational."
I'm afraid this subject is just shallow enough to be considered as an argument of weight for atheism, and not relevant to the argument in hand, because the rejection of all spiritually-oriented religions also entail, the delivery of the burden of proof to the Atheist, to be knowledgeable, to refute the basic premises regarding a special, non-material entity.
Changing from one religion to another, is only a preference of acceptance of doctrines, and of course, a preference of assimilation of knowledge from different cultural constructs.
I also humbly and kindly ask you, to address my arguments directly with me, if you think you did not understand them, or simply you disagree with them for whatever reason.
Kind Regards.
godless,
That website you linked to is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
He talks about the Big Bang. But as I've shown, repeatedly, the argument is not trying to say that the universe began to exist. Aquinas famously REJECTED that argument: "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the universe did not always exist."
The argument is concerned with what members need to be in place right now for, say, water in your freezer to freeze into ice. Regardless of how long the universe has been in existence.
That was the whole point of my gear analogy: to emphasize that this argument is about a concurrent string of causes.
He also brings up Occam's Razor. Occam is used to break a tie when you have two theories that explain a set of facts. But this argument is more like a geometrical proof, and is not a "theory" postulated to explain some facts.
He also says that there is no reason there should be only one unmoved mover. Well, of course, if you are aware of the argument, you will know that it ends with something that is just actual. And something that is just actual can be only one, for the reasons outlined.
I strongly suggest you sink your teeth DEEP into this argument. Here is a more in depth version: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/07/aquinas-first-way.html
And perhaps re-evaluate how confident you are that all theistic arguments are failures.
Yep, I can see how his bringing up the Big Bang can been seen as a misunderstanding of the argument. But what he is saying is that if an infinite regress may be possible, then a prime mover is unnecessary.
What I think he is actually saying is the same as my 3) point.
Did you care to address the points I listed?
Here's another for you to sink your teeth into.
If god is pure Actuality, he is without potentiality. Correct?
If god is without Potentiality, he cannot change. As you note in your pictograms, he is immutable. He cannot even consider anything outside of himself. As Aristotle says god is "thought of thought" or "thinking about thinking". At the end of this line of argument, the conclusion is that God is unable to influence the world (change it) and we are unable to influence him. This destroys theism.
And perhaps re-evaluate how confident you are that all theistic arguments are failures.
Reevaluated, but still seems to fail. Maybe I still don't understand the argument? Maybe no one does? The entire internet gets it wrong .. Maybe it's not a good argument if no one understands it?
godless,
Assumes the natural state of things is not motion.
It assumes no such thing. The argument says "at least some things are changing." Then it says "whatever is changing is being changed by something else."
Does not, in itself, argue for theism (only deism).
It's for a God that is constantly active, and constantly sustaining the world in existence. I'm not sure if that can really be labelled deism, but either way, it would still be a refutation of atheism.
Posits an infinity to escape an otherwise infinite regress. So you are multiplying assumptions without justification. Much more parsimonious to say the universe itself is infinite.
There is nothing about "pure actuality" that is actually infinite. If it is timeless, then it is just a timeless state and not an infinite amount of time. Also, knowledge tops out at "knowing everything".
Note also that parsimony only comes into play if you have two competing theories explaining some facts. But in this case, the argument works more like a geometrical proof. See here: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-unmoved-mover-qbasic-style.html
In pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, Parmenides reasoned that change (like rivers running, wind blowing, sun burning) does not occur. He divided the world into two: things either exist, or they don't. Anything that is already is, and anything that does not exist cannot cause anything. So change does not occur in spite of what our senses tell us.
Can you explain how this is not assuming that change is not the natural state of things? Because it seems to be saying explicitly that.
I'm not sure if that can really be labelled deism, but either way, it would still be a refutation of atheism.
It lacks a personal relationship with his creatures. Which is integral to theism. If you are going to move the goal posts to deism, I'll concede that I don't have any strong arguments against deism besides that naturalism seems more parsimonious.
Honestly deism seems a lot closer, practically speaking, to atheism than theism.
An entirely non-interventionist god (one who doesn't intervene even with any afterlife we might or might not have, much less with this life)is, in any useful day to day sense, utterly indistinguishable from no god at all.
There is nothing about "pure actuality" that is actually infinite.
An agent of pure actuality cannot come into or go out of existence, as these are potentialities being realized. Thus, an agent of pure actuality is eternal.
This is what I mean by an infinity. Either nature itself is eternal or it requires a being of pure actuality which itself is eternal.
You cannot fathom nature to be eternal, so you posit an additional eternity to explain the first.
We are still left with the issue of immutability and the fact that apparently NO ONE understands these arguments.
godless,
Can you explain how this is not assuming that change is not the natural state of things? Because it seems to be saying explicitly that.
That is the set up. If you keep reading, you'll see that Aristotle RESPONDED to Parmenides and Heraclitus and argued that change DOES occur.
It lacks a personal relationship with his creatures.
Ok, well, included in the Thomistic system is also an immortal human soul, which might indicate that humans are special somehow. But that is beyond the scope of this argument.
An entirely non-interventionist god
It makes no sense to speak of non-intervention in regards to an argument that God is the cause of everything that happens.
>You cannot fathom nature to be eternal, so you posit an additional eternity to explain the first.
No. I posit an additional eternity because of the three premises of the argument that add up to the conclusion.
We are still left with the issue of immutability
If it's timeless, then it's already done everything. From it's perspective, everything is done. From our perspective, we travel through time and "stumble across" its already-in-place actions, so it seems to use like it's doing things.
the fact that apparently NO ONE understands these arguments.
They aren't that difficult. Why do atheists distort them into simplistic caricatures, which they then proceed to knock down? I'll let you be the judge of that..
But that is beyond the scope of this argument.
Then it fails as an argument for theism. Flat out. If it doesn't address the qualities of theism, then it fails as an argument for theism.
yonose,
Why do you mean that, the definition should be dismissed out of hand because of my choice of words?...I also humbly and kindly ask you, to address my arguments directly with me, if you think you did not understand them, or simply you disagree with them for whatever reason....
1) I fail to see any argument in what you are writing. Please re-organize your thoughts if there is something specific you want me to address. What I am looking for is something that:
- You believe is true
- You know I don't believe is true (obviously you should confirm first)
- You think I should believe to be true (for reasons you can list and define)
2) The list of words/expressions placed below mean nothing to me; explain what they mean if you want to discuss them in any argument you might discuss as asked in (1).
- special type of non-material
- possible metaphysical, ontological characteristics or properties
- etymological concept of metaphysics
- nature of that "Greater Reality"
- Theosophical perspective
- mystical experience
- axiomatic process
- spiritually-oriented
- special, non-material entity
To be clear, I am not trying to trick you or anything like that; I simply find it obvious that you have no idea what I believe, or disbelief, and why. If you want to know what I believe, just ask... and if you think I should change my mind on certain things, then please explain. As an Atheist, I am interested in reading a blog called 'Atheism Analyzed' because I want to test my reasons to believe/not-believe certain things; so any accusation of mere denialism, without support, is obviously false.
Martin,
I am not familiar with the actual 'argument from change' so I would like to know how accurate your graphical representation, shown at http://i.imgur.com/bOuUH.jpg, is?
Assuming it is accurate, I find it unconvincing because the answer to this question is ambiguous:
What is the gear representing in nature?
Please let me know if you have an answer.
godless,
Then it fails as an argument for theism.
Again, it is just one piece of the Thomistic puzzle. The whole Thomistic system gives you God and immortal human souls. I prefer to just focus on that one argument, because I think it's a good example of the source of a lot of atheism. Namely, a Fox-News-like echo chamber that keeps facts (like accurate presentations of theistic arguments) sealed tightly out.
PM,
What is the gear representing in nature?
It's shown in the infographic. The ice being changed by cold air, which is being changed by the freezer, which is being changed by the electricity, etc.
Martin,
Giving another analogy (ice) to explain what the first analogy (gear) points to (??) in nature does not answer my question.
Perhaps I am not clear?
Again, it is just one piece of the Thomistic puzzle.
So you agree the Argument via Prime Mover does not logically result in theism? Doesn't seem to matter if I accept the Argument is valid or not, now does it?
Can I dismiss it now?
Is it fair to say my rejection of the Prime Mover as an argument for theism is rational?
The Thomistic proofs are a package deal.
Correct me if I am wrong, but none of the five ways argue for a personal (theistic) god.
godless,
Are you claiming that a manufacturer has no ability to interact with his manufactured objects? Upon what would you base that?
As for your invocation of parsimony, there is no parsimony in the existence of life and intellect in a universe which is made only of subatomic particles. Not only is it not parsimonious, life and intellect are not predictable from determinate dead mass and energy.
Stan,
If I understand the mover argument correctly, it attempts to show that there is a first mover at the head of the chain of moving things.
(What 'moving things' are, or not' is what I asked Martin btw)
If the argument were to succeed, the conclusion would be: yes, there is 'something' that makes other things move.
If you then ask: A manufacturer (or mover) has no ability to interact with his manufactured objects?
You have assumed a lot more than just 'there is a manufacturer'; what you have done is jump directly to a manufacturer that can interact when we have not even established if that's possible/meaningful/testable/...
It seems that the argument, even if successful, would prove nothing more than 'there is something behind everything'.
I fail to see why it's illogical to
- First, reject this argument as useless
- And second, reject any claim of knowledge about the qualities of such 'mover', when what's being 'moved' is not even defined.
Being "moved" is change from
potentiality to actuality.
Being "moved" is change from
potentiality to actuality.
Is there anything that does not "move" by this definition?
PM,
I was responding to godless' position that deism is merely less parsimonious than Atheism and that theism cannot be resolved out of deism. I did not intend to interrupt the Thomist discussion.
I can't participate in discussions right now since I can only pop in occasionally.
PM,
The problem for myself being not clear enough with you, is familiarity to some concepts. You should read more about different views of theism, and also read more about Comprative Religion, so you may understand more of what I'm talking about. I gave you some basic wikipedia links about the two different basic types of theism, and also gave you a link for the basics of metaphysics, and it seems you did not read them. Please correct me if you sincerely read them.
Although theism is the name of an axiomatic system more akin to christianity, the familiarity of the premises are not limited to christianity only.
I do this, because it is implicitly known that Atheism is the denial of all axiomatic systems that supports arguments for all spiritually oriented religions, and their possible commonalities and internal discrepancies.
You don't seem to know specifically what I believe either, and it is not relevant to the argument in hand.
But as I told you, I gave you a definition from what I humbly know and experienced, my beliefs are not relevant either just by themselves, and you should understand why I don't focus on beliefs alone.
I just asked you why my arguments have no support, but you have not elaborated why. I humbly asked you to please elaborate your accusation against my argument first.
You seem to focus too much on what I or you believe, but not on the axioms, the studies and knowdlege, which are needed to guarantee the belief, only disbelief, or denial of a particular thesis, which is, in this case, the belief in a special, non-material, "Greater Reality", where God is one of the known names.
"so any accusation of mere denialism, without support, is obviously false."
I totally agree with you, is just that you began with an unsupported presuposition I just could not miss :)
Just look back at your own words:
"Such claim can be dismissed out of hand for multiple reasons. It lacks clarity, it is vague and uses ill-defined words such as ontology, non-material and metaphysical."
Dismissing out of hand a claim, without asking me why I did it, and more so because of my choice of or well defined but generic words, is just denying the claim, without giving the claimant any space for further argumentation. That's some denialist behavaior.
Kind Regards.
Stan,
Should the god of classical theism exist, I agree he should be able to interact with his "manufactured objects".
But as PM pointed out, the arguments do not seem to conclude in something that can properly be called a manufacturer. That would be a fallacy of equivocation I think?
As for your invocation of parsimony, there is no parsimony in the existence of life and intellect in a universe which is made only of subatomic particles. Not only is it not parsimonious, life and intellect are not predictable from determinate dead mass and energy.
I think that is a bad analogy. We don't need to apply Occam's Razor to parse unnecessary explanations when we have empirical evidence of the conclusion. IE Life exists in the universe.
I do think atheism is more parsimonious than deism. Atheist world view consists of the natural world, deism consists of natural world and Prime Mover/Greater Reality/whatever supernatural cultural label seems to apply to your concepts of a non-personal deity.
Good luck with your internet. And I'll throw out that I think the guy that shot the security guy was fucked in the head. Any ideologue taken to the extreme of randomly shooting the other site should be condemned, and I'm just glad the guard is going to recover.
Godless, and PM, if interested.
Quoting godless,
"Should the god of classical theism exist, I agree he should be able to interact with his "manufactured objects".
Your position about this depends on how do you understand being "manufactured". I won't ask for your position about it, as it is not necessary for the argument in hand.
I think it is up to you to not confuse some concepts, or just being a bit more familiar with them. It does not mean your beliefs have to change, as I said above, mere beliefs, whether yours or mine(me, as a former strong skeptic), are not important.
So, I begin with this here:
Deism is rather naturalistic, much different than Theism. Deism is about a "Grater Reality", but which is found within the observation of the realms of the natural world.
What it means, is that deists, by the observation of the natural world, try to logically deduce a Greater Reality which is still in the realms of the natural world, like for example, Naturalistic Pantheism, or that such Greater Reality, although non-material, is not immanently present, like with, for example, Pandeism.
The problem with deism is that discards a possible and direct, experiential contact with any spiritual entity and is also directly denying many key principles which are seen within animistic religions, contrary to the basic premises of theism, which do not discard such experiences.
With the basic concept of Classical Theism, although you may attribute properties to that non-material entity, the metaphysical nature of that entity, the ontology of such, does not need to be attributed any personalistic characteristic.
I'll tell you once more, you're arguing against Theistic Personalism, not against Classical Theism.
PM and godless, should understand more about the dualistic nature of those differing views regarding theism, and what is the relation of both, with the general axioms which may support a theistic view as a whole.
Afterwards, you may try to refute them with no big problems whatsoever, as there are valid criticisms for both of those basic views of theism, at least, separately.
Then, Atheism is not only the rejection of Christianity, but of all spiritually oriented religions, and also, generally, the rejection of any kind of spirituality by consequence, while at the same time, claiming to know that any resemblance of the spiritual has never existed, discarding immanence immediately.
That's also something atheists need to do too, which is, in my humble opinion, a daunting task. To begin your quest, you need first, to be cleared from some basic misconceptions.
"Manufacturer" is a personalistic characteristic (remember, manufacturing comes from doing something with you hands). That entity which may be also mentioned as a "Greater Reality", is not a literally a manufacturer, obviously, but it is also non-material, immanent, reality (I hope you understand to what I refer with reality).
An Atheist should understand, that the worldview *any third-person personal pronoun here* adheres to, should be supported by a thorough refutation of all the premises posited, which may apply to all spiritually oriented religions, their cultural discrepancies, their commonalities, etc etc.; the possilibity of finding such entity by observing the natural world like with Deism; and claiming to know that it is impossible for such entity which may be named as a Greater Reality, to have ever existed.
I advice to not just get carried away too much by socialization processes where people give you some quick information on "how to deal with someone who disagrees".
Kind Regards.
It's been four days since Martin last replied. Is this a concession that the Prime Mover fails as an argument for theism?
My missing posts have appeared above.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml
Provides a good summation of reasons to common objections to this argument. Assuming this university's philosophy department isn't derided as an atheist echo chamber a la Fox News.
He is alive and if you seek him you will find him! Here is the truth-- p1 I am conscious with absolute certainty p2 every other claim of fact or truth is not absolutely certain c1 if the almighty creator exists as objective fact he must be a part of my consciousness p4 out of a great compulsion last year, I snorted a noodle which I never defecated c2 therefore the noodle became one with my consciousness c3 therefore I am the only true gOd with absolute certainty- THE Flying Spaghetti Monster! Oh yeah forgot about Poe .. Sorry ..;) :) ;)
Dear yonose,
Thanks for your kind reply, and sorry to be somewhat late to reply; almost forgot...
The problem for myself being not clear enough with you, is familiarity to some concepts. [...] Please correct me if you sincerely read them.
Judging by the words you use, I will assume that you did not intend this paragraph to be insulting in any way... but it is. Here's why: you basically assume that the reason why I reject Theism is because I am not familiar enough with the 'concepts', or at least that's one of the reasons. Perhaps this misconception arose from the list of terms that I asked you to clarify. It's as if you thought that the words were completely foreign to me. In reality, it is quite the opposite. The problem is not that I literally don't know what they mean; the problem is that I don't know what they mean for the person using them.
Moreover, I still fail to see anything that resembles an argument in what you write. All I see is random assertions about what you believe in, what you think atheists believe in, while simultaneously claiming that what we believe in does not matter.
Hence, I am afraid that I cannot answer this:
I just asked you why my arguments have no support, but you have not elaborated why. I humbly asked you to please elaborate your accusation against my argument first.
What argument are you talking about?
PM,
I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just getting to the point:
"The problem is not that I literally don't know what they mean; the problem is that I don't know what they mean for the person using them."
Well, is because what they mean just for me or you, is not relevant at the moment. I gave you a definition and clarified it, and will clarify it once again, As an atheist, your position is to refute those, not asking me if I believe in them or not, for the sake of it.
If there's not any principle holding them, interpretartons become mere and useless pluralisms.
The reason I did that definition above, is based on concepts which are commonly seen with Classical Theism, but is not Classical Theism alone (because it is mutually excusive, with the term of Theistic Personalism, or alike), without at the same time, discarding the view of theistic personalism itself (or alike), and, at the same time, to accommodate a process which might be common to every spiritually oriented religion: The Knowledge of a Greater Reality, which is known by its many names, and one of those is God, which may be understood by experiencing and studying the nature of being of that entity, that's all. Sounds pluralistic, but keep in mind, that I'm using very generic words, because is a superset of the cultural discrepancies that are maked among spiritually oriented religions. I'm not undermining anyone of them.
To an interpretation of that they mean to me, we're not there quite just yet. There are some basic concepts that are needed to know, before you may try to interpretate them, is that simple. Is not mere elitism. There are a lot of things I don't know in depth, por example:
Biology, Chemistry, Sociology, Psychology, Ufology(yeah, this one too), and many, many others.
You still fail to see any argument, because you still refuse to study, or try to understand what's the message I try to explain.
Again, Look for ther difference between classical theism, and theistic personalism. By doing so I'll be sure you will understand better of what I said.
Research more about the concepts of Comparative Religion, read more about the basics of metaphysics. I gave all of the links above.
(continnuing below)
(continueng from above)
For the rest I had to say, my comments here, did not post for a couple of times so I gave up, but still, here it is:
Godless, and PM, if interested.
Quoting godless,
"Should the god of classical theism exist, I agree he should be able to interact with his "manufactured objects".
Your position about this depends on how do you understand being "manufactured". I won't ask for your position about it, as it is not necessary for the argument in hand.
I think it is up to you to not confuse some concepts, or just being a bit more familiar with them. It does not mean your beliefs have to change, as I said above, mere beliefs, whether yours or mine(me, as a former strong skeptic), are not important.
So, I begin with this here:
Deism is rather naturalistic, much different than Theism. Deism is about a "Grater Reality", but which is found within the observation of the realms of the natural world.
What it means, is that deists, by the observation of the natural world, try to logically deduce a Greater Reality which is still in the realms of the natural world, like for example, Naturalistic Pantheism, or that such Greater Reality, although non-material, is not immanently present, like with, for example, Pandeism.
The problem with deism is that discards a possible and direct, experiential contact with any spiritual entity and is also directly denying many key principles which are seen within animistic religions, contrary to the basic premises of theism, which do not discard such experiences.
With the basic concept of Classical Theism (or alike), although you may attribute properties to that non-material entity, the metaphysical nature of that entity, the ontology of such, does not need to be attributed any personalistic characteristic.
I'll tell you once more, you're arguing against Theistic Personalism, not against Classical Theism.
PM and godless, should understand more about the dualistic nature of those differing views regarding theism, and what is the relation of both, with the general axioms which may support a theistic view as a whole.
Afterwards, you may try to refute them with no big problems whatsoever, as there are valid criticisms for both of those basic views of theism, at least, separately.
Then, Atheism is not only the rejection of Christianity, but of all spiritually oriented religions, and also, generally, the rejection of any kind of spirituality by consequence, while at the same time, claiming to know that any resemblance of the spiritual has never existed, discarding immanence immediately.
That's also something atheists need to do too, to understand their positions as knowing ahteists, which is, in my humble opinion, a daunting task. To begin your quest, you need first, to be cleared from some basic misconceptions.
"Manufacturer" is a personalistic characteristic (remember, manufacturing comes from doing something with you hands). That entity which may be also mentioned as a "Greater Reality", is not a literally a manufacturer, obviously, but it is also non-material, immanent, reality (I hope you understand to what I refer with reality), which, is not relevant if it is interpretated as personalistic, or not. Personalism is the concept of attributing personal attributes to a deity.
An Atheist should understand, that the worldview *any third-person personal pronoun here* adheres to, should be supported by a thorough refutation of all the premises posited, which may apply to all spiritually oriented religions, their cultural discrepancies, their commonalities, etc etc.; the possilibity of finding such entity by observing the natural world like with Deism; and claiming to know that it is impossible for such entity which may be named as a Greater Reality, to have ever existed.
I advice to not just get carried away too much by socialization processes where people give you some quick information on "how to deal with someone who disagrees".
Kind Regards.
Yonose,
Atheism is not a claim of knowledge.
Stan used the term "manufacturer", not I. A "manufacturer" who interacts with his creation does not fit the definition of "Classical Theism".
"Classical Theism" seems by any practical means indistinct from deism, and is in fact rejected by modern theologians.
"Theistic Personalism", is what is commonly meant by theism. A personal god. Your repeated insertion of "Classical Theism" is moving the goal posts.
It is also supremely ridiculous to claim it is the critics task to hunt down and study ad infinitum all possible claims in order to take the position that a certain set of claims (supernatural ones) are not accepted.
I quite feel like it is yourself who should perhaps be reading more on what his oppositions position. Rather than insisting it is the critics responsibility to accumulate an infinite amount of knowledge before taking the position that his oppositions claim is likely false.
I'll point out again I have presented unrefuted (or is it now persistently avoided?) arguments for naturalism, which if true, invalidate all supernatural claims.
Cheers.
yonose,
What godless said...
I would like to add one thing though. Here is a list of sentences you wrote in these last two comments alone. These are a show stopper for me as they imply that Atheism is mostly caused by ignorance:
1) There are some basic concepts that are needed to know, before you may try to interpretate them
2) You still fail to see any argument, because you still refuse to study, or try to understand what's the message I try to explain.
3) Look for ther difference between classical theism, and theistic personalism. By doing so I'll be sure you will understand better of what I said.
4) Research more about the concepts of Comparative Religion, read more about the basics of metaphysics
5) I think it is up to you to not confuse some concepts, or just being a bit more familiar with them
6) PM and godless, should understand more about the dualistic nature of those differing views
7) That's also something atheists need to do too, to understand their positions as knowing atheists
8) An Atheist should understand, that the worldview *any third-person personal pronoun here* adheres to, should be supported by a thorough refutation of all the premises posited
9) I advice to not just get carried away too much by socialization processes where people give you some quick information on "how to deal with someone who disagrees".
That's 9 direct, or indirect, accusations of not knowing enough, within only 2 comments.
But wait... I did not include my favorite one:
To begin your quest, you need first, to be cleared from some basic misconceptions
To 'begin' my quest? Really yonose?
You think we are new and need education on the subject?
Thanks but no thanks. I'm not interested in your school of thought.
I think we are done.
Take care. Sincerely,
PM
Theistic personalism tends to reduce God (the Supreme Principle) to an invisible and powerful human like being. This being is "a" being among other beings who is exceedingly anthropomorphic- a "deity" reminiscent of the polytheistic gods with human characteristics, just to the ultimate degree.
Classical theism stresses that God is being itself, "making" the world at every instant- Pure Act in the scholastic terminology and, as such, absolutely simple. From this perspective, God is not impersonal, but more than personal, perhaps transpersonal would be a better term.
If interested, a short yet thorough discussion on classical theism can be found at Ed Feser's blog, a Thomistic philosopher.
Ciao
A member of the Opus Dei once told me (not joking), that believing in God is not rational; it's more than rational, it is supra-rational... or some pointless crap like that.
What's your point Chris?
Ciao
Atheism is satanic.
Lavey minted the advanced that Satanism should be like a custard. You have tried to nail a custard in the wall with a nail? That was the tactic of Satanism. Atheism is equal with its lack of clarity in being defined, its continuous one to move the posts, its excuses and its quantity of fractions, sects and subsects. See www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheisms-sects
There are many atheists who are satanists, some are in the pseudoskeptic scene.
Definitively, atheism is satanic.
PM,
Well, I see you don't want to know about some concepts, then how would you understand them?
That's fine with me, it you flip out like that.
Atheism is Atheism, and Atheism is not mere belief, Atheism should be justified. If you want to know why did I say this, is because I also was an Atheist, evaluated my position as an Atheist, too, and then re-evaluated it.
Kind Regards, my friend.
Godless,
Theism is a claim of Knowledge, then Atheism, as its antithesis, Atheism IS also a claim of Knowledge.
I give you a clue for easy analysis:
Modus Ponens.
Kind Regards.
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.
Here's a clue, theism is not a claim of knowledge.
Atheism is a rejection of the belief of theism.
Really Yonose, you sound like you are genuinely interested in truth, you should be aware of such basic definitions and positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Post a Comment