“You reject deities, too; we just have one less than you”. This is a “you too” fallacy called Tu Quoque. It is described here:
“Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
The second fallacy in the “One Less God” Red Herring is that of miscomparison of disjoint classes of data types: material vs. non-material (aka apples and oranges). The Atheist rejects the nonmaterial, so only material is left. All transcendence is rejected on this basis. So there can be only material inquiry into transcendent realities, a mismatch of 100%. Interestingly, in information transfer an impedance mismatch such as this produces a 100% reflection: a materialist can see only himself and his personal sensory inputs. He cannot observe that which he rejects, because he requires tools that are not appropriate for the type of observation. Material tools cannot work for non-material existences.
Those who accept transcendence are free to use non-material discernment and judgment in determining which non-material assertions are true. This requires the abandonment of materialist empirical methods, since the subjects are not material: they are outside and beyond material. Atheists self-eliminate from this arena and deny its presence, despite the rational refutation of Philosophical Materialism.
The OLG fallacy is another frequently-used dart to throw at non-Atheists. It is a false accusation, falling under multiple fallacy labels. Atheists will be found who will deny this, Denialism being a fundamental tactic of the logically inverted. But under the first principles, it is just another fallacious thought process. It is not valid, and its conclusions are false.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Atheist's Last Refuge
Atheists are at a distinct disadvantage here. They have no firm basis for their assertions. On the other hand one who uses the firm foundations of logic, namely the first principles, has the advantage.
Because atheists have abandoned absolutes in favor of their own “wisdom”, they are constantly in need of crutches to support their conclusions. So they grope for the minutest shred that can be considered “evidence”, usually in the form of a naive analogy known as a "Strawman". They need this as evidence to support their conclusion. But strawmen are evidence only to the weakly educated and rebelliously motivated. The strawman is a fallacy of logic.
Two of the most infamous atheist strawmen are the following, which I have addressed elsewhere, but need to reiterate:
First is the infamous question posed by Mill that convicted Russell in his Atheism: “Who made God?”. This question is in response to the assertion of the necessity of a first cause of the universe. Because Mill’s question confused Russell, he took it to mean (as did Mill) that there is in fact, no deity. Russell’s analysis stopped cold at that point. Russell never addressed and was apparently ignorant of the argument of space-time being created at the Big Bang, and therefore cause and effect as we know it being meaningless in our terms prior to the creation of the universe. The first source also created cause and effect, a first principle of logic in our universe. So before the creation of space-time, there being no time, then whatever existed just existed outside of time: perpetual, to our standards of time. Absolutely no logical need of a creator of the creator.
The second strawman is the daily misused “orbiting teapot” strawman created by Russell as an absurdity to be destroyed (a strawman) in order to associate this absurdness with the first source. So Russell’s absurd teapot is also a false association fallacy, and a red herring fallacy; a three-fer. Yet this particular fallacy and it’s derivatives (flying spaghetti monster, unicorns, faeries) is possibly the main defense of Atheism today.
Now If fallacies of logic are the mainstay of Atheism, what does that say about the Atheist worldview?
Atheist illogic is based on the shifting mental constructs that form in the minds of these rejectionist, denialist, anti-rationalists. As with their morals, the mental confabulations used in their constructs are subject to whim, and can change at will.
But no matter what it is that they think up at the moment, they also believe it to be superior to grounded logic, just because they thought it up themselves. When they bump up against grounded logic, they generally get frustrated, angry and dissolve into name-calling, the last refuge of the intellectually cornered.
Because atheists have abandoned absolutes in favor of their own “wisdom”, they are constantly in need of crutches to support their conclusions. So they grope for the minutest shred that can be considered “evidence”, usually in the form of a naive analogy known as a "Strawman". They need this as evidence to support their conclusion. But strawmen are evidence only to the weakly educated and rebelliously motivated. The strawman is a fallacy of logic.
Two of the most infamous atheist strawmen are the following, which I have addressed elsewhere, but need to reiterate:
First is the infamous question posed by Mill that convicted Russell in his Atheism: “Who made God?”. This question is in response to the assertion of the necessity of a first cause of the universe. Because Mill’s question confused Russell, he took it to mean (as did Mill) that there is in fact, no deity. Russell’s analysis stopped cold at that point. Russell never addressed and was apparently ignorant of the argument of space-time being created at the Big Bang, and therefore cause and effect as we know it being meaningless in our terms prior to the creation of the universe. The first source also created cause and effect, a first principle of logic in our universe. So before the creation of space-time, there being no time, then whatever existed just existed outside of time: perpetual, to our standards of time. Absolutely no logical need of a creator of the creator.
The second strawman is the daily misused “orbiting teapot” strawman created by Russell as an absurdity to be destroyed (a strawman) in order to associate this absurdness with the first source. So Russell’s absurd teapot is also a false association fallacy, and a red herring fallacy; a three-fer. Yet this particular fallacy and it’s derivatives (flying spaghetti monster, unicorns, faeries) is possibly the main defense of Atheism today.
Now If fallacies of logic are the mainstay of Atheism, what does that say about the Atheist worldview?
Atheist illogic is based on the shifting mental constructs that form in the minds of these rejectionist, denialist, anti-rationalists. As with their morals, the mental confabulations used in their constructs are subject to whim, and can change at will.
But no matter what it is that they think up at the moment, they also believe it to be superior to grounded logic, just because they thought it up themselves. When they bump up against grounded logic, they generally get frustrated, angry and dissolve into name-calling, the last refuge of the intellectually cornered.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Multiple Multilevel Multiuniverses
The multiuniverse theories get a lot of play these days, as string theory gains intellectual traction and unanswerable questions within our limited physical domain require outside-da-box speculations.
Maverick cosmologist Max Tegmark contributes another model of the multiuniverse concept, number 4 below. Tegmark’s concepts are somewhat compelling from a logic standpoint.
Not to be outdone by these genius types, I contribute my own multiuniverse concept, number 5 below, for which I have rented a tux to receive my Nobel prize in Lala Physics.
Here are some Multiuniverse Theories:
1. The universe we know is spatially infinite, therefore infinite possible universes like ours can exist out there in the same space.
2. String Theory Multiverses: Branes, which are parallel existences that cannot communcate except possibly through the modulation of open ended strings, specifically gravity. Other possibilities are created by the same big bang but moving such that communication is not possible.
3. Hugh Everett’s Measurement split. Every time a measurement is made, a universe splits off: if we see result A, then result B is seen in a parallel universe. Schroedinger’s equation doesn’t collapse. We exist in parallel with ourselves on every branch off. This is possible in the abstract Hilbert Space.
4. In the article in Discover on-line, Tegmark claims that all reality is math. The underlying foundation for this is:
Tegmark:
THE EXTERNAL REALITY HYPOTHESIS:
“…the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. I think most physicists would agree with this idea.” (Tegmark) “If a reality exists independently of us, it must be free from the language that we use to describe it. There should be no human baggage.”
Interviewer:
"Without these descriptors, we’re left with only math.
Tegmark:
"The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay in the 1960s called “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” In that essay he asked why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. The question did not start with him. As far back as Pythagoras in the ancient Greek era, there was the idea that the universe was built on mathematics. In the 17th century Galileo eloquently wrote that nature is a “grand book” that is “written in the language of mathematics.” Then, of course, there was the great Greek philosopher Plato, who said the objects of mathematics really exist."
"Stephen Hawking once asked it this way: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” If I am right and the cosmos is just mathematics, then no fire-breathing is required. A mathematical structure doesn’t describe a universe, it is a universe."
"John Wheeler put it this way: Even if we found equations that describe our universe perfectly, then why these particular equations and not others? The answer is that the other equations govern other, parallel universes, and that our universe has these particular equations because they are just statistically likely, given the distribution of mathematical structures that can support observers like us."
5. But guess what? I have my own MMM to contribute. What if the Big Bang were really more like a Big Faucet? Hang on now, I’ll ‘splain.
We exist in a flow of time. In fact all mass/energy exists only at one point in time, which flows inexorably outward like the crest of a wave, from which we cannot extricate ourselves (OK a just little bit according to Relativity).
So it is possible, prove me wrong if you can, that there was another entity just before us and another just before that and so on. Plus there could be another one just after us, and another just after that, etc. Like this: an infinite series, where we are Un0 (universe number zero).
….Un-2, Un-1, Un0, Un+1, Un+2…..
We generally think of our universe possibly existing in physical-parallel with other universes, why do we not consider time-sequential as well? So the Big Bang would not be a single event, it would be a perpetual spewing of time-sequential universes, like unto a faucet.
I modestly call this “Stan Time”, a complement to Hilbert Space.
But let’s conclude all this with a hugely panoramic overview. If all these universes exist, and why not, then the question remains – untouched – whence? If it is not “what is the source of the fire breated into the equations”, then back off one Godel level: “what is the source of the equations?”
Being “timeless abstract constructs”, they still require a source, do they not? So the First Cause issue remains, unscathed by human rumination. Perhaps for clarity and to remove the time issue with “cause and effect”, it should be referred to as the “First Source”:
Whence the First Source?
Maverick cosmologist Max Tegmark contributes another model of the multiuniverse concept, number 4 below. Tegmark’s concepts are somewhat compelling from a logic standpoint.
Not to be outdone by these genius types, I contribute my own multiuniverse concept, number 5 below, for which I have rented a tux to receive my Nobel prize in Lala Physics.
Here are some Multiuniverse Theories:
1. The universe we know is spatially infinite, therefore infinite possible universes like ours can exist out there in the same space.
2. String Theory Multiverses: Branes, which are parallel existences that cannot communcate except possibly through the modulation of open ended strings, specifically gravity. Other possibilities are created by the same big bang but moving such that communication is not possible.
3. Hugh Everett’s Measurement split. Every time a measurement is made, a universe splits off: if we see result A, then result B is seen in a parallel universe. Schroedinger’s equation doesn’t collapse. We exist in parallel with ourselves on every branch off. This is possible in the abstract Hilbert Space.
4. In the article in Discover on-line, Tegmark claims that all reality is math. The underlying foundation for this is:
Tegmark:
THE EXTERNAL REALITY HYPOTHESIS:
“…the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. I think most physicists would agree with this idea.” (Tegmark) “If a reality exists independently of us, it must be free from the language that we use to describe it. There should be no human baggage.”
Interviewer:
"Without these descriptors, we’re left with only math.
Tegmark:
"The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay in the 1960s called “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” In that essay he asked why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. The question did not start with him. As far back as Pythagoras in the ancient Greek era, there was the idea that the universe was built on mathematics. In the 17th century Galileo eloquently wrote that nature is a “grand book” that is “written in the language of mathematics.” Then, of course, there was the great Greek philosopher Plato, who said the objects of mathematics really exist."
"Stephen Hawking once asked it this way: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” If I am right and the cosmos is just mathematics, then no fire-breathing is required. A mathematical structure doesn’t describe a universe, it is a universe."
"John Wheeler put it this way: Even if we found equations that describe our universe perfectly, then why these particular equations and not others? The answer is that the other equations govern other, parallel universes, and that our universe has these particular equations because they are just statistically likely, given the distribution of mathematical structures that can support observers like us."
5. But guess what? I have my own MMM to contribute. What if the Big Bang were really more like a Big Faucet? Hang on now, I’ll ‘splain.
We exist in a flow of time. In fact all mass/energy exists only at one point in time, which flows inexorably outward like the crest of a wave, from which we cannot extricate ourselves (OK a just little bit according to Relativity).
So it is possible, prove me wrong if you can, that there was another entity just before us and another just before that and so on. Plus there could be another one just after us, and another just after that, etc. Like this: an infinite series, where we are Un0 (universe number zero).
….Un-2, Un-1, Un0, Un+1, Un+2…..
We generally think of our universe possibly existing in physical-parallel with other universes, why do we not consider time-sequential as well? So the Big Bang would not be a single event, it would be a perpetual spewing of time-sequential universes, like unto a faucet.
I modestly call this “Stan Time”, a complement to Hilbert Space.
But let’s conclude all this with a hugely panoramic overview. If all these universes exist, and why not, then the question remains – untouched – whence? If it is not “what is the source of the fire breated into the equations”, then back off one Godel level: “what is the source of the equations?”
Being “timeless abstract constructs”, they still require a source, do they not? So the First Cause issue remains, unscathed by human rumination. Perhaps for clarity and to remove the time issue with “cause and effect”, it should be referred to as the “First Source”:
Whence the First Source?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)