Avicenna Responds

Ah. Avicenna has engaged with the criticism of his position. Excellent. This should be interesting and fun.

Credentialism Questioned: Avicenna had made statements which implied that he was a doctor. Implied? Not strong enough. Here’s what he actually said:

” That’s why I am a doctor. “

Now he says this:

” See, I respected his questions. I gave honest answers and if you remember there was a commentator who didn’t understand how we as atheists validate our moral choices.

However he has not respected mine.

I am not a doctor. YET. When I am one you will be informed. .”

Good. I’ll inform him when I am one, too. In the meantime I will refrain from calling myself a doctor.

Now that we have straightened out the credentials, we can move on. He says,

” You can’t disprove the existence of wizards either.”

I’m not the one trying to do that. It is solely his job to provide empirical proof for his system of belief and worldview.

” Currently he hides behind the Big Bang but honestly do you really think that when science solves that little conundrum he will be there? “

This only proves his Scientism and his lack of comprehension that science – being a material only pursuit – cannot “solve” any conundrum which involves a non-material existence. His faith is touching but misplaced: there are myriad valid questions that science cannot resolve.

” Ah yes. The notion that empirical science shouldn’t be allowed to be applied to gods because religious people “say” so.”

Actually Karl Popper (agnostic) introduced the logic of scientific limitations in his book, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, which delineates the demarcation between the material pursuits which science can address, and the types of pursuits where science is impotent. Should Avicenna wish to dispute Popper’s logic, then he should do so. No attempt so far has proven satisfactory, however. Avicenna could be the first.

” There is no evidence anywhere to suggest the existence of any gods. Let alone the particular one we call Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah. These aren’t even hypothesis, these are superstition. No different from the laughable notion that you can somehow influence a thunderstorm or placate a volcano.”

A complete falsehood, borne of ignorance. He apparently has made no attempt to even engage actual theism, its propositions, deductions and evidence; he merely rejects it outright in ignorance of the propositions which are made – and not refuted.

Next he quotes himself, and declares it “logical”. His evidence for his logic is this:

” The above is a logical statement. We have no evidence for any gods. Maybe one day there may be evidence for some but as of now there is none. To believe in something that there is no evidence for is pretty “stupid”.

There most certainly is evidence, including physical and deductive, not to mention anecdotal (which we will ignore). To declare that “there is no evidence” is merely an extension of ignorance, stated emphatically. He was challenged in the earlier critique, and he is now challenged again:

First: disprove, empirically and categorically, the original claims of the singularity at Lourdes.

Second: disprove, empirically and categorically, the necessity of a non-material agent with the capability of creating a rule-based universe.

If he declines to do so, then he will have shown that he cannot defend his Atheism except by declaring falsely that there is no evidence, when he has been shown both physical and deductive evidence for him to disprove.

The following exchange permanently displays the type of rationalizing which Avicenna uses:

My original challenge to him:

” Contrary to his denial of evidence, there is evidence for the existence of a creating agent; but his categorical denial places Avicenna into the position of denial of existing evidence and disciplined arguments. So he either is ignoring them or is ignorant of them. Either way, he has taken a false position which declares categorically true. And he further Poisons the Well by starting with a False Analogy, that of the unicorn, a favorite dodge of Atheists who are unused to more sophisticated argumentation.”

His response:

”Philosophy is not an argument against empirical science.

Existing evidence? Oh I assume it’s the prime mover nonsense. Well the Universe was not created for us. It seems awfully ginormous. It’s like suggesting cars exist solely to kill insects.”

Please take some time to reread his response "argument":
(a) Philosophy is somehow trumped by science. Evidence: What scientific study proves this? Where is the empirical testing which has been done, the peer review, the data, which shows conclusively that science cannot be argued philosophically? (Every scientific conclusion is a philosophical interpretation of the data). And further, show that there is no Philosophy of Science, which is the primary validation for science. And show that science can exist without the philosophical help of mathematics and logic, both of which precede empiricism by thousands of years; are they erroneously deemed precursors and absolute necessities for the existence of Science? If so why? Details, please.

How, exactly, will empirical testing be applied to non-material subjects? How, exactly, is the prime mover argument “nonsense”? How, exactly does “seeming ginormous” have anything to do with a non-material agent preceding the existence of the material universe? How does his silly analogy regarding cars and bugs apply to the question at hand?

(b) Demonstrate empirically the point in the thomasian arguments at which science declares the argument a failure based on empirical testing. Please don't bother claiming that this demand is absurd; it follows your scientism directly and rejects your dismissive philosophy in particular: if philosophy is rejected, then your philosophy is rejected, especially since it involves a False Analogy which is totally not applicable to the subject at hand. You must use the science which you insist is supreme, if you are to support your dismissal with any actual evidence (data).

Please, Avicenna, answer each and every one of these questions directly and without obfuscating false analogies or false philosophies. Use science.

He follows, ironically, with the philosophical unicorn analogy, rather than empirical findings:

” And how dare you sir! The Unicorn is the National Animal Of Scotland.

It’s not sophisticated as an argument because it doesn’t need to be. It’s an elegant argument. A unicorn is infinitely more believable than a god. One’s an entity of unimaginable power who treats humans as his personal action figures, making them dance for his amusement. The other’s a horse that comes to a point. Honestly? If you think a unicorn is LESS believable than the gods then you clearly have no idea of what sophistication is.”

First, the subject is whether he can support his Atheism using his empiricism. Can he disprove the evidence which is presented or will he only ridicule it? The unicorn caper is a standard dodge which fails for the following reason: he can empirically disprove neither the unicorn nor the pre-existence of a non-material agent. So he makes the comparison with a unicorn as if that is a proper analog, deserving of ridicule. Just the slightest analysis would have shown him that the unicorn proposition would leave physical evidence, which could be properly analyzed, empirically; but there is none to analyze. However, the deity proposition actually has left physical evidence, so he denies the existence of the evidence in order to avoid having to analyze it and disprove it (he cannot, it has not been done in the more than a century since it occurred). Instead he engages in weak-kneed philosophy - which he denigrated - rather than science.

He continues:

” Then he proceeds with this absurdity:

”Because we created untouchable gods by accident.”

“No. I wrote about how we created an entire mythos of an untouchable god. Kal-El. Superman as he is known in the common parlance. Where we made him so powerful we couldn’t put him in any risk so his stories stopped being gripping. You know Batman is going to win because he is Batman but you know he is weak and fragile.

Superman is practically indestructible and any solution is going to involve punching things. It’s why we like Batman more than Superman despite Superman speaking to ideals that we hold more dear.
I used Superman to show power creep.”

Really? Comic books as your argument? There is no science here, Avi; none. Nor is there any bearing on the pre-existence of a non-material agent with the capability of causing the existence of the material universe.

I understand the influence comic books have had on you. How about some of your vaunted science? If scientism is your belief system, then where, exactly and when, exactly do you plan to use empiricism to disprove the evidence you have been given?

”Jehovah in Judges 1:19 cannot beat Iron Chariots. Power Creep eventually made him “All Powerful”.”

I do so love it when an Atheist pretends to interpret the bible. Read Judges 1:20. Sheesh.

More to the point, the argument for a pre-existing non-material agent has nothing to do with the bible, the Qu’ran, or any other religious book. It is a completely material-based deduction, which uses modern scientific theory as its foundation, and the discipline of deductive logic as its process. It cannot be defeated by derisive false analogies or attacks on ecclesiastic documents of any kind.

My next charge to him was this:

” his is an assertion with zero back-up. This is a Just So Story, and it presages his use of fantasy stories which he presents as fact.”

His counter argument is this:

”I think this is the very definition of religious belief.
It’s a bad sign when you have shot apart your entire belief system yourself.”

Avicenna’s retort has neither any bearing on the charge against his illogic, nor does it have any evidence for its own veracity, nor does it provide any support for his meme that there is no evidence: it is yet another statement of blind belief without evidence, empirical or deductive, for support.

The facts are these: he has been given an opportunity to engage his Scientistic empirical beliefs in defense of his Atheism, and he has not; instead, he continues to avoid any acceptance that there exists evidence which must be refuted empirically if Atheism is actually true. And he wraps up (prematurely as it happens) with his own personally derived definition of “religious belief” (which is not the subject at all), and the incredible conclusion that he has won the discussion, even without a single shred of scientific data, or material evidence, much less disciplined deduction, given in his favor. Empirical science is impotent in the arenas where Avicenna thinks he can invoke it. And invoking it without even using it to produce the evidence demanded of it is completely irrational. Not to mention futile.

But I suspect that Avicenna knows all this deep down inside. His premature declaration of success-via-personal-definition is a reminder of how Nixon got the USA out of the Democrats’ Viet Nam debacle: He declared, “We WIN, Come Home Immediately”, and turned Viet Nam over to the Communists as Americans barely escaped with their skins.

Avicenna cannot provide any SCIENTIFIC DATA which supports a single one of his blind assertions, or he would have done so. So his Scientism is nothing more than an affectation, rather than a practical source of knowledge in support of his worldview. He relies entirely on false analogy and other rhetorical fallacy for his defense.