A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
AGW again
Yonose has ecommended a video of Lord Monckton regarding Global Warming. I watched it, and recommend it to anyone who wants to refute it. But first you should warm up with this take on it from George Carlin:
I just don't have time to watch and refute all this. Most arguments from Monckton and similar are so confused that they don't even make sense.
For example, one of the more popular arguments concerns the "Hockey Stick", the gist being that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as it is today, which is somehow supposed to imply that since it happened naturally before, it must be natural now.
In other words:
1. Forest fires began naturally in the past 2. Therefore, this current forest fire is not due to arson
I don't have to tell you what's wrong with that argument.
To make matters even worse, IF we concede for the sake of argument that the MWP was just as warm today, then what this means is that climate sensitivity is even greater than the IPCC says it is, which means AGW is an even bigger problem.
These types of objections are just grasping at straws to try to be contrarian to anything said about global warming without thinking things through carefully.
No the problem with the hockey stick is the actual temperatures are about to fall right out the side of the prediction. The fallacy of the Warmist is that they don't care if it happened naturally in the past, doggone it it's arson now, and you'd best accept our biased, discredited computer models as proof.
Warmists like to pretend they are Galileo when really they are the Ptolemaics who refuse to see past their own quasi-scientific, politically motivated, biases; and they'll brand you a heretic to boot.
The Hockey Stick has nothing to do with predicting the future. The Hockey Stick is a record of past temperatures, regardless of whether it is going to get warmer or not.
You see what I mean? Grasping at any straw without even giving it a second's thought.
@Hugo: for pity's sake, what do you expect Stan to do? The Atheists come, he shoots them down with logic and exposes their worldview for what it is. No one comes to raise any kind of lucid defense of atheism. Some try throwing words, but the words don't have anything behind them besides "because I said so". I have yet to find even one honest atheist come here and admit they like atheism for any other reason than because it's scientific, or it's 'rational' - neither of which they support with any sort of logical structure that holds up under five minute's scrutiny.
And just when you think Stan has gotten them to the point where an regular fellow would shake his head and admit 'eh, ya got me there', they start in with the SPEAKING IN ALL CAPS or insults or cut-and-paste rants.
Darnit, Hugo. Pick one, any one of Stan's challenges to atheists and run with it as long and as far as you can.
In the meantime, if Stan wants to point out AtheoLeft silliness such as the coming Ice Age (wait, that was the seventies) or man-made global whatever, why not?
Every example he holds up, from the recent Republican failure to support their own conservative base and the US Constitution to the repeated attempts to globally wring money and power from a trumped-up set of heavily-spun weather statistics is part and parcel of the AtheoLeft agenda.
This sort of stuff happens when you abandon the old idea of God and set yourself up in His place. The old standards go with it, and morality, ethics and the day-to-day behavior of people changes whenever it's profitable. Anything goes, even self-destruction, even governments voting for their own eventual ruin.
You complain Stan does not talk about Atheism anymore. To the contrary, I rarely see him talk about anything else.
Alarmist Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW, pun intended), suspiciously begins to be well known with the tampering of scientific data. Obviously the idea of AGW resides on an alarmist position.
While I agree there is an effect with our industrial endeavours, is not a big a deal as the mainstream, in that particular case, make us believe.
Here are more complete sources, which are admittedly too long to read in one settling, but interesting ones nonetheless:
The Hockey Stick figure is just the tip of the iceberg; the icing of a possibly tasteful cake we don't know what its real ingredients are. Please take some time to read some parts of the reports served in the links shown above.
The problem is actually the same as ever: the alleged tampering of scientific data to prove Alarmist Anthopogenic Global Warming. The issue is primarily scientific, that had many political implications which unfortunately still permeate to this very day.
Some of the IPCC blunders and incompetence, the Intergovernmental organization behind the AGW Narrative, have been pointed out by some people even not too long ago. Just to give you an example:
The 70s Global Cooling Scare. Apparently, the argument is supposed to work something like this: In the 70s, those crazy climate scientists were predicting a new Ice Age, and they were clearly wrong! And now they are predicting warming! Therefore, the planet is not warming.
The first problem is that this is a non sequitor. It does not follow that because climate scientists were wrong about cooling that they are wrong about warming. But more importantly, in the real world, it was the MEDIA that was obsessed with global cooling in the 1970s. The media loves hype, and a tiny handful of papers had suggested that IF certain conditions were met, that we COULD see global cooling, and the media ran with it. Big headlines in Time Magazine. The scientific literature at the time predicted warming in 40 papers, and cooling in only a handful. So not only is this a non sequiter, but it is also just false.
Yonose linked to a ridiculous amount of material which I just don't have time to go through, but it is all guilty of similar problems. All of it is distorted for political reasons. The rightwing thinktanks are no better than the leftwing ones.
Again, so goes the stupidity of two-party politics, where brains shut down and tribalism reigns.
Again, the issues, at least of the NIPCC reports, and regarding of Steve McIntyre, are primarily of Scientific analysis, so please take your time to read those and have your own conclusions.
I'm a centrist, and politics are unavoidable; those are the consequences of having to deal with bad science. You should understand, that the main reason I did this, is because there's data corruption and many flaws with the actual IPCC model, and those are the first sources I posted already that I recommended you to read first. The rest are rather political issues, so I did put them in order.
@Steven The main point was about evolution; a simple reference sharing. Looks like you cared more about the one rhetorical line. Everyone understands how things are correlated so it makes sense for Stan to discuss a lot of topics. It's just funny to note that the proportion of 'analyzing atheism' on 'atheism analyzed' is very small sometimes; it varies a lot.
@Stan In case you jump on the last thing, like your buddy up here, the goal was really just to show the link, since Monckton was caught lying on certain issues and potholer54 does a very good job at debunking him.
@yonose I am not alarmist; I would probably agree with you if you actually had a point to make regarding alarmists. If we agree that "there is an effect with our industrial endeavours" then you are not among the ones who need to be convinced. Last time I interacted with you, all you did was to tell me to 'read more' instead of making any points. Looks like you have nothing else this time either; that's where we disagree.
@Martin Everything you write regarding global warming is reasonable. It's all logical and supported by sound science. It's not alarmist, not exaggerated either way; just pointing out facts and conclusions we can draw from them, or old myths that were debunked.
@all What's really interesting to me is that you have 1 thing in common: a belief in a god. Yet, nobody ever comments on why they believe that, being distracted by all the 'evil' deads that that AtheoLeft commits on a daily basis. It's always the atheists' fault for not believing that thing. I would find it really interesting to read your description of what god is, how you know it exists, or why you think you have good reasons to believe god is more than just a human construct, how we can know about god's attributes. I know you all have answers for these things; the point is: you would all contradict each other for sure at some point. How would come to decide who's right?
You are 4 people and would require a lot of time to come to that clear definition. And you want me to believe that 'logically' speaking, there is really just 1 god for all humans that can potentially understand what the heck you are talking about when you say that a god exists?
If you were to come to a consensus on what god is and why we should all believe god is real, exists and care about us, then fine, I would consider not being an atheist. Until then, there is nothing to 'analyze', since there is nothing to believe in. Just a broad 'god' claim by individuals.
Martin, One thing jumps out. The AGW enthusiasts now claim, or at least you did iirc, that "weather" has no bearing on climate, unless the averages change over a long period which is now some arbitrary figure such as 50 years (longer than any scientist's career).
The hockey stick panic was not taken as such a long term average.
Second, the actual historical record shows many rapid changes which oscillate between limiting values, where the climate remains at one limit or the other for significant periods, then crashes to the other limit.
That seems to indicate that the system is not stable in the linear region between saturation limits, and behaves very similarly to an electronic flip-flop (bi-stable) circuit. (Computers are chock-a-block full of bi-stable circuits, as are all re-writable memory systems.
In the sea-level graph given above, there are numerous rapid heating periods shown, where the sea level changes many meters. In fact, that is the trend across history: rapid heating, pause at the limit, then a slower cooling, although some of the cooling is rapid too.
If you do a simple calculation of reflectivity and re-radiation from the CO2 solar barrier around the earth, you can easily see that the continuing increase in reflectivity and re-radiation - back into space - form a limit to the theoretically possible heating which is allowed. In the limit, the reflectivity would be so high that no IR would penetrate, and the earth would cool rapidly.
We have been in a rapid heating period ever since roughly 18k years ago, according to that graph above, with a recent decrease in sea level by 10 meters.
So the idea that humans are destroying the earth, and the idea that the hockey stick is a climate indicator, seem to be at best, iffy.
My argument is with the activism which is based on the AGW claims.
Certainly many or most humans tend to live roughly 10 meters above sea level; that is not the fault of the climate, it is the fault of humans taking the easy way to commerce. Humans can and will adapt, but only when it is a reality that they must.
Yes, the climate is variable and large swings happen naturally. But each change in climate has discoverable mechanisms behind it: changes in the sun, changes in orbit, atmospheric composition, etc.
Again, it is fallacious to infer from "it happened naturally in the past" to "it is happening naturally now." They know what mechanisms are in place right now, and what is dominating is CO2 of the manmade variety.
Whether it is warming yet or not, whether the hockey stick is right or wrong, right now the dominant climate forcing is CO2.
So these popular objections concerning the hockey stick, 70s global cooling, and so on are misguided, as I explained above, and the fact that they are misguided indicates that they are not serious, but are good-sounding talking points with rhetorical force used for political reasons. The Right equivalent to the Left's equally implausible rhetoric about destroying the Earth etc.
Most of the talk about destroying the Earth and so forth is media hype, anyway. The media distorts everything. Any time you see a news story that says, "Climate scientists say that the increase in tornadoes is due to global warming..." or whatever, you ought to be INSTANTLY skeptical and tell yourself that this is almost certainly media hype. That the actual study probably said something like "Given X, and assuming Y, and IF A and B, THEN the probability of tornadoes etc etc etc".
"Yonose linked to a ridiculous amount of material *** which I just don't have time to go through*** but it is all guilty of similar problems. All of it is distorted for political reasons. The rightwing thinktanks are no better than the leftwing ones.
Okay, I am blowing the BS whistle on you, Martin.
First, of your own admission, you DID NOT READ the articles. You admit this is because you consider the *amount* of material 'ridiculous'. No reason given for this dismissal of the need to read other than you find the amount 'ridiculous'. Apparently because you said so.
Then you move on to make three statements in a row.
- "but it is all guilty of similar problems." You somehow arrived at this in-depth judgement without reading the material. How?
- "All of it is distorted for political reasons". You somehow arrived at this all-inclusive condemnation despite the fact you did not read the material.
- "The rightwing thinktanks are no better than the leftwing ones." Okay, you just condemned both left and right thinktanks. You are superior to all the minds assembled in those 'thinktanks', I suppose, in order for your judgement to hold truth.
But never mind that. I assume this has something to do with the 'ridiculous' amounts of material you were provided but chose not to read. Where is your proof backing this statement? How can you even hold that statement as an honest opinion while admitting you did not read the material associated with the topic at hand?
You're condemning material presented to you in support of a view you dispute. Because it came in a 'ridiculous' quantity and because you've decided, without looking at any of it, that it's all false.
Martin and Hugo, this is why you don't see too many discussions of Atheism itself here. You guys just can't seem to break away from using yourselves as the ultimate authority. And as long as you are the Ultimate Intelligence, there is no way to discuss Atheism with you. You agree with it because it's true. It's true because you said so.
"How can you even hold that statement as an honest opinion while admitting you did not read the material associated with the topic at hand?"
I also did not read and did not intend to. Reading the titles and topics is enough to dismiss issues that are out of line with what we already know about climate change. Take it this way Steven: If I were to give you 12 sources explaining why the Earth is flat, would you read them? What about moon landing hoax? WTC7 being a controlled demolition? How communism is the only good political system? Existence of BigFoot/Loch Ness Monster? Lung cancer not being linked to cigarettes smoking? How beneficial homeopathy is?
"Martin and Hugo, this is why you don't see too many discussions of Atheism itself here. You guys just can't seem to break away from using yourselves as the ultimate authority. And as long as you are the Ultimate Intelligence, there is no way to discuss Atheism with you. You agree with it because it's true. It's true because you said so."
Martin and I disagree completely regarding Atheism... He is quite clear about how ridiculously stupid and illogical I am regarding that topic actually. He removed everything I ever said about it from his blog because it was such hubris.
Induction. I know from experience the way climate "skepticism" works, and I don't need to see all of it in order to get a good handle on how it works. I provided several examples above. It works by making distortions and embracing arguments that sound good but are either fallacious or make AGW even worse if true. It isn't skepticism at all; it's a political movement to sow doubt in order to stop governments from doing anything about it, because conservatives don't like governments to be spending anything or interfering any more than necessary. Rather than, you know, offering a conservative solution to the problem.
Same goes for leftwing organizations, which also distort.
If noticing that what we have here are two politically motivated groups distorting reality in order to suit their agendas makes me "superior", then I guess I'm superior.
And Hugo is a perfect example of the opposite issue. How many times has he come to my blog and made a complete distortion of the theistic arguments I present there, in order, of course, to maintain his predetermined conclusion.
In short: stop being political, and start THINKING. And don't get the two mixed up.
@Hugo: One more thing; we are not here to discuss God. We are here, presumably, to discuss Atheism itself, as the site suggests.
One of the things I notice about you Atheists is that you WILL NOT stop trying to change the subject from Atheism to something else - science, the existence of God, the burden of proof, blah blah blah.
I cannot tell if you are here simply for your own amusement or not. If so, you might consider something else. You mock me because I stand up for the same things Stan does. And suggest that because there is more than one person here who agrees, there is something propelling us to stand as we do, something that has nothing to do with logic or reason.
[You're not accusing the people collected here of 'bullying' you, are you? Because that's a really weak complaint. And not likely to distract anyone for long or gain you much sympathy.]
"Let's not talk about Atheism as Steve suggested; actually pick a challenge and address it foursquare. Let's suggest that Steve is in league with the rest and that there's something wrong with that, something that colors their argument and taints it."
Innuendo. Denial, fling a little mud, more denial and hey presto! we're not talking about Atheism anymore.
Hugo, pick a Challenge and address it. Then we'll be talking about Atheism. I look forward to your efforts.
> removed everything I ever said about it from his blog because it was such hubris.
It wasn't hubris. It was clutter. 40 comments to agree with the conclusion of the ontological argument, and simultaneously disagree with it = irrational clutter. My blog is supposed to be short, easy-to-read tidbits of philosophy, theistic or not. Not long chains of gibberish. When it comes to theism, place yourself in the same boat along with the climate skeptics, flat-earthers, and everyone else. You can't argue with a flat-earther, and you can't argue with a "new atheist". You CAN argue with good-faith critics, but they are rare when the topic is politics and religion.
A possible solution to this is to mirror the Scholastics: your opponent is required to cite your argument back to you to your satisfaction FIRST, before criticizing it.
I am not sure what your point is, really. I certainly don't feel bullied and don't intend to bully anyone. I do get strong reaction from you, Stan, Martin and other theists quite easily. Ironically, I am then the one who gets labelled as 'emotional' and that 'maintain his predetermined conclusion.'
Reading/writing online on the topic of Atheism is something always interested me and unfortunately sucked way too much of my time since it does get into a bunch of other issues as well. We all do this since our worldview correlates with so many topics.
"One more thing; we are not here to discuss God. We are here, presumably, to discuss Atheism itself, as the site suggests.
One of the things I notice about you Atheists is that you WILL NOT stop trying to change the subject from Atheism to something else - science, the existence of God, the burden of proof, blah blah blah."
Going from 'Atheism' to 'existence of God' is a change of subject? How could this be... Atheism is the rejection of the claim 'God exists'... I can tell you why I reject certain gods but I don't have a broad belief that states 'all gods don't and cannot even possible exist'.
Plus, I am the one who argued that this blog is not enough about Atheism but about so many other things that are not directly related (even though they ARE correlated). So again, I really don't get your point Steven. You seem to just be annoyed at Atheists as a whole and want to discuss some points but I fail to see what.
You get strong reactions from me because you only offer gibberish in response to theistic arguments. Let's say you provide me with the following argument:
1. If species have ERVs in common with their ancestors, then species descended from those ancestors 2. Species have ERVs in common with their ancestors 3. Therefore, species descended from those ancestors
Now let's say instead of offering a response to one of the two premises, instead I went on a long and incoherent rant like this:
"This presumes that there are two groups: those with ERVS and those without. Now, what proof is there that there are these two groups, and what about ERVs in other species? But first, please define 'descent'. Also, when you say 'in common', what do you mean?"
And on and on. It would probably become clear to you that I was just stalling. I wish there was a name for this fallacy, but I'll call it "pretending-to-be-dumb" fallacy. A way of stalling, and nothing more.
Either species share ERVs or not. Either ERVs indicate common ancestry or not. Carrying on and on about the definition of "descent" is just a stall tactic. I mean, we both speak English, right?
That is analogous to what you do whenever I present theistic arguments.
I don't understand why you need to lie by bringing up the same example every time. Here are some facts:
- I never agreed with the conclusion of the ontological argument. Lie #1. It was related to the argument form change by the way; I can forgive you that mistake ;)
- You say: " A possible solution to this is to mirror the Scholastics: your opponent is required to cite your argument back to you to your satisfaction FIRST, before criticizing it."
I have always been good at doing this. You do agree with my interpretation of your arguments every time I write them! Let me quote you: "You haven't pointed out any problem. You've just listed the argument. An amazingly accurate rendition, surprisingly."
So, that's not 'Lie #2' just yet but it's certainly some misunderstanding or memory lapse from your part, since we agree that this is the correct way to discuss issue.
- You mention the 40-comment thing as if it was the reason why you removed our interaction from your blog. That's Lie #2. In reality, the trigger was this last comment I wrote to you:
"Ever taken an IQ test? Are you in the top 5%? Or something like the GMAT? Are you in the top 8%? It sucks to have to brag like this, and I am pretty sure I did it before already, but what can I say... these are facts that support the idea that YOU are the one making mistakes. You just can't see them.
Moreover, if I am irrational, you have been arguing with me a lot. If you are irrational, I have been arguing with you a lot. Either way, it would mean that it's possible to argue with irrational people. Obviously, we are both rational people who disagree on a few things, but you prefer to jump to gross generalization. "
Again, sorry for the arrogance, you had started to call me irrational, unreasonable, etc, already at that point so I wanted to point out the fact that it seems very odd to me that I would be so successful at using logic in everything else but Theistic arguments...
Regarding the analogy you provided... "And on and on. It would probably become clear to you that I was just stalling." ...I understand perfectly what you mean, but that's not what's happening with the arguments you present for Theism. That's Lie #3. If I were only 'stalling' your arguments, I would have never succeeded in convincing you that the argument from Normativity was wrong, yet you agreed with me and changed it. For some reason, you don't see your mistakes on other points...
Finally, 1 more mistake you made, and which concern all of you here, is that you eventually jump to the conclusion that I 'want' to believe in Atheism, that I just 'want' to be like that and refuse god or whatever thing I am irrational not to believe in. Yet, I am really just discussing things here because I don't get to in person.
You lied on the agreement regarding Ontological argument, you lied because it was not even about the Ontological argument but rather the argument from change (more of a mistake I suppose), you lied about when/why you removed comments; it's when it got personal that you acted, you lied about how it would be good to re-phrase your arguments, which I already do quite often...
I do not lie, so please stop accusing me of lying.
You agreed with the conclusion of the ontological argument, that "it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality", but disagreed that "God exists". But the former is logically equivalent to the latter, so you believe both that "God exists" and "God does not exist", which is a contradiction. I cannot argue with someone that accepts contradictions. I also cannot argue with someone who thinks that modus tollens is guilty of affirming the consequent.
I find it impossible to argue with someone that does not accept the basic rules of logic and then begins talking about my IQ points.
That's when it became clear that this person is a pigeon shitting on the chess board and declaring victory, and it was time to bail.
"I do not lie, so please stop accusing me of lying." I understand that it was not, and it is not, your intention. However, this is a lie: "You agreed with the conclusion of the ontological argument" I do NOT, and never did, agree with the conclusion.
It's a play on words; yes the conclusion follows from the premise so in that sense I agree with it, but the goal of the argument is to prove that god exists, which the argument does not prove. Hence, I do not agree with the conclusion. That's the kind of contradiction you accuse me of: I agree and disagree with the conclusion. Yes, it's true! But only because 'conclusion' means 2 different things as I just expressed...
"someone who thinks that modus tollens is guilty of affirming the consequent." You are twisting the story; I could copy/paste the entire conversation to show how, but I think we are polluting Stan's blog enough already... The point is that you actually ended up agreeing with me that your argument was not properly constructed. It is thus an example of your argument being addressed properly instead of just 'stalling', which you accuse me of doing.
" I find it impossible to argue with someone that does not accept the basic rules of logic"
How could I even possibly reject the rules of logic? I understand them very well and I am more than happy to be proven wrong if I make a mistake. The problems we face are not with the use of logic, they are with what we agree is true or not. You can write syllogisms all day long if you want, but at the end of the day, if we cannot determine the truth value of the premises used in the syllogisms, it means nothing.
"That's when it became clear that this person is a pigeon shitting on the chess board and declaring victory, and it was time to bail."
Oh I agree with that completely. It was like a pissing contest, lol, which I apparently "won"* by pissing far enough so that you would stop interacting (*there are never any winners in that situation...). You're the one who started to piss first though, by claiming that I am irrational and that I "proved" that to you. I don't attack my opponent like that just after discussing 3 arguments for the existence of god... you don't seem to realize how often I called you out on illogical things you wrote... but I would not conclude that you are illogical as a person...
In any case, you missed the point again regarding that quote. The point was that you lied about both the timing AND the reason for removing my comments from your blog. You pretend it's because of the 40-long comment thread when in reality it happened several days after that, and it was not even because of these comments at all, we discussed other topics after these 40 comments but before you kicked me out...
FINALLY, if there is 1 single point you want to discuss, something you know for sure I am wrong about, please do write it here, or create a new post on your own blog, and I would gladly concede that I was wrong and learned something, or explain why I disagree and try to understand why you think otherwise.
You may go anytime to read at least a small portion of the NIPCC reports, before making a blanket statement by diminishing climate skepticism as a political movement. I still insist, that political consequences are evident when bad science is leaked into the general public.
You may also compare the general NIPCC reports with the focus of the IPCC reports on very specific matters (so not to take too long nor to waste people's time), specially the AR4 synthesis and the assessment reports.
Hugo You said this: ” It's a play on words; yes the conclusion follows from the premise so in that sense I agree with it, but the goal of the argument is to prove that god exists, which the argument does not prove. Hence, I do not agree with the conclusion. That's the kind of contradiction you accuse me of: I agree and disagree with the conclusion. Yes, it's true! But only because 'conclusion' means 2 different things as I just expressed...”
This means conclusively that you do not accept rationality as your thought process. If an argument is valid and true, is grounded and passes Reductio ad Absurdum, then it is not rational to reject it. Period. You continually inject emotional rejectionism into the equation, and insist that that is rational. And you refuse to acknowledge that it is not.
Under those circumstances there is no reason to attempt to discuss anything with you, because your thought process is outside the rational constraints of logical processing.
” How could I even possibly reject the rules of logic? I understand them very well and I am more than happy to be proven wrong if I make a mistake. “
You have never, ever, accepted any logical construct which is demonstrated to be valid, true, grounded, not circular or infinite regress, passes Absurdum, if it demonstrates a conclusion you do not wish to acknowledge. The following statement indicates your failure to comprehend the entire purpose of logic:
” The problems we face are not with the use of logic, they are with what we agree is true or not. “
Only logic can produce the answer to that. You want opinion (yours) to be the answer, not logic.
” You can write syllogisms all day long if you want, but at the end of the day, if we cannot determine the truth value of the premises used in the syllogisms, it means nothing.”
Syllogisms are purposefully designed to have truth values, based on the criteria I’ve given above. If you cannot find the truth value of a syllogism, then you know nothing about logic, contra your claim to the contrary.
” You're the one who started to piss first though, by claiming that I am irrational and that I "proved" that to you.”
Hugo, you have proved that time and again. Over and over. You claim to know logic and to be logical, but it is completely obvious that you do not, and that you do not care one whit to try to learn the principles and their use, much less their value to a rational worldview. It is the reason you have been banned from this blog: you refuse the use of discipline in your discussion, preferring to spout opinion as if it were actual truth.
Hugo, it’s just you. It’s the way you roll.
Now let’s take this comment:
” "Ever taken an IQ test? Are you in the top 5%? Or something like the GMAT? Are you in the top 8%? It sucks to have to brag like this, and I am pretty sure I did it before already, but what can I say... these are facts that support the idea that YOU are the one making mistakes. You just can't see them. “
That is just crap, Hugo. For one thing, there are many high IQ folks who can’t think straight because they are also emotional messes (many are narcissists who cannot ever be wrong), and/or because they were never taught the principles of disciplined deductive reasoning, and/or because they have cherished agendas. So there is no point in listing your purported mental prowess; it has no bearing on your rationality. Second, I don’t for a second believe it. Why not? It is a cheap smack-down contest with no valid outcome. And that alone falsifies the entire premise of intellectual superiority which you are trying to project.
” Finally, 1 more mistake you made, and which concern all of you here, is that you eventually jump to the conclusion that I 'want' to believe in Atheism, that I just 'want' to be like that and refuse god or whatever thing I am irrational not to believe in. Yet, I am really just discussing things here because I don't get to in person.”
And there you have it, Hugo: Your conclusion (sentence 2) has no relationship to your premise (sentence 1).
>there is no reason to attempt to discuss anything with you, because your thought process is outside the rational constraints of logical processing.
You see what I mean? This is what I concluded. That's when I realized I'm not dealing with a person who understands or plays by the rules of logic 101 here, so I just went through and deleted all his comments because they are just taking up space. No good discussion whatsoever.
The first premise of the argument from motion is "change occurs", and it took him dozens of comments to finally agree that, yes, in fact, birds fly, rivers flow, people walk, etc.
It's pointless having a discussion with someone like that.
"If you were to come to a consensus on what god is and why we should all believe god is real, exists and care about us, then fine, I would consider not being an atheist. Until then, there is nothing to 'analyze', since there is nothing to believe in. Just a broad 'god' claim by individuals.
I won't be holding my breathe ;)"
There need not be any consensus on all your conditions; that is an obfuscation, another dodge. You have been given the arguments, including the Challenge to Atheists in the right hand column, and you have given no coherent argument for their refutation. The arguments are basic to all monotheism; so your complaint about consensus is false. What you cannot do is to support your Atheism regarding basic monotheism's most fundamental claim, using any Atheist tool, except for rank, unsupported denialism, and irrationality. But what Atheists, including you, claim is to be the ultimate in rationality, and to be evidentiarily based; so where is your disciplined argument supporting your Atheism? Where is your evidence supporting Atheism?
When you can provide those two simple requirements of rational support, then your Atheism is justified. Until then, it is not.
"This means conclusively that you do not accept rationality as your thought process. If an argument is valid and true, is grounded and passes Reductio ad Absurdum, then it is not rational to reject it. Period."
First of all, you have no idea what argument we were talking about, lol! How can you even comment on it?
Second, it's not that simple and I am the one who should conclude* that you do not accept rationality as your thought process... but you see, I don't jump to absurd conclusion like this about others. You are not a fundamentally irrational person, so my (* here's the real one) conclusion is that there is a misunderstanding.
Here's the example I used before: - SUBARU is a CAR - CAR has 3 letters - Hence, SUBARU has 3 letters The argument is valid but we all agree that it's not true (equivocation fallacy).
That's the same thing with the ontological argument that I discussed with Martin. I agreed that the conclusion was 'valid' in exactly the same way that we are forced to agree that the conclusion is 'valid' in the above argument. However, the above example is not a good analogy for the ontological argument; it's just a good example of how it's not as simple as what you wrote Stan...
Another, better example is this: - God is the Universe - The Universe exists - Hence, God exists Tadam! I prove that Pantheism is true, God exists, it's the Universe!
Obviously, it's not that simple (again) but it really is the same kind of reasoning error that happens with the Ontological argument. See here: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ontological-argument-in-plain.html
Here's 1 of the way I tried to explain why the argument fails:
- You start with a definition of God (IF God were to exists)
- Using that definition, you show how the claim 'God does not exist' is false (IF God were to exists)
- Then, you conclude that because 'God does not exist' is false, 'God exists' is true. (IF God were to exists)
You basically list a tautology. IF God were to exists, God would exist.
Presenting another version of the argument does not help resolving that problem.
Therefore, no premises is to be denied to reject the argument. The argument is valid, as long as we are under the caveat 'IF God exists, it would be 'X''.
That does not prove that 'God exists' is true. It proves that if God were to exists then 'God exists' would be true!
Martin's response? "Eh? You agreed above that if a negative proposition is false, then it is true. If "God does not exist" is a false proposition, then it is necessarily the case that "God exists" is true."
Correct, but "God does not exist" is shown to be a false proposition using a definition of God which is valid if God exists. Quoting Martin again: Nothing about the definition entails that this thing actually exists. Perhaps there is no Creator. Just that IF there is, he would be...
Hence, "God does not exist" is false if God exists.
"You continually inject emotional rejectionism into the equation, and insist that that is rational. And you refuse to acknowledge that it is not."
I never understand what you are talking about when you jump to the conclusion, and I already mentioned above that the charges of 'emotions' are false since I don't want to believe there is no god, I simple don't because I am not convinced. Why would I prefer for no god to exist? The universe is fascinating enough without any gods but I really don't see any problem with the idea that a god does exist.
Will you guys ever acknowledge that? Probably not...
"Syllogisms are purposefully designed to have truth values, based on the criteria I’ve given above. If you cannot find the truth value of a syllogism, then you know nothing about logic, contra your claim to the contrary."
But I agree with that! You are the one who doesn't get it! What I mean is that if you write syllogisms in abstract form, they are meaningless. You can write something really long and comples:
IF A then B IF B then C IF C then D IF 'D and E' then F IF B then '!G' IF 'F and G' then H else J A is true E is true Conclusion 1: J is true Conclusion 2: H may or may not be true
But what's the point if we are unable to agree on the truth value of A and E? That's what I meant...
" You claim to know logic and to be logical, but it is completely obviousthat you do not"
That's where I get annoyed a little. And honestly that the ONLY thing I get annoyed about. Seriously, the only 1. You can write bullshit all day long and I will find it funny, but that's a personal attack with no value and it leaves me puzzled. Why would anyone write that? Obviously, it has no impact on my daily life, hence I call it mildly annoying and just plain weird...
"For one thing..." Yes, what you said here is correct. Having a high IQ or any other good intellectual capability is not an insurance for logical position on every single topic. The point is really just to point out 2 things: first, I personally do know logic, studied it, used it and continue to use it on a daily basis. Second, why the hell should I believe Martin when he and I disagree, what kind of credentials does he have!? (Remember that the quote was part of my 1-on-1 interaction with him...)
"Second, I don’t for a second believe it..." I understand that should not believe it on face value; so ironically I kind of agree with you on that second point as well. The goal was not to boast my ego or show that I am superior; the point is really the opposite actually, to show that I am no more, and certainly no less, than Martin (again, remember it was when discussing with him...)
"There need not be any consensus on all your conditions" Of course not; it's just an interesting challenged in my opinion. Something that you would never accept, especially since it includes yonose in that thread, dear god I don't hate you that much Stan... the point is only to show that, as an Atheist, the request you make are not realistic either. I cannot possibly reply to all god claims to justify my disbelief. You say that some arguments are ' basic to all monotheism' and I would agree, but that's missing the point since these arguments are 'not' the only reasons people claim they believe in god. I would be curious to know what the % of believers even know and understand them! Their god belief is rarely based on logic and reason...
"You have been given the arguments, including the Challenge to Atheists in the right hand column, and you have given no coherent argument for their refutation." Yes and I did discuss these things with you Stan, and with Martin, many times before. I have always enjoyed it while you 2 did not, claiming that I am an irrational, unreasonable, (crazy?) person who you cannot talk to.
Every time it reaches this point I described above, which is not related to the proper use of logic but rather about the truth value of a specific premise. Every time we disagree on 'A' being true or not. Every time you call me illogical instead of trying to prove why I should believe 'A' to be true. Rational people simply move on and say, 'ok, let's agree to disagree on 'A' and try this other thing instead', or they find an alternative to 'A', or I don't know... something else...
"where is your disciplined argument supporting your Atheism? Where is your evidence supporting Atheism?" There is no such argument nor evidence since Atheism is the end point of my worldview, not the start. I could explain why I reject every single argument I ever heard, but that would still not "prove" Atheism since you clearly imply that Atheism='belief that there is no god', right? I won't attempt to prove that because I don't believe it.
In all honesty (even though that means nothing to you, coming from me), I am still open to the idea of discussing theistic arguments and thus justify why I reject them. However, it seems to me that this occasion might never present itself again with you guys here...
@Martin You are so funny! It's fascinating how you dodged the facts I threw at you, regarding the LIES you wrote here, and replied with indirect jabs by talking to Stan while simultaneously insulting me once again, claiming that I don't play by the rules of logic...
The first premise of the argument from motion is "change occurs", and it took him dozens of comments to finally agree that, yes, in fact, birds fly, rivers flow, people walk, etc.
If you want to support the argument from change and refute my points, do it directly, don't write this distorted version of what occurred. The version YOU decided to erase. What kind of spineless writer erases an exchange he had with someone on his own blog anyway!?
I think Hugo has officially gone around the bend. He's descended to insults and as far as I am concerned, removed himself from the discussion.
He kinda reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight. It's interesting and not a little scary to see what depths self-worship will take you. A caution to us all, this Hugo.
(Not that he had a lot going on to begin with. How many times has Stan banned this guy/gal for exactly the same behavior?)
Steven, I love you too. No insults were meant to be hurtful. I will think about your feelings if I write something you may read.
And more seriously: I really don't think I am the one throwing most insults. You just wrote a comment for the sole purpose of saying that I am off the discussion. No points addressed, ever.
Wasn't your biggest complain about how I don't want to address issues?
Did anyone read "the Ninth Wave"? Written many years ago, it was about a group of people who grew up together, one of whom was so focused on his own high intelligence that all he could do in personal relationships was to push other people's buttons. He became obsessed with antagonizing other people to the point that he could not quit, and he used his intellect only in the pursuit of harassment, which he took to the brink, to the abyss. An interesting progression of intellectual narcissism.
"- You start with a definition of God (IF God were to exists)
- Using that definition, you show how the claim 'God does not exist' is false (IF God were to exists)
- Then, you conclude that because 'God does not exist' is false, 'God exists' is true. (IF God were to exists)
You basically list a tautology. IF God were to exists, God would exist."
That, Hugo, does not apply to any argument made here, nor to any argument made anywhere that I am aware of. That is just a dodge, a Red Herring. You have been challenged to address the Atheist Challenge using disciplined deduction. Instead, you claim that there are too many gods to address, and give a weak excuse regarding some vaporous definition of your concept of Atheism.
Hugo, Your next comment is the only other one that I will address:
"You claim to know logic and to be logical, but it is completely obviousthat you do not"
That's where I get annoyed a little. And honestly that the ONLY thing I get annoyed about. Seriously, the only 1. You can write bullshit all day long and I will find it funny, but that's a personal attack with no value and it leaves me puzzled. Why would anyone write that? Obviously, it has no impact on my daily life, hence I call it mildly annoying and just plain weird..."
You have claimed that you cannot agree to any argument because you cannot agree to truth value of the premises. But if you knew anything about logic, you would know that premises are addressable as arguments themselves, and have their own premises, etc. Either the chain of premises (prior arguments) is infinite (false), or it is looped back (circular: false), or it is grounded in first principles and is testable with Reductio Ad Absurdum. There is no rational reason to merely reject based on word-play and redefining terms mid-stream, nor on an inability to agree on premises.
Hugo, I know how you roll. You want to argue. You do what you can to perpetuate an argument, outside of its rational bounds. It is obvious that you don't want any argument to stop merely because it has a logical conclusion. You have always inserted little pieces of radical skepticism in an attempt to divert the argument from its conclusion, apparently just as an ego boost for yourself (why else would you do that?). Your enjoyment comes from the arguing itself (for whatever reason), not from seeking rational answers. So you insert little diversions in order that you can take the argument off path and into the weeds.
And, you consistently avoid addressing the Challenge to Atheists. ("Too many gods" is your diversion).
For those specific reasons, no discussion with you has ever been along a straight rational path. Hence the conclusion of irrationality.
He brought up this Subaru argument in response to Anselm's ontological argument on my blog. He used the Subaru argument to demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation.
OK, yes, there is a fallacy known as equivocation. What of it? He never said how it applies to the OA. He said that it does, but never demonstrate WHICH word was being equivocated on.
But he thought that pointing out the existence of the fallacy of equivocation was enough to show that my argument was guilty of it.
@Stan: thanks for giving Hugo another chance, but I predict he'll squander this one too. And vex everyone in the process. Which, when you think about what powers most atheists, may be the goal for him.
That delicious sense of outrage, of hurt, of being the righteous victim, of being given a perfectly good reason by his oppressors to carry a grudge and hate - after all, Hugo is the correct one, not us. Never us.
You can't tell me this doesn't fit the current Hugo pattern of behavior. You must know, Stan, just how much black pleasure we get from holding a grudge. Black, because it twists us each day into something a little less willing to resist the temptation to hate someone.
What if that's all the poor guy has left? What if he's deliberately configured himself to be eternally at odds with everyone - even fellow atheists - so that he can eternally be the put-upon victim?
Geez, I hope not. But it does fit the pattern of that book you mentioned. I will have to go look that one up. Is it good? It sounds depressing. That narcissist sounds like he needs someone to give him a fat lip.
@Stan: looked it up, did some digging. No, I did not order the book but I have to say that that main character, Michael, reminded me a lot of Dean Martin.
He also reminded me a lot of a sociopath, as described in John D. MacDonald's "Travis McGee" series.
Not sure Hugo is quite that gone, but you can see the ego edging out the reason with every post he makes.
@Stan: also, that video of George Carlin? I sent the link to my son, but while he agreed with much of what George said, he didn't think the guy was very funny.
John said he detected anger, bitterness and cynicism - with bits of humor here and there, mostly through physical expressions.
Told him George absolutely hated Authority, no matter who it was. Liberal or Atheist or Christian or Republican - he would take them all on and mock the hell out of them.
After fifty years of doing that I would tend to be bitter and cynical, too.
Yes, Carlin was a social commentator who ridiculed everyone. Ridicule is generally not funny, except to partisans, and even then it is iffy.
I never liked Carlin when he was alive, and I was somewhat surprised that he took on such revered Leftist icons. The Left is very much into ridicule, itself, so such contrarian ridicule must smart. So I gave them a dose.
NOTE: I had a lot of wait time today, so I wrote a lot... but had to keep that aside in a Word doc like I usually do so I don't lose my stuff. Anyway, the point is that there is a lot coming in, but that will be the first and last time I write like this. I may come back next week to discuss certain points if you guys want to, but if all I get back is more insults, well... too bad, I won't waste more of my time nor yours!
"Hugo, does not apply to any argument made here, nor to any argument made anywhere that I am aware of." Of course, I told you this was an example of something I discussed with Martin! :-) Did you even follow the link I posted? Note that the quote was also just a fraction of what we discussed in the comment boxes so it's a bit out of context... The main goal was to show that I did address the argument logically and attempted to show why I reject the premises and conclusion.
In other words, here's what's happening here: - You say 'Hugo, you don't address arguments, you just call them false and move on, you refuse your 'burden of rebuttal' - Then, I say, 'No Stan, here's an example of an argument I addressed' - You say 'Hugo, your counter-argument makes no sense! that's a red hearing! Doesn't apply here!' - Then, I say, 'No Stan, it was just an example, which you were not involved in... do you still conclude that I refuse to criticize arguments?'
If you do want to discuss the ontological argument and address why my counter arguments is not valid, in your opinion, we could do that, but that would be you changing the topic and bringing something new... don't accuse me of doing it...
"You have been challenged to address the Atheist Challenge using disciplined deduction. Instead, you claim that there are too many gods to address, and give a weak excuse regarding some vaporous definition of your concept of Atheism." No that's not the reason why I am not really interested in the 'Atheist Challenge', it's because the challenge is meaningless; it's your own personal view of Atheism. I will quickly address it after replying to comments, if time permits... It's actually exactly the same as you not wanting to address challenges such as 'Why won't God heal amputees?', which you rightfully decline to address. Or one more example, it's like someone coming to you and saying: 'Stan, your religion says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, why do you believe that?'. Of course you don't, so why would you take up the challenge of proving the Earth to be 6,000 years old?
"You have claimed that you cannot agree to any argument because you cannot agree to truth value of the premises. But if you knew anything about logic, you would know that premises are addressable as arguments themselves, and have their own premises,"
Yes of course, I agree with that too, you are stating the obvious. The problem is that when we hit a premise that we disagree on, you will call me irrational just because I disagree with you, regardless of 'how' I try to make my case.
"You want to argue. You do what you can to perpetuate an argument, outside of its rational bounds. It is obvious that you don't want any argument to stop merely because it has a logical conclusion. " I like to discuss; that's the only reason why I comment here... in person, people get bored about these discussions and I never run into anybody who strongly disagree with me, so it ends quickly. I do want to reach logical conclusions and that's what I try to do, for my own personal interest. I don't really care if you reach the same conclusion or not; it's up to you. I don't think my opinion has any particular value to anyone.
May I point out that I am not the one with a blog?
" You have always inserted little pieces of radical skepticism in an attempt to divert the argument from its conclusion" Yes that's how it looks like to you because every time you disagree me with, all you can conclude is that I am irrational, too skeptical, or whatever else you want to call me that day. I can do the exact same thing: you are a radical skeptic regarding well established science such as Evolutionary Biology. You refuse to accept that humans share a common ancestor with other apes and mammals even though the evidence is astonishing. You are a radical skeptic.
See, what does that do? Nothing... It does not explain why you are wrong, where we disagree, and may not even correctly represents your position! It's just an attack on your sense of logic based on my (fake) interpretation of the situation. If we were to discuss evolution more, I would try to understand exactly what you really think and where we disagree.
" apparently just as an ego boost for yourself (why else would you do that?). Your enjoyment comes from the arguing itself (for whatever reason), not from seeking rational answers. So you insert little diversions in order that you can take the argument off path and into the weeds."
Well you don't believe me, ever, when I correct you, so feel free to think whatever you want.
If you decide to LISTEN, here's the truth: I don't care about my ego when writing on an online blog. It's for fun. Period. However, my enjoyment does not come from arguing itself; it comes from the interest I have in the topics at hand, and the learning I get from different points of view. I also enjoy writing comments and thinking about them; it's a good practice for critical thinking and writing skills that I need to use in other areas of my life. The diversions are either labeled as diversion: I will put something like 'here's an example that's not directly related, but serves point X'. It's just normal to have multiple topics come up in such situations.
"For those specific reasons, no discussion with you has ever been along a straight rational path. Hence the conclusion of irrationality."
First of all, we did have stretches of 'straight rational path'. Last time I came back from a longer blogging break for instance, you said something like 'you seem to have changed and express your ideas quite well', to which I replied that I did not change one bit but was glad you were open to discussion, while it lasted.
How can you conclude that a 'person' is irrational based on that? Even if you are right about every argument we ever discussed, that still does not make me someone who is fundamentally irrational. I would fail at so many things I do in life! The decisions I need to make involve reason and logic, predictions, analysis, etc... Sorry to be elitist again but I don't work as a technician who receives instructions and follow them. I am a successful product manager who decides the long-term goals of a product while following its evolution on a daily basis, prioritizing work and defect fixes.
As you said correctly up here, some super smart people can be wrong on some issues, and I am no exception. I am certain that I am wrong about some of the things I believe in; statistically it's impossible for me to be always right... so that's why I like to expose my opinions and facts I am aware of, here or elsewhere, in order to assess the validity of my beliefs. The problem is that I almost never get to discuss what I actually 'think', being stuck in correcting the misconceptions you, or others, have about Atheism, be it general misconceptions or misunderstanding of my personal opinion.
In other words, I have yet to see someone write something like: Hugo, you believe X and X is certainly false because of A,B,C. At best, what I get is: Hugo, you believe in something like Y, which sounds like X, and Y is certainly false, so you are wrong to believe X.
"He brought up this Subaru argument in response to Anselm's ontological argument on my blog." Nope, on your blog it was for a different purpose; it was on the argument from change, which does commit the fallacy of equivocation with the word 'change' meaning different things at different times. You know, the thing you complain we spend 40 comments on; the thing you accuse me of 'over-thinking', you remember that Martin? I kept discussing the word 'change' precisely because you commit the fallacy of equivocation, yet you don't want me to discuss the word 'change', because that would be... over-thinking ;-)
So you essentially told me that I should not discuss the word 'CAR' in the SUBARU argument because that's over thinking, and that I am stupid if I take 40 comments to try to explain to you why 'CAR' means different things in different premises. Quite funny to say the least.
" He never said how it applies to the OA. He said that it does" Nope, go read again buddy. Here, I will copy/paste for you: "the above example is not a good analogy for the ontological argument"
Did you get it this time Martin? It is NOT, I repeat NOT, a good analogy for the ontological argument. Let me guess, you won't correct that; you will reply back to Stan, whining that discussion with me is impossible, while indirectly replying to me through Stan. ;)
The purpose of pasting the SUBARU argument up here was different. It was merely pointing out the fact that arguments that look valid at first glance may hide issues when you take a closer look. Stan seemed to have over-simplified the approach by saying that if I agree with a conclusion I must accept the 'meaning' of the conclusion. The SUBARU example serves to show that sometimes, an argument may look like it has a valid conclusion at first, which flows from the premise, but when you look closely, you can see errors in reasoning and conclude that the argument fails. We all agree on that I believe, but I wanted to make it very clear...
"But he thought that pointing out the existence of the fallacy of equivocation was enough to show that my argument was guilty of it."
So you also think that you can read my mind. lol. What a fail on multiple levels!
You still don't have any point to make but needed 2 comments 20-min apart from each other to make sure you correctly express how crazy I am in your eyes, interesting... Let me clarify a few things though, just in case you care.
" vex everyone in the process. Which, when you think about what powers most atheists, may be the goal for him. " That would certainly not be my intention, and I know it's not the intention of all Atheists. The problem is that it's very difficult to attack religious beliefs without attacking the person, since many religious individuals feel personally attacked when you call their beliefs irrational.
Personally I don't have anything against Theists, even the more fundamentals one (but not the crazy ones who fly planes in buildings of course; there is a line...) but at the same time, I cannot pretend that I find their beliefs reasonable, so that may sounds like I find 'them' unreasonable.
You 3 however, Stan, Martin and Steven, seem to do exactly the opposite. You don't really know much about me yet conclude that I am an irrational person base on that 1 topic. Martin even agrees with me on everything else as far as I can tell, yet he is just as annoyed by my comments, if not more...
So again, my sincere apologies Steven if something vexes you, it's not the intention. But at the same time, I cannot help but laugh at your reactions and comment... I mean, you are so off track sometimes, I just need to continue going down your last comment for instance!
"That delicious sense of outrage, of hurt, of being the righteous victim, of being given a perfectly good reason by his oppressors to carry a grudge and hate - after all, Hugo is the correct one, not us. Never us. "
Outrage? lol! Not me, not 1 ounce of outrage... Clearly, the one who is the most outrage here is Stan... it's his blog, don't you read the posts? Complete Ruination of the USA! Marriage is now meaningless! Atheists infected politics! Evolution is taught to our kids! The unborn are being butchered! AGW is a ploy to rob us!
Hurt? Being a victim? Hating my oppressors? Again... lol! I don't feel like that at all. We are just talking... what's the worst that can happen, being banned from the blog? Oh the humanity...
I am always the correct one? Ridiculous. I am the one who always insist on saying 'We agree on A,B,C,D,E but not on F', only to hear back: Hugo, you suck because of F! You are irrational!!
"What if that's all the poor guy has left? What if he's deliberately configured himself to be eternally at odds with everyone - even fellow atheists - so that he can eternally be the put-upon victim?"
Oh my... is it really that bad? You do realize this is just a blog, right? I don't think it affect my job that I love, new condo, upcoming 3 trips abroad and upcoming 2 weddings, ya, getting married twice!
"...sociopath... Not sure Hugo is quite that gone..." Geez, phew! I guess I dodged a bullet on this one. Thanks Steven, I will try to tone down my ego before I become a sociopath!
@ Stan "Ridicule is generally not funny, except to partisans, and even then it is iffy... The Left is very much into ridicule, itself,"
Let's scroll through the posts of the last month and note a few... - 'Hitler Learns about the ObamaCare Exchanges' - ALERT: New Racist Forbidden Terminology - There's No Hope: These People Can Vote. - Whatever Would We Do? - Who Designed the Dawkins? - Obama Promised To Reduce America's Profile As Exceptional ...were not using ridicule?
I thought that was all pretty funny AND using ridicule :) So you used ridicule 6 times, which is 1.5 times per week for that period. How often does it need to be to fall into the 'very much into' category?
"Challenge To Atheists, III" (I picked the most recent...)
First of all, I find it hard to look at this challenge seriously. It does not address any of the reasons why I am an Atheist and ask challenges that no one could answer, be it Atheist or Theist, smart or dumb... Let's see:
"1. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Reason" Sorry, I don't know how to do that... I failed already! :(
"2. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Logic." The laws of logic have standard numbers usually, I think the first 4 are: Logic is what it is. It is not what it is not. It cannot both be logic and not be logic at the same time. It has to either be logic or not be logic. So using logic, we can conclude that logic is what it is: logic. Hence it is valid. Sounds ridiculous... what's the point?
"3. Prove the Validity of Science, using Science." I think this one is easy because Science is all about validating previous scientific results. We observe the world around us, note down the facts, create Theories that tie these facts together, generate hypothesis, perform more observations to confirm hypothesis and refine/change Theories. Therefore, Science is as valid as Science can be, no more no less...
"4. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Logic and Science." Same as 1.
"5. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Reason and Science." Logic is already established as Logic.
"6. Prove the Validity of Science, using Reason and Logic." (3) explained why Science is valid, starting with Science itself and using reason and logic. How else can we validated something if not through reason and logic?
"7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)." I don't know how to do that.
"8. Deduce a Detailed Hierarchy of Values (Morals) From Atoms and Atomic Positions." I don't know how to do that.
" 9. Deduce Materialism From Materialism." If we say 'from Materialism', it seems to me that this assumes Materialism first. This does not make sense since it ends up being: -IF Materialism THEN Materialism -Materialism is true (we start 'from' Materialism) -Conclusion, Materialism is true. Useless.
- IF 'Only material things exist' THEN 'Materialism is true' ...but I cannot prove that only material things exist to be true, dead end... (I cannot prove that non-material things don't exist since it's impossible to distinguish between 'non-material things not existing' and them 'existing but being inaccessible/undetectable/improvable'.)
Therefore, the best I can do here is explain why I find it reasonable to believe that Materialism could be true.
Moreover, there is an important caveat, which explains why there is always so much disagreement on Materialism. If something exists because a human is thinking about it, then I consider that thing to be 'material'. At the same time (and yes I know it sounds contradictory), that thing the human is thinking about is 'non-material' since it is a 'thought', not something that has an existence without the human existing. The existence of that kind of 'non-material' thing is thus not in contradiction with Materialism being true. Otherwise, the mere fact of thinking about what I am writing would instantly disprove Materialism; the words in my head being existing non-material things...
Back to an argument... if we wanted to prove that Materialism is false, we would do:
- IF 'non-material X' exists, Materialism is false - 'non-material X' exists - Materialism is false
However, I am not aware of any such 'X'. Therefore, Materialism could be true.
***'X' is the big problem here. It can turn into a full discussion just for that 1 point. It's complicated because so many things we label as 'non-material' turn out to be reducible to the material. It took me a long time to understand how even logic stems from the material world for instance.***
There is 1 more step to take after that, but it's kind of pointless since the debate (if we were to discuss it, which we won't I suppose...) would revolve around why we disagree on non-material 'X's existing or not.
"11. Deduce Materialism From Logic. " I don't see the difference with 10; reasoning is all about using logic.
"12. Deduce Materialism From Science. " Science studies the material world, by definition. It cannot prove nor disprove what it does not study. Materialism could be right or wrong.
"13. Deduce Atheism using Reason. 14. Deduce Atheism using Logic. 15. Deduce Atheism using Science. " I can't. I think it's possible that a god exists so Atheism cannot be deduced (assuming you mean 'no god exists')
"The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge. " It's not a fun challenge; I wasted my time I believe... the only part that came close to be an actual defense of Atheism is the one on Materialism, since that's the reason why I don't believe in any gods. I don't believe in non-material things existing without humans. Hence, a god, usually defined as non-material, also does not exist until proven. It`s still possible though!
At this time you should realize, that asking a direct proof of God in the type of direct sense data is just begging the question, because is just asking for a description of a phenomenon where you WANT to ignore the mechanics needed to understand it, and that leaves Atheism in general, in the same position, because it is a claim of knowledge.
For the sake of making a terrible but understandable analogy, is like myself, pretending to know that there is no possible indirect causation for magnetism by just reading a university textbook's EM Field Theory (many of the scientific and engineering University Textbooks are full of lies, by the way), taking it at face value and at the same time ignoring the question of how could possibly a magnet work.
For the sake of this badly done analogy, think twice about how there are still people in the Mainstream view of Science, constantly ignoring the particular relationship with:
1) Phase Coherence between electron pairs in covalent bonds (and their "strength"), and the electron movement between orbitals, regarding the precession in space of the wave function (taking the electron as a wave model only, no particle-wave duality needed)
2) The way quantum mechanics would describe EM Phenomena as a particular description in relationship of the general description that happens with classical electrodynamics. Feynmann's Theory was still incomplete: It did not account the dampening of the wave function that actually describes the transient acceleration with the emission of photons and their "collapse", and the occurring Meissner effect with superconductors, for example.
3) The possible indirect causality and control of EM Fields at a quantum level. Specially regarding magnetism.
4) The direct causality of magnetism, is still not known, because, by making an example, there's still no way to make a universal material with good reaction to any magnetic field created by any other material known to exist, because even static fields may have a constant flux momentum density, and there is still not a clear way to describe this at a quantum level (remember there are superconductors too and Ohm's law is not the only way to associate an EM field). But, how to produce two specific diamagnetic and/or paramagnetic materials is something already known and established because plastic magnets DO exist, that exhibit ferromagnetic properties, so, it is logical to conclude that magnetism as a phenomena does occur even if we don't how to exactly describe what magnetism IS.
Something analogous happens, when there are empirical processes that deal with the knowledge of the spiritual, and lead to the rational guarantee of a belief in God, without the need of being picky with religions, their cultural aspects, and also without the need to deal with sectarian people. It has been stated by millennia (if you read carefully) that the knowledge of God is implicitly indirect, because of the nature of such non-material descriptions. Actually the mechanics needed to understand such things require years of study, which you could acquire by yourself about the basics of theology, theosophy and semiotics, or by doing a Theology course.
At the same time, phenomena regarding God may happen in some ineffable ways, that the only way to even consider them is totally inter-subjective. Do we see directly What God is??, the answer is no, but the ubiquitous way the effects occur with some people may give a clue that the phenomena actually "does occur" (no matter if such range from ESP to a general emotional state which is easily confused with a placebo-noncebo effect).
Do you remember what happened with Logical Positivism?
Logical Positivism was the result of carrying away the eliminative type of materialism for too long. Was this kind philosophy applicable with the appropriate contingency? History of philosophy shows that is not the case.
Beliefs are people's choices, and that's all that could be said, regarding such, generally. Nonetheless, denying the perennial philosophy (e.g. Confucianism, Platonic, Neo-Platonic and similar, etc), and the metaphorical and metamorphic usage of words regarding the concept of a myth and a legend, is also a matter of people's choices, ideally speaking, without even considering other factors as social coercion from peers and other political stuff.
This would actually imply, that there IS an inter-subjective process behind the objectivity, in the way human beings acquire knowledge. Saying the opposite is the hallmark of ideology, no matter whether religious or secular.
Every time I see you posting here, you only seem to pay attention to negative correlations by confirmation bias and not even thinking about the hard questions.
When I was a non-believer, I made that very same mistake. There are also atheists and agnostics who think about the hard questions, but sadly it still happens that some of them do address such questions in a confrontational way, with a childish animosity to project their worldviews as the best way to have some contingency or total dismissal of the problem at hand, which is ignorance at best, and arrogance at worst.
By skipping to the third challenge you handily avoided the basic argument for monotheism. But at least you are engaging in something other than calling liar.
Your first three arguments: ” "1. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Reason" Sorry, I don't know how to do that... I failed already! :(“
Hugo, if you could articulate why you cannot do this, you would have answered the next two as well. The answer is that Gö del’s theorems apply. No system of thought can validate itself. Yet reason is based on empirical observation (inductive) and contraries analysis of what appear to be universal principles, which are accepted as logic:
”"2. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Logic." The laws of logic have standard numbers usually, I think the first 4 are: Logic is what it is. It is not what it is not. It cannot both be logic and not be logic at the same time. It has to either be logic or not be logic. So using logic, we can conclude that logic is what it is: logic. Hence it is valid. Sounds ridiculous... what's the point?”
You came sort of close to the principles, yet so far. Logic is not a statement of itself; it is a statement of universal principles derived from observation:
The principles are: Tautology: if it exists, then it exists; if it does not exist, then it does not exist. Non-Contradiction: It cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.
For “truth” principles, substitute “truth” for “exist”:
Tautology: if it is true, then it is true; if it is not true, then it is not true. Non-Contradiction: It cannot both be true and not true simultaneously. Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat be true and somewhat not true.
However, these are all inductive, and thus cannot prove themselves; they are called First Principles because they are intuited to be true, universally and without contraries which are valid.
”"3. Prove the Validity of Science, using Science." I think this one is easy because Science is all about validating previous scientific results. We observe the world around us, note down the facts, create Theories that tie these facts together, generate hypothesis, perform more observations to confirm hypothesis and refine/change Theories. Therefore, Science is as valid as Science can be, no more no less...”
First, the underlying premise of science is that logic applies to observations and mathematics, which are the necessities of empiricism. And logic is presumed true based on universal observations and contraries. So science is based on premises of universals which are not provable; so the validity of science is also not provable, especially by using science itself to prove itself.
You have stated a concept of science which you are assuming to be valid, yet circular; science is always inductive first, deductive second, and yet never presumed to produce completely True, incorrigible, immutable facts because they can always be falsified in future understandings with future technologies. So science cannot prove anything, especially itself (circular) with any other degree of certainty. Also Goedel’s principles apply.
” "4. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Logic and Science." Same as 1.” OK.
”"5. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Reason and Science." Logic is already established as Logic.”
That’s an avoidance. The point is that Reason and Science cannot exist without Logic, and further, that using Reason and Science without Logic is irrational.
"6. Prove the Validity of Science, using Reason and Logic." (3) explained why Science is valid, starting with Science itself and using reason and logic. How else can we validated something if not through reason and logic?”
You are coming close; you would have outlined the hierarchy if you had clarified your statement thus: How else can we validated something if not through reason [based on] logic?”
Much “reasoning” is not logic based; rationalization seems to far outweigh rationality. So logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation.
” "7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)." I don't know how to do that.”
And yet this is something which a Materialist must accept if nothing but the physical exists.
” "8. Deduce a Detailed Hierarchy of Values (Morals) From Atoms and Atomic Positions." I don't know how to do that.”
This is the theory of deterministic, evolved moral values, another necessity of Materialism.
" 9. Deduce Materialism From Materialism." If we say 'from Materialism', it seems to me that this assumes Materialism first. This does not make sense since it ends up being: -IF Materialism THEN Materialism -Materialism is true (we start 'from' Materialism) -Conclusion, Materialism is true. Useless.”
Yet there is nothing else within Materialism which is not Material. If Materialism is true and valid, it is universal, and must be derived from that universal. But it is circular, as you note; therefore, Materialism cannot be a deduction, it is a presupposition only.
- IF 'Only material things exist' THEN 'Materialism is true' ...but I cannot prove that only material things exist to be true, dead end... (I cannot prove that non-material things don't exist since it's impossible to distinguish between 'non-material things not existing' and them 'existing but being inaccessible/undetectable/improvable'.)
Therefore, the best I can do here is explain why I find it reasonable to believe that Materialism could be true. “
So by “could be true” you are assuming a probability of validity; then there would also be a probability of non-validity. If you argue probability of !X without considering the probability of X, you have only done half the job.
And here we go: ” Moreover, there is an important caveat, which explains why there is always so much disagreement on Materialism. If something exists because a human is thinking about it, then I consider that thing to be 'material'. At the same time (and yes I know it sounds contradictory), that thing the human is thinking about is 'non-material' since it is a 'thought', not something that has an existence without the human existing. The existence of that kind of 'non-material' thing is thus not in contradiction with Materialism being true. Otherwise, the mere fact of thinking about what I am writing would instantly disprove Materialism; the words in my head being existing non-material things...”
First: you are arguing that thoughts must be physical due to being attached to a physical substrate. This would render the story in a book to be physical due to being attached to ink on paper. If it were physical, it could be understood without language to interpret the meaning: it would exist as a lump called “story”, a physical thing in its own right. But it does not exist physically in its own right; it is meaning which is conveyed by reconstruction of symbolic physical structures into non-physical comprehension. If meaning existed physically in its own right, it could be interpreted by any intelligent being without regard to language barriers, just as cosmic occurrences and fossils are interpreted as physical entities.
A book weighs the same, even if the symbols are scrambled into meaninglessness.
Thoughts have meanings; meaning has no physical characteristic: no mass/energy or space/time. As one wag said, there is a jar full of meaning on my desk which I will sell you…
IF {[meaning has no specific self-contained material attributes in its own right] AND [meaning exists]}, THEN [there is non-material existence].
In order to defeat this argument one of the premises must be proven false, and further, it must be proven false using Material techniques (Materialism being presupposed).
Next, the concept is that the universe contains no meaning without human thought. But the universe is a coherent set of principles which are applied to material things; those principles have meaning regarding the behavior of the universe, and they are discoverable by intelligent beings and codable into coherent, meaningful thoughts which are transferrable as information.
” Back to an argument... if we wanted to prove that Materialism is false, we would do:
- IF 'non-material X' exists, Materialism is false - 'non-material X' exists - Materialism is false
However, I am not aware of any such 'X'. Therefore, Materialism could be true.”
You have done the following:
First you argued for the non-materiality of thought, then you deny the non-materiality of thought, so you can now deny being aware of any non-materiality.
” ***'X' is the big problem here. It can turn into a full discussion just for that 1 point. It's complicated because so many things we label as 'non-material' turn out to be reducible to the material. It took me a long time to understand how even logic stems from the material world for instance.***”
Logic is the interpretation of observations of the material world which are codified for use in controlled thought; it is not material. Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time.
And yes, the universe follows predictable principles (science depends on this); but those principles are not material things – there is no mineral called “principles of mineral behavior”.
” "11. Deduce Materialism From Logic. " I don't see the difference with 10; reasoning is all about using logic.
"12. Deduce Materialism From Science. " Science studies the material world, by definition. It cannot prove nor disprove what it does not study. Materialism could be right or wrong.”
Here’s the point: Materialism is not deducible; it is a presupposition based on the exclusion of non-material existence with no proof, and with the denial of demonstrable non-physical existences. Presuppositions which are not deduced are not a part of rational thought.
” "13. Deduce Atheism using Reason. 14. Deduce Atheism using Logic. 15. Deduce Atheism using Science. " I can't. I think it's possible that a god exists so Atheism cannot be deduced (assuming you mean 'no god exists')”
“God possibly exists” is not Atheism. But you are right: Atheism (there is no god) cannot be deduced; it is an emotional pursuit of rejection.
” "The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge. " It's not a fun challenge; I wasted my time I believe... the only part that came close to be an actual defense of Atheism is the one on Materialism, since that's the reason why I don't believe in any gods. I don't believe in non-material things existing without humans.”
Hugo, I suspect that no amount of discussion of pre-existence of the universe being necessarily non-material, nor of rule-based existence, etc would convince you of anything. So you are right; you very likely wasted your time, because the non-deduceablity of either Materialism or Atheism is no barrier to you. I.e., the lack of rational content in Materialism and Atheism has no bearing on your belief system, which is conveniently: either/or.
”Hence, a god, usually defined as non-material, also does not exist until proven. It`s still possible though!”
I suspect that you actually meant that to say “cannot be known to exist until proven.” (You are not in charge of creating any deity’s existence by means of your belief or disbelief…) But that statement has a complement: “cannot be known NOT to exist until proven.”
And under Materialism, “proven” means using material techniques, naturally. So an Atheist must support his denial with objective material evidence: empirical data. And because that is a Category Error, the Atheist has no case for supporting his worldview, which renders his worldview as always internally non-coherent.
Your position is sometimes Atheistic, sometimes Agnostic. And it is also denialist in the sense that you accept certain probabilities but not their contraries which also have probabilities of validity (but you have demanded proof).
Please do not misinterpret this as condescending. It is not relevant the reason of why did you post this and I won't fight with that.
I won't budge in my position, regarding that:
1)Maybe I have presented my case badly in your view, but I have frequently insisted that the reasons I've done this are not primarily political.
2)You insist in making blanket statements that the case I present is emphasizing in a political view.
3)You did not care even to ask what my political inclinations are, even if there is no need to mention them. Also, as I already told you, I'm a centrist.
4)Also, This won't mean I will be coercive with your point of view. Because I still believe there's a logical possibility in which us, humans, could influence climate, but, not in the way the IPCC does, because there's, in the way I see it, evidence that indicate the tampering and manipulation of scientific data regarding the model that the IPCC uses.
One again, I'm interested with the problem of dishonesty and suppression of data in science in general. The political leakages are just the obvious consequences and are not of my primary interest nor my primary intent, in my attempt to show my case.
(copy/pasting from other thread for continuity: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2013/10/cephus-continues-without-me.html)
"By skipping to the third challenge you handily avoided the basic argument for monotheism.
- I don't see any argument for monotheism in these 3 challenges. What are you referring to? All I see is challenges for Atheists to prove something; something they may or may not even believe in. - My intention was to go to the most recent, thinking that it was the most relevant and/or most powerful argument you had to present. I assure you it was no dodge... - I put 'why' in bold up there because it's the same problem here. You tell me that I avoided the basic argument for monotheism but the posts you referred me to (Challenges to Atheists) contain no such thing. Am I am missing something? I don't see any sticky post with your reasons to believe in god... point me to your post about 'why' you believe in god and I will surely not avoid it.
"reason is based on empirical observation (inductive) and contraries analysis of what appear to be universal principles, which are accepted as logic:"
Everything you wrote about reason, logic and science makes sense but I don't get what's the point you are trying to make.
Next, are the 'universal principles' limited to what you listed below?
"The principles are: Tautology: if it exists, then it exists; if it does not exist, then it does not exist. Non-Contradiction: It cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist."
Obviously, no problem here.
"Much “reasoning” is not logic based; rationalization seems to far outweigh rationality. So logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation."
This is very important, and I agree completely with you.
'Reasoning', if not logic bases, is not the same as 'using Reason'. The verb is still 'to reason' (unfortunately) but in this case it refers to any thinking process reaching a conclusion, but it is not using 'Reason' per se, since the thinking process may or may not be logic based and the conclusion may or may not be logically valid. i.e. the verb 'to reason' cannot be associated with 'using Reason'. The verb 'to reason' does not always refer to a logic based thought process.
"” "7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)." I don't know how to do that.” And yet this is something which a Materialist must accept if nothing but the physical exists."
I believe the point you implicitly made is this: Materialists believe that humans evolved, naturally, and developed the ability to use Reason. Hence, you are trying a gotcha question about how we can link molecules (Chemistry) to simply self-reproductive molecules (Abiogenesis) to human beings (Biology) to humans using Reason. Correct?
The problem is that each step is complex and is meaningless when it comes to Reason, a purely human affair. You asked for a broad jump between 2 completely disjoints things, as if the belief of Materialist was 'Chemistry hence Reason' Therefore, that's why I replied that "I don't know how to do that".
If nothing but the physical exists, Reason exists as a consequence of the material world existing. As you pointed out, logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation. Logic is a statement of universal principles derived from observation. Since we, humans, observe the physical world and use logic, I guess we can say that we are the ones who bridged the gap from Chemistry to Reason. There you go!
"This is the theory of deterministic, evolved moral values, another necessity of Materialism."
Moral values, both at the personal and group level, evolved over time, yes. What's your point? Whether the material is all there is or not has no impact on this. It's a fact. It's actually one of the facts that lead me to believe that humans created gods, not the other way around.
" Yet there is nothing else within Materialism which is not Material. If Materialism is true and valid, it is universal, and must be derived from that universal. But it is circular, as you note; therefore, Materialism cannot be a deduction, it is a presupposition only. "
It is 'not' a presupposition. The presupposition of the Materialist is that the material exists, i.e. rejection of the 'brain in a vat' scenarios. If you reject that presupposition, it means you start with the idea that the material world may be all fake and not really existing. You become the Radical Skeptic. The Materialist, on the other hand, starts with the material world to build knowledge and beliefs. Next...
It is also 'not' a deduction. It cannot be. Materialism, just like Atheism, is the rejection of something: non-material existence. Therefore, continuing from the previous paragraph, the principle is that the Materialist never gets to beliefs including the existence of independent non-material things. The Materialist does not need to deduce that 'the material is all there is', no, the Materialist simply claims that he/she does not believe that anything non-material exists outside of human thinking.
It's complicated though since things like numbers, logical absolutes, or the stock exchange clearly exist, yet have no material presence. That's where the concept of 'reduction to the material' arises, where any non-material being explained in material terms falls into the 'material' category for the purpose of existence. A non-material existing thing would need to be shown to be outside this category to falsify Materialism. You wrote some examples that I will address below...
As a side note, this is why Atheism and Materialism are not exactly the same thing. All Materialists are Atheists, but not all Atheists are Materialists. Some Atheists do believe that humans have a non-material soul, for example. This is pretty common among New Age-style beliefs system where people reject gods but keep their supernatural beliefs in an afterlife, soul and some sort of common consciousness.
" you are arguing that thoughts must be physical due to being attached to a physical substrate. "
Correct. Thoughts, human thoughts, the only ones we know of, are attached a physical substrate: the human body. No human body, no thoughts. It's that simple. I don't even know what a non-human thought would be.
" This would render the story in a book to be physical due to being attached to ink on paper. "
No, that's not why the story is 'physical'. But yes, the story is 'physical' because without physical human beings to read the story, there is no story.
" it is meaning which is conveyed by reconstruction of symbolic physical structures into non-physical comprehension. "
You just claim that it is non-physical, but I argue that it is physical precisely because a physical human being is reconstructing the meaning. The meaning is in the consciousness of the human doing the reading. It is physical.
" IF {[meaning has no specific self-contained material attributes in its own right] AND [meaning exists]}, THEN [there is non-material existence]. "
You define meaning as non-material and then claim that because meaning exists, non-material existence exists. Fair enough, but this non-material existence depends on material human beings to exists, so that still does not help your cause. Materialism still stands since the non-material existence you described can be reduced to the material.
" the concept is that the universe contains no meaning without human thought. "
That's accurate, yes. What else is meaning if not human-thought-meaning?
" But the universe is a coherent set of principles which are applied to material things; those principles have meaning regarding the behavior of the universe, and they are discoverable by intelligent beings and codable into coherent, meaningful thoughts which are transferrable as information. "
That actually support my points yes. Humans do all of that, not the universe by itself. No humans, no meaning. You seem to commit the same error I pointed out before, where you reverse the order of discovery: we create laws to describe the universe, not the other way around.
"Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time. "
By stating that none of those 'contain' material stuff (mass/energy or space/time), you concede that you do not understand Materialist beliefs. Observations, interpretation and any other examples you give can be explained in physical terms since humans do the observations, interpretations and so on. It is not necessary to explain how an idea is formed by these 4,000,000 electrons to make it material; that's not the point. The point is that if you did not have your human body to do the thinking, then none of this would happen.
"no amount of discussion of pre-existence of the universe being necessarily non-material, nor of rule-based existence, etc would convince you of anything"
Yes, we did discuss that before. You cannot prove that the universe is not infinite; you cannot prove that 'pre-existing' means anything with respect to the universe. All you do is asserting that there must have been 'something' before the universe existed. No deduction.
" the non-deduceablity of either Materialism or Atheism is no barrier to you "
Correct. I will repeat the same as above to be clear... The 2 are NOT deducible because they are stating a LACK OF BELIEF in the supernatural, to sum up everything in 1 category.
" you actually meant that to say “cannot be known to exist until proven.” (You are not in charge of creating any deity’s existence by means of your belief or disbelief…) But that statement has a complement: “cannot be known NOT to exist until proven.” "
Correct. Correct. However, if we cannot know either, we are justified to NOT believe and we are NOT justified to believe.
"under Materialism, “proven” means using material techniques, naturally"
Of course, there is no non-material technique to prove anything. You are a human using his brain to think about things. You share these thoughts through material media. That's material techniques. What would a non-material technique be!?
"an Atheist must support his denial with objective material evidence: empirical data"
No. Rejecting an invalid deduction does not require empirical data. The SUBARU example I gave on another thread serves this point as well. I don't need to show you a car for you to believe that SUBARU has 3 letters is wrong. The deduction was wrong, the thought process was wrong. That's not empirical data but that's certainly material.
"the Atheist has no case for supporting his worldview, which renders his worldview as always internally non-coherent."
The problem is that you never attack Atheists' worldview. You only attack the ideas that you have regarding Atheism or Materialism. This line is one of many ad hominem attack that you use while complaining about people like Cephus who do the same. He calls you irrational without really addressing any of your claims; you accuse all Atheists to have internally non-coherent worldviews without addressing their beliefs. Atheism is a non-belief!
" our position is sometimes Atheistic, sometimes Agnostic. "
Not sometimes. It is ALWAYS both! I don't know if gods exist, hence I am an Agnostic. I don't believe gods exist, hence I am an Atheist. I don't believe supernatural things exist, hence I am a Naturalist. I don't believe non-material things exist OUTSIDE human thinking, hence I am a Materialist.
" it is also denialist in the sense that you accept certain probabilities but not their contraries which also have probabilities of validity (but you have demanded proof). "
I did not have much to reply to that last quote. Instead I added this:
One last thing after this long comment.... I insist that there is nothing emotional here. It honestly seems to me that the emotions come from your side Stan. And by 'your' I don't mean you personally necessarily but the 'Theist' side in general. Most people are raised with the religion of their parents and never think too much about it. They become very uncomfortable when it gets attacked... that's where the emotions lie.
65 comments:
I just don't have time to watch and refute all this. Most arguments from Monckton and similar are so confused that they don't even make sense.
For example, one of the more popular arguments concerns the "Hockey Stick", the gist being that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as it is today, which is somehow supposed to imply that since it happened naturally before, it must be natural now.
In other words:
1. Forest fires began naturally in the past
2. Therefore, this current forest fire is not due to arson
I don't have to tell you what's wrong with that argument.
To make matters even worse, IF we concede for the sake of argument that the MWP was just as warm today, then what this means is that climate sensitivity is even greater than the IPCC says it is, which means AGW is an even bigger problem.
These types of objections are just grasping at straws to try to be contrarian to anything said about global warming without thinking things through carefully.
No the problem with the hockey stick is the actual temperatures are about to fall right out the side of the prediction. The fallacy of the Warmist is that they don't care if it happened naturally in the past, doggone it it's arson now, and you'd best accept our biased, discredited computer models as proof.
Warmists like to pretend they are Galileo when really they are the Ptolemaics who refuse to see past their own quasi-scientific, politically motivated, biases; and they'll brand you a heretic to boot.
The Hockey Stick has nothing to do with predicting the future. The Hockey Stick is a record of past temperatures, regardless of whether it is going to get warmer or not.
You see what I mean? Grasping at any straw without even giving it a second's thought.
Monckton, that sounds familiar... ah yes, he was nominated for the CrocoDuck award:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/search?query=monckton
I am glad you managed to get rid of trolls btw Stan; good for you :)
Too bad you barely discuss Atheism though but that's just you being you, hehehe
@Hugo: for pity's sake, what do you expect Stan to do? The Atheists come, he shoots them down with logic and exposes their worldview for what it is. No one comes to raise any kind of lucid defense of atheism. Some try throwing words, but the words don't have anything behind them besides "because I said so". I have yet to find even one honest atheist come here and admit they like atheism for any other reason than because it's scientific, or it's 'rational' - neither of which they support with any sort of logical structure that holds up under five minute's scrutiny.
And just when you think Stan has gotten them to the point where an regular fellow would shake his head and admit 'eh, ya got me there', they start in with the SPEAKING IN ALL CAPS or insults or cut-and-paste rants.
Darnit, Hugo. Pick one, any one of Stan's challenges to atheists and run with it as long and as far as you can.
In the meantime, if Stan wants to point out AtheoLeft silliness such as the coming Ice Age (wait, that was the seventies) or man-made global whatever, why not?
Every example he holds up, from the recent Republican failure to support their own conservative base and the US Constitution to the repeated attempts to globally wring money and power from a trumped-up set of heavily-spun weather statistics is part and parcel of the AtheoLeft agenda.
This sort of stuff happens when you abandon the old idea of God and set yourself up in His place. The old standards go with it, and morality, ethics and the day-to-day behavior of people changes whenever it's profitable. Anything goes, even self-destruction, even governments voting for their own eventual ruin.
You complain Stan does not talk about Atheism anymore. To the contrary, I rarely see him talk about anything else.
Martin, Hugo,
Is not about Monckton only.
Alarmist Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW, pun intended), suspiciously begins to be well known with the tampering of scientific data. Obviously the idea of AGW resides on an alarmist position.
While I agree there is an effect with our industrial endeavours, is not a big a deal as the mainstream, in that particular case, make us believe.
Here are more complete sources, which are admittedly too long to read in one settling, but interesting ones nonetheless:
NIPCC 2009 report (you may download the full report from this page)
NIPCC 2011 report (you may download the full report from this page)
And possibly this book and another one! (I have not read them yet, but look interesting):
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266101689&sr=1-1
Hiding The Decline
The Hockey Stick figure is just the tip of the iceberg; the icing of a possibly tasteful cake we don't know what its real ingredients are. Please take some time to read some parts of the reports served in the links shown above.
The problem is actually the same as ever: the alleged tampering of scientific data to prove Alarmist Anthopogenic Global Warming. The issue is primarily scientific, that had many political implications which unfortunately still permeate to this very day.
Some of the IPCC blunders and incompetence, the Intergovernmental organization behind the AGW Narrative, have been pointed out by some people even not too long ago. Just to give you an example:
Steve McIntyre, IPCC and guess who, GreenPeace!!
Steve McIntyre, IPCC tampering scientific data and moving the goalposts, part 1/2
Steve McIntyre, IPCC tampering scientific data and moving the goalposts, part 2/2
And here:
Wattsupwiththat - Scientist and data tempering
And, last but not the least, AFRICAGATE!!:
AfricaGate
Keeping an skeptical view regarding the AGW activism is still not an un-substantiated claim.
Kind Regards.
Oh yeah! Steven reminded me of another one!
The 70s Global Cooling Scare. Apparently, the argument is supposed to work something like this: In the 70s, those crazy climate scientists were predicting a new Ice Age, and they were clearly wrong! And now they are predicting warming! Therefore, the planet is not warming.
The first problem is that this is a non sequitor. It does not follow that because climate scientists were wrong about cooling that they are wrong about warming. But more importantly, in the real world, it was the MEDIA that was obsessed with global cooling in the 1970s. The media loves hype, and a tiny handful of papers had suggested that IF certain conditions were met, that we COULD see global cooling, and the media ran with it. Big headlines in Time Magazine. The scientific literature at the time predicted warming in 40 papers, and cooling in only a handful. So not only is this a non sequiter, but it is also just false.
Yonose linked to a ridiculous amount of material which I just don't have time to go through, but it is all guilty of similar problems. All of it is distorted for political reasons. The rightwing thinktanks are no better than the leftwing ones.
Again, so goes the stupidity of two-party politics, where brains shut down and tribalism reigns.
Martin,
Again, the issues, at least of the NIPCC reports, and regarding of Steve McIntyre, are primarily of Scientific analysis, so please take your time to read those and have your own conclusions.
Kind Regards.
Martin,
Addendum:
I'm a centrist, and politics are unavoidable; those are the consequences of having to deal with bad science. You should understand, that the main reason I did this, is because there's data corruption and many flaws with the actual IPCC model, and those are the first sources I posted already that I recommended you to read first. The rest are rather political issues, so I did put them in order.
Kind Regards.
@Steven
The main point was about evolution; a simple reference sharing. Looks like you cared more about the one rhetorical line. Everyone understands how things are correlated so it makes sense for Stan to discuss a lot of topics. It's just funny to note that the proportion of 'analyzing atheism' on 'atheism analyzed' is very small sometimes; it varies a lot.
@Stan
In case you jump on the last thing, like your buddy up here, the goal was really just to show the link, since Monckton was caught lying on certain issues and potholer54 does a very good job at debunking him.
@yonose
I am not alarmist; I would probably agree with you if you actually had a point to make regarding alarmists.
If we agree that "there is an effect with our industrial endeavours" then you are not among the ones who need to be convinced.
Last time I interacted with you, all you did was to tell me to 'read more' instead of making any points. Looks like you have nothing else this time either; that's where we disagree.
@Martin
Everything you write regarding global warming is reasonable. It's all logical and supported by sound science. It's not alarmist, not exaggerated either way; just pointing out facts and conclusions we can draw from them, or old myths that were debunked.
@all
What's really interesting to me is that you have 1 thing in common: a belief in a god. Yet, nobody ever comments on why they believe that, being distracted by all the 'evil' deads that that AtheoLeft commits on a daily basis. It's always the atheists' fault for not believing that thing. I would find it really interesting to read your description of what god is, how you know it exists, or why you think you have good reasons to believe god is more than just a human construct, how we can know about god's attributes. I know you all have answers for these things; the point is: you would all contradict each other for sure at some point. How would come to decide who's right?
You are 4 people and would require a lot of time to come to that clear definition. And you want me to believe that 'logically' speaking, there is really just 1 god for all humans that can potentially understand what the heck you are talking about when you say that a god exists?
If you were to come to a consensus on what god is and why we should all believe god is real, exists and care about us, then fine, I would consider not being an atheist. Until then, there is nothing to 'analyze', since there is nothing to believe in. Just a broad 'god' claim by individuals.
I won't be holding my breathe ;)
Cheers
Martin,
One thing jumps out. The AGW enthusiasts now claim, or at least you did iirc, that "weather" has no bearing on climate, unless the averages change over a long period which is now some arbitrary figure such as 50 years (longer than any scientist's career).
The hockey stick panic was not taken as such a long term average.
Second, the actual historical record shows many rapid changes which oscillate between limiting values, where the climate remains at one limit or the other for significant periods, then crashes to the other limit.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/pleist_clim.gif
That seems to indicate that the system is not stable in the linear region between saturation limits, and behaves very similarly to an electronic flip-flop (bi-stable) circuit. (Computers are chock-a-block full of bi-stable circuits, as are all re-writable memory systems.
In the sea-level graph given above, there are numerous rapid heating periods shown, where the sea level changes many meters. In fact, that is the trend across history: rapid heating, pause at the limit, then a slower cooling, although some of the cooling is rapid too.
If you do a simple calculation of reflectivity and re-radiation from the CO2 solar barrier around the earth, you can easily see that the continuing increase in reflectivity and re-radiation - back into space - form a limit to the theoretically possible heating which is allowed. In the limit, the reflectivity would be so high that no IR would penetrate, and the earth would cool rapidly.
We have been in a rapid heating period ever since roughly 18k years ago, according to that graph above, with a recent decrease in sea level by 10 meters.
So the idea that humans are destroying the earth, and the idea that the hockey stick is a climate indicator, seem to be at best, iffy.
My argument is with the activism which is based on the AGW claims.
Certainly many or most humans tend to live roughly 10 meters above sea level; that is not the fault of the climate, it is the fault of humans taking the easy way to commerce. Humans can and will adapt, but only when it is a reality that they must.
Yes, the climate is variable and large swings happen naturally. But each change in climate has discoverable mechanisms behind it: changes in the sun, changes in orbit, atmospheric composition, etc.
Again, it is fallacious to infer from "it happened naturally in the past" to "it is happening naturally now." They know what mechanisms are in place right now, and what is dominating is CO2 of the manmade variety.
Whether it is warming yet or not, whether the hockey stick is right or wrong, right now the dominant climate forcing is CO2.
So these popular objections concerning the hockey stick, 70s global cooling, and so on are misguided, as I explained above, and the fact that they are misguided indicates that they are not serious, but are good-sounding talking points with rhetorical force used for political reasons. The Right equivalent to the Left's equally implausible rhetoric about destroying the Earth etc.
Most of the talk about destroying the Earth and so forth is media hype, anyway. The media distorts everything. Any time you see a news story that says, "Climate scientists say that the increase in tornadoes is due to global warming..." or whatever, you ought to be INSTANTLY skeptical and tell yourself that this is almost certainly media hype. That the actual study probably said something like "Given X, and assuming Y, and IF A and B, THEN the probability of tornadoes etc etc etc".
@Martin:
You said:
"Yonose linked to a ridiculous amount of material *** which I just don't have time to go through*** but it is all guilty of similar problems. All of it is distorted for political reasons. The rightwing thinktanks are no better than the leftwing ones.
Okay, I am blowing the BS whistle on you, Martin.
First, of your own admission, you DID NOT READ the articles. You admit this is because you consider the *amount* of material 'ridiculous'. No reason given for this dismissal of the need to read other than you find the amount 'ridiculous'. Apparently because you said so.
Then you move on to make three statements in a row.
- "but it is all guilty of similar problems." You somehow arrived at this in-depth judgement without reading the material. How?
- "All of it is distorted for political reasons". You somehow arrived at this all-inclusive condemnation despite the fact you did not read the material.
- "The rightwing thinktanks are no better than the leftwing ones." Okay, you just condemned both left and right thinktanks. You are superior to all the minds assembled in those 'thinktanks', I suppose, in order for your judgement to hold truth.
But never mind that. I assume this has something to do with the 'ridiculous' amounts of material you were provided but chose not to read. Where is your proof backing this statement? How can you even hold that statement as an honest opinion while admitting you did not read the material associated with the topic at hand?
You're condemning material presented to you in support of a view you dispute. Because it came in a 'ridiculous' quantity and because you've decided, without looking at any of it, that it's all false.
Martin and Hugo, this is why you don't see too many discussions of Atheism itself here. You guys just can't seem to break away from using yourselves as the ultimate authority. And as long as you are the Ultimate Intelligence, there is no way to discuss Atheism with you. You agree with it because it's true. It's true because you said so.
What's to discuss, right?
"How can you even hold that statement as an honest opinion while admitting you did not read the material associated with the topic at hand?"
I also did not read and did not intend to. Reading the titles and topics is enough to dismiss issues that are out of line with what we already know about climate change. Take it this way Steven: If I were to give you 12 sources explaining why the Earth is flat, would you read them? What about moon landing hoax? WTC7 being a controlled demolition? How communism is the only good political system? Existence of BigFoot/Loch Ness Monster? Lung cancer not being linked to cigarettes smoking? How beneficial homeopathy is?
"Martin and Hugo, this is why you don't see too many discussions of Atheism itself here. You guys just can't seem to break away from using yourselves as the ultimate authority. And as long as you are the Ultimate Intelligence, there is no way to discuss Atheism with you. You agree with it because it's true. It's true because you said so."
Martin and I disagree completely regarding Atheism... He is quite clear about how ridiculously stupid and illogical I am regarding that topic actually. He removed everything I ever said about it from his blog because it was such hubris.
Steven,
Induction. I know from experience the way climate "skepticism" works, and I don't need to see all of it in order to get a good handle on how it works. I provided several examples above. It works by making distortions and embracing arguments that sound good but are either fallacious or make AGW even worse if true. It isn't skepticism at all; it's a political movement to sow doubt in order to stop governments from doing anything about it, because conservatives don't like governments to be spending anything or interfering any more than necessary. Rather than, you know, offering a conservative solution to the problem.
Same goes for leftwing organizations, which also distort.
If noticing that what we have here are two politically motivated groups distorting reality in order to suit their agendas makes me "superior", then I guess I'm superior.
And Hugo is a perfect example of the opposite issue. How many times has he come to my blog and made a complete distortion of the theistic arguments I present there, in order, of course, to maintain his predetermined conclusion.
In short: stop being political, and start THINKING. And don't get the two mixed up.
@Hugo: One more thing; we are not here to discuss God. We are here, presumably, to discuss Atheism itself, as the site suggests.
One of the things I notice about you Atheists is that you WILL NOT stop trying to change the subject from Atheism to something else - science, the existence of God, the burden of proof, blah blah blah.
I cannot tell if you are here simply for your own amusement or not. If so, you might consider something else. You mock me because I stand up for the same things Stan does. And suggest that because there is more than one person here who agrees, there is something propelling us to stand as we do, something that has nothing to do with logic or reason.
[You're not accusing the people collected here of 'bullying' you, are you? Because that's a really weak complaint. And not likely to distract anyone for long or gain you much sympathy.]
"Let's not talk about Atheism as Steve suggested; actually pick a challenge and address it foursquare. Let's suggest that Steve is in league with the rest and that there's something wrong with that, something that colors their argument and taints it."
Innuendo. Denial, fling a little mud, more denial and hey presto! we're not talking about Atheism anymore.
Hugo, pick a Challenge and address it. Then we'll be talking about Atheism. I look forward to your efforts.
> removed everything I ever said about it from his blog because it was such hubris.
It wasn't hubris. It was clutter. 40 comments to agree with the conclusion of the ontological argument, and simultaneously disagree with it = irrational clutter. My blog is supposed to be short, easy-to-read tidbits of philosophy, theistic or not. Not long chains of gibberish. When it comes to theism, place yourself in the same boat along with the climate skeptics, flat-earthers, and everyone else. You can't argue with a flat-earther, and you can't argue with a "new atheist". You CAN argue with good-faith critics, but they are rare when the topic is politics and religion.
A possible solution to this is to mirror the Scholastics: your opponent is required to cite your argument back to you to your satisfaction FIRST, before criticizing it.
@Steven
I am not sure what your point is, really. I certainly don't feel bullied and don't intend to bully anyone. I do get strong reaction from you, Stan, Martin and other theists quite easily. Ironically, I am then the one who gets labelled as 'emotional' and that 'maintain his predetermined conclusion.'
Reading/writing online on the topic of Atheism is something always interested me and unfortunately sucked way too much of my time since it does get into a bunch of other issues as well. We all do this since our worldview correlates with so many topics.
"One more thing; we are not here to discuss God. We are here, presumably, to discuss Atheism itself, as the site suggests.
One of the things I notice about you Atheists is that you WILL NOT stop trying to change the subject from Atheism to something else - science, the existence of God, the burden of proof, blah blah blah."
Going from 'Atheism' to 'existence of God' is a change of subject? How could this be... Atheism is the rejection of the claim 'God exists'... I can tell you why I reject certain gods but I don't have a broad belief that states 'all gods don't and cannot even possible exist'.
Plus, I am the one who argued that this blog is not enough about Atheism but about so many other things that are not directly related (even though they ARE correlated). So again, I really don't get your point Steven. You seem to just be annoyed at Atheists as a whole and want to discuss some points but I fail to see what.
Hugo,
You get strong reactions from me because you only offer gibberish in response to theistic arguments. Let's say you provide me with the following argument:
1. If species have ERVs in common with their ancestors, then species descended from those ancestors
2. Species have ERVs in common with their ancestors
3. Therefore, species descended from those ancestors
Now let's say instead of offering a response to one of the two premises, instead I went on a long and incoherent rant like this:
"This presumes that there are two groups: those with ERVS and those without. Now, what proof is there that there are these two groups, and what about ERVs in other species? But first, please define 'descent'. Also, when you say 'in common', what do you mean?"
And on and on. It would probably become clear to you that I was just stalling. I wish there was a name for this fallacy, but I'll call it "pretending-to-be-dumb" fallacy. A way of stalling, and nothing more.
Either species share ERVs or not. Either ERVs indicate common ancestry or not. Carrying on and on about the definition of "descent" is just a stall tactic. I mean, we both speak English, right?
That is analogous to what you do whenever I present theistic arguments.
@Martin
I don't understand why you need to lie by bringing up the same example every time. Here are some facts:
- I never agreed with the conclusion of the ontological argument. Lie #1.
It was related to the argument form change by the way; I can forgive you that mistake ;)
- You say: " A possible solution to this is to mirror the Scholastics: your opponent is required to cite your argument back to you to your satisfaction FIRST, before criticizing it."
I have always been good at doing this. You do agree with my interpretation of your arguments every time I write them! Let me quote you:
"You haven't pointed out any problem. You've just listed the argument. An amazingly accurate rendition, surprisingly."
So, that's not 'Lie #2' just yet but it's certainly some misunderstanding or memory lapse from your part, since we agree that this is the correct way to discuss issue.
- You mention the 40-comment thing as if it was the reason why you removed our interaction from your blog. That's Lie #2. In reality, the trigger was this last comment I wrote to you:
"Ever taken an IQ test? Are you in the top 5%?
Or something like the GMAT? Are you in the top 8%?
It sucks to have to brag like this, and I am pretty sure I did it before already, but what can I say... these are facts that support the idea that YOU are the one making mistakes. You just can't see them.
Moreover, if I am irrational, you have been arguing with me a lot. If you are irrational, I have been arguing with you a lot. Either way, it would mean that it's possible to argue with irrational people. Obviously, we are both rational people who disagree on a few things, but you prefer to jump to gross generalization. "
Again, sorry for the arrogance, you had started to call me irrational, unreasonable, etc, already at that point so I wanted to point out the fact that it seems very odd to me that I would be so successful at using logic in everything else but Theistic arguments...
Regarding the analogy you provided...
"And on and on. It would probably become clear to you that I was just stalling."
...I understand perfectly what you mean, but that's not what's happening with the arguments you present for Theism. That's Lie #3. If I were only 'stalling' your arguments, I would have never succeeded in convincing you that the argument from Normativity was wrong, yet you agreed with me and changed it. For some reason, you don't see your mistakes on other points...
Finally, 1 more mistake you made, and which concern all of you here, is that you eventually jump to the conclusion that I 'want' to believe in Atheism, that I just 'want' to be like that and refuse god or whatever thing I am irrational not to believe in. Yet, I am really just discussing things here because I don't get to in person.
Cheers
I don't lie. You are accusing me of lying when I never did any such thing.
The only thing I remember with the normativity argument is that you accused it of affirming the consequent, which it does not do.
You see what I mean? Your criticisms do not make sense.
You lied on the agreement regarding Ontological argument, you lied because it was not even about the Ontological argument but rather the argument from change (more of a mistake I suppose), you lied about when/why you removed comments; it's when it got personal that you acted, you lied about how it would be good to re-phrase your arguments, which I already do quite often...
I do not lie, so please stop accusing me of lying.
You agreed with the conclusion of the ontological argument, that "it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality", but disagreed that "God exists". But the former is logically equivalent to the latter, so you believe both that "God exists" and "God does not exist", which is a contradiction. I cannot argue with someone that accepts contradictions. I also cannot argue with someone who thinks that modus tollens is guilty of affirming the consequent.
I find it impossible to argue with someone that does not accept the basic rules of logic and then begins talking about my IQ points.
That's when it became clear that this person is a pigeon shitting on the chess board and declaring victory, and it was time to bail.
@Martin
"I do not lie, so please stop accusing me of lying."
I understand that it was not, and it is not, your intention. However, this is a lie:
"You agreed with the conclusion of the ontological argument"
I do NOT, and never did, agree with the conclusion.
It's a play on words; yes the conclusion follows from the premise so in that sense I agree with it, but the goal of the argument is to prove that god exists, which the argument does not prove. Hence, I do not agree with the conclusion. That's the kind of contradiction you accuse me of: I agree and disagree with the conclusion. Yes, it's true! But only because 'conclusion' means 2 different things as I just expressed...
"someone who thinks that modus tollens is guilty of affirming the consequent."
You are twisting the story; I could copy/paste the entire conversation to show how, but I think we are polluting Stan's blog enough already... The point is that you actually ended up agreeing with me that your argument was not properly constructed. It is thus an example of your argument being addressed properly instead of just 'stalling', which you accuse me of doing.
" I find it impossible to argue with someone that does not accept the basic rules of logic"
How could I even possibly reject the rules of logic? I understand them very well and I am more than happy to be proven wrong if I make a mistake. The problems we face are not with the use of logic, they are with what we agree is true or not. You can write syllogisms all day long if you want, but at the end of the day, if we cannot determine the truth value of the premises used in the syllogisms, it means nothing.
"That's when it became clear that this person is a pigeon shitting on the chess board and declaring victory, and it was time to bail."
Oh I agree with that completely. It was like a pissing contest, lol, which I apparently "won"* by pissing far enough so that you would stop interacting (*there are never any winners in that situation...). You're the one who started to piss first though, by claiming that I am irrational and that I "proved" that to you. I don't attack my opponent like that just after discussing 3 arguments for the existence of god... you don't seem to realize how often I called you out on illogical things you wrote... but I would not conclude that you are illogical as a person...
In any case, you missed the point again regarding that quote. The point was that you lied about both the timing AND the reason for removing my comments from your blog. You pretend it's because of the 40-long comment thread when in reality it happened several days after that, and it was not even because of these comments at all, we discussed other topics after these 40 comments but before you kicked me out...
FINALLY, if there is 1 single point you want to discuss, something you know for sure I am wrong about, please do write it here, or create a new post on your own blog, and I would gladly concede that I was wrong and learned something, or explain why I disagree and try to understand why you think otherwise.
Cheers
Martin,
You may go anytime to read at least a small portion of the NIPCC reports, before making a blanket statement by diminishing climate skepticism as a political movement. I still insist, that political consequences are evident when bad science is leaked into the general public.
You may also compare the general NIPCC reports with the focus of the IPCC reports on very specific matters
(so not to take too long nor to waste people's time), specially the AR4 synthesis and the assessment reports.
Kind Regards.
Hugo,
not AGAIN! ;P ...
Kind Regards.
Hugo
You said this:
” It's a play on words; yes the conclusion follows from the premise so in that sense I agree with it, but the goal of the argument is to prove that god exists, which the argument does not prove. Hence, I do not agree with the conclusion. That's the kind of contradiction you accuse me of: I agree and disagree with the conclusion. Yes, it's true! But only because 'conclusion' means 2 different things as I just expressed...”
This means conclusively that you do not accept rationality as your thought process. If an argument is valid and true, is grounded and passes Reductio ad Absurdum, then it is not rational to reject it. Period. You continually inject emotional rejectionism into the equation, and insist that that is rational. And you refuse to acknowledge that it is not.
Under those circumstances there is no reason to attempt to discuss anything with you, because your thought process is outside the rational constraints of logical processing.
” How could I even possibly reject the rules of logic? I understand them very well and I am more than happy to be proven wrong if I make a mistake. “
You have never, ever, accepted any logical construct which is demonstrated to be valid, true, grounded, not circular or infinite regress, passes Absurdum, if it demonstrates a conclusion you do not wish to acknowledge. The following statement indicates your failure to comprehend the entire purpose of logic:
” The problems we face are not with the use of logic, they are with what we agree is true or not. “
Only logic can produce the answer to that. You want opinion (yours) to be the answer, not logic.
” You can write syllogisms all day long if you want, but at the end of the day, if we cannot determine the truth value of the premises used in the syllogisms, it means nothing.”
Syllogisms are purposefully designed to have truth values, based on the criteria I’ve given above. If you cannot find the truth value of a syllogism, then you know nothing about logic, contra your claim to the contrary.
” You're the one who started to piss first though, by claiming that I am irrational and that I "proved" that to you.”
Hugo, you have proved that time and again. Over and over. You claim to know logic and to be logical, but it is completely obvious that you do not, and that you do not care one whit to try to learn the principles and their use, much less their value to a rational worldview. It is the reason you have been banned from this blog: you refuse the use of discipline in your discussion, preferring to spout opinion as if it were actual truth.
Hugo, it’s just you. It’s the way you roll.
Now let’s take this comment:
” "Ever taken an IQ test? Are you in the top 5%?
Or something like the GMAT? Are you in the top 8%?
It sucks to have to brag like this, and I am pretty sure I did it before already, but what can I say... these are facts that support the idea that YOU are the one making mistakes. You just can't see them. “
That is just crap, Hugo. For one thing, there are many high IQ folks who can’t think straight because they are also emotional messes (many are narcissists who cannot ever be wrong), and/or because they were never taught the principles of disciplined deductive reasoning, and/or because they have cherished agendas. So there is no point in listing your purported mental prowess; it has no bearing on your rationality. Second, I don’t for a second believe it. Why not? It is a cheap smack-down contest with no valid outcome. And that alone falsifies the entire premise of intellectual superiority which you are trying to project.
” Finally, 1 more mistake you made, and which concern all of you here, is that you eventually jump to the conclusion that I 'want' to believe in Atheism, that I just 'want' to be like that and refuse god or whatever thing I am irrational not to believe in. Yet, I am really just discussing things here because I don't get to in person.”
And there you have it, Hugo: Your conclusion (sentence 2) has no relationship to your premise (sentence 1).
>there is no reason to attempt to discuss anything with you, because your thought process is outside the rational constraints of logical processing.
You see what I mean? This is what I concluded. That's when I realized I'm not dealing with a person who understands or plays by the rules of logic 101 here, so I just went through and deleted all his comments because they are just taking up space. No good discussion whatsoever.
The first premise of the argument from motion is "change occurs", and it took him dozens of comments to finally agree that, yes, in fact, birds fly, rivers flow, people walk, etc.
It's pointless having a discussion with someone like that.
Hugo,
Here is an example of your absurdity:
"If you were to come to a consensus on what god is and why we should all believe god is real, exists and care about us, then fine, I would consider not being an atheist. Until then, there is nothing to 'analyze', since there is nothing to believe in. Just a broad 'god' claim by individuals.
I won't be holding my breathe ;)"
There need not be any consensus on all your conditions; that is an obfuscation, another dodge. You have been given the arguments, including the Challenge to Atheists in the right hand column, and you have given no coherent argument for their refutation. The arguments are basic to all monotheism; so your complaint about consensus is false. What you cannot do is to support your Atheism regarding basic monotheism's most fundamental claim, using any Atheist tool, except for rank, unsupported denialism, and irrationality. But what Atheists, including you, claim is to be the ultimate in rationality, and to be evidentiarily based; so where is your disciplined argument supporting your Atheism? Where is your evidence supporting Atheism?
When you can provide those two simple requirements of rational support, then your Atheism is justified. Until then, it is not.
"This means conclusively that you do not accept rationality as your thought process. If an argument is valid and true, is grounded and passes Reductio ad Absurdum, then it is not rational to reject it. Period."
First of all, you have no idea what argument we were talking about, lol! How can you even comment on it?
Second, it's not that simple and I am the one who should conclude* that you do not accept rationality as your thought process... but you see, I don't jump to absurd conclusion like this about others. You are not a fundamentally irrational person, so my (* here's the real one) conclusion is that there is a misunderstanding.
Here's the example I used before:
- SUBARU is a CAR
- CAR has 3 letters
- Hence, SUBARU has 3 letters
The argument is valid but we all agree that it's not true (equivocation fallacy).
That's the same thing with the ontological argument that I discussed with Martin. I agreed that the conclusion was 'valid' in exactly the same way that we are forced to agree that the conclusion is 'valid' in the above argument. However, the above example is not a good analogy for the ontological argument; it's just a good example of how it's not as simple as what you wrote Stan...
Another, better example is this:
- God is the Universe
- The Universe exists
- Hence, God exists
Tadam! I prove that Pantheism is true, God exists, it's the Universe!
Obviously, it's not that simple (again) but it really is the same kind of reasoning error that happens with the Ontological argument. See here: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ontological-argument-in-plain.html
Here's 1 of the way I tried to explain why the argument fails:
- You start with a definition of God
(IF God were to exists)
- Using that definition, you show how the claim 'God does not exist' is false
(IF God were to exists)
- Then, you conclude that because 'God does not exist' is false, 'God exists' is true.
(IF God were to exists)
You basically list a tautology.
IF God were to exists, God would exist.
Presenting another version of the argument does not help resolving that problem.
Therefore, no premises is to be denied to reject the argument. The argument is valid, as long as we are under the caveat 'IF God exists, it would be 'X''.
That does not prove that 'God exists' is true. It proves that if God were to exists then 'God exists' would be true!
Martin's response?
"Eh? You agreed above that if a negative proposition is false, then it is true.
If "God does not exist" is a false proposition, then it is necessarily the case that "God exists" is true."
Correct, but "God does not exist" is shown to be a false proposition using a definition of God which is valid if God exists. Quoting Martin again:
Nothing about the definition entails that this thing actually exists. Perhaps there is no Creator. Just that IF there is, he would be...
Hence, "God does not exist" is false if God exists.
You have not shown that 'God exists' is true.
"You continually inject emotional rejectionism into the equation, and insist that that is rational. And you refuse to acknowledge that it is not."
I never understand what you are talking about when you jump to the conclusion, and I already mentioned above that the charges of 'emotions' are false since I don't want to believe there is no god, I simple don't because I am not convinced. Why would I prefer for no god to exist? The universe is fascinating enough without any gods but I really don't see any problem with the idea that a god does exist.
Will you guys ever acknowledge that? Probably not...
"Syllogisms are purposefully designed to have truth values, based on the criteria I’ve given above. If you cannot find the truth value of a syllogism, then you know nothing about logic, contra your claim to the contrary."
But I agree with that! You are the one who doesn't get it! What I mean is that if you write syllogisms in abstract form, they are meaningless. You can write something really long and comples:
IF A then B
IF B then C
IF C then D
IF 'D and E' then F
IF B then '!G'
IF 'F and G' then H else J
A is true
E is true
Conclusion 1: J is true
Conclusion 2: H may or may not be true
But what's the point if we are unable to agree on the truth value of A and E? That's what I meant...
" You claim to know logic and to be logical, but it is completely obviousthat you do not"
That's where I get annoyed a little. And honestly that the ONLY thing I get annoyed about. Seriously, the only 1. You can write bullshit all day long and I will find it funny, but that's a personal attack with no value and it leaves me puzzled. Why would anyone write that? Obviously, it has no impact on my daily life, hence I call it mildly annoying and just plain weird...
That's why I mentioned the GMAT score. How could I possibly pass a test that relies mostly on logic if I do not 'know' logic as you claim? Moreover, in Québec, we get 3 mandatory philosophy classes during our CEGEP studies (between high school and university) so statistically, any CEGEP student is way more likely to know logic than the average american freshman, since (correct me me if I am wrong) philosophy is NOT part of any curriculum in the US, not by default...
That being said, I agree with you on the other points you were making:
"For one thing..."
Yes, what you said here is correct. Having a high IQ or any other good intellectual capability is not an insurance for logical position on every single topic. The point is really just to point out 2 things: first, I personally do know logic, studied it, used it and continue to use it on a daily basis. Second, why the hell should I believe Martin when he and I disagree, what kind of credentials does he have!? (Remember that the quote was part of my 1-on-1 interaction with him...)
"Second, I don’t for a second believe it..."
I understand that should not believe it on face value; so ironically I kind of agree with you on that second point as well. The goal was not to boast my ego or show that I am superior; the point is really the opposite actually, to show that I am no more, and certainly no less, than Martin (again, remember it was when discussing with him...)
"There need not be any consensus on all your conditions"
Of course not; it's just an interesting challenged in my opinion. Something that you would never accept, especially since it includes yonose in that thread, dear god I don't hate you that much Stan... the point is only to show that, as an Atheist, the request you make are not realistic either. I cannot possibly reply to all god claims to justify my disbelief. You say that some arguments are ' basic to all monotheism' and I would agree, but that's missing the point since these arguments are 'not' the only reasons people claim they believe in god. I would be curious to know what the % of believers even know and understand them! Their god belief is rarely based on logic and reason...
"You have been given the arguments, including the Challenge to Atheists in the right hand column, and you have given no coherent argument for their refutation."
Yes and I did discuss these things with you Stan, and with Martin, many times before. I have always enjoyed it while you 2 did not, claiming that I am an irrational, unreasonable, (crazy?) person who you cannot talk to.
Every time it reaches this point I described above, which is not related to the proper use of logic but rather about the truth value of a specific premise. Every time we disagree on 'A' being true or not. Every time you call me illogical instead of trying to prove why I should believe 'A' to be true. Rational people simply move on and say, 'ok, let's agree to disagree on 'A' and try this other thing instead', or they find an alternative to 'A', or I don't know... something else...
"where is your disciplined argument supporting your Atheism? Where is your evidence supporting Atheism?"
There is no such argument nor evidence since Atheism is the end point of my worldview, not the start. I could explain why I reject every single argument I ever heard, but that would still not "prove" Atheism since you clearly imply that Atheism='belief that there is no god', right? I won't attempt to prove that because I don't believe it.
In all honesty (even though that means nothing to you, coming from me), I am still open to the idea of discussing theistic arguments and thus justify why I reject them. However, it seems to me that this occasion might never present itself again with you guys here...
Take care, have a nice day!
@Martin
You are so funny! It's fascinating how you dodged the facts I threw at you, regarding the LIES you wrote here, and replied with indirect jabs by talking to Stan while simultaneously insulting me once again, claiming that I don't play by the rules of logic...
The first premise of the argument from motion is "change occurs", and it took him dozens of comments to finally agree that, yes, in fact, birds fly, rivers flow, people walk, etc.
If you want to support the argument from change and refute my points, do it directly, don't write this distorted version of what occurred. The version YOU decided to erase. What kind of spineless writer erases an exchange he had with someone on his own blog anyway!?
Take it easy buddy
I think Hugo has officially gone around the bend. He's descended to insults and as far as I am concerned, removed himself from the discussion.
He kinda reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight. It's interesting and not a little scary to see what depths self-worship will take you. A caution to us all, this Hugo.
(Not that he had a lot going on to begin with. How many times has Stan banned this guy/gal for exactly the same behavior?)
Steven, I love you too. No insults were meant to be hurtful. I will think about your feelings if I write something you may read.
And more seriously: I really don't think I am the one throwing most insults. You just wrote a comment for the sole purpose of saying that I am off the discussion. No points addressed, ever.
Wasn't your biggest complain about how I don't want to address issues?
Did anyone read "the Ninth Wave"? Written many years ago, it was about a group of people who grew up together, one of whom was so focused on his own high intelligence that all he could do in personal relationships was to push other people's buttons. He became obsessed with antagonizing other people to the point that he could not quit, and he used his intellect only in the pursuit of harassment, which he took to the brink, to the abyss. An interesting progression of intellectual narcissism.
Hugo,
"- You start with a definition of God
(IF God were to exists)
- Using that definition, you show how the claim 'God does not exist' is false
(IF God were to exists)
- Then, you conclude that because 'God does not exist' is false, 'God exists' is true.
(IF God were to exists)
You basically list a tautology.
IF God were to exists, God would exist."
That, Hugo, does not apply to any argument made here, nor to any argument made anywhere that I am aware of. That is just a dodge, a Red Herring. You have been challenged to address the Atheist Challenge using disciplined deduction. Instead, you claim that there are too many gods to address, and give a weak excuse regarding some vaporous definition of your concept of Atheism.
Hugo,
Your next comment is the only other one that I will address:
"You claim to know logic and to be logical, but it is completely obviousthat you do not"
That's where I get annoyed a little. And honestly that the ONLY thing I get annoyed about. Seriously, the only 1. You can write bullshit all day long and I will find it funny, but that's a personal attack with no value and it leaves me puzzled. Why would anyone write that? Obviously, it has no impact on my daily life, hence I call it mildly annoying and just plain weird..."
You have claimed that you cannot agree to any argument because you cannot agree to truth value of the premises. But if you knew anything about logic, you would know that premises are addressable as arguments themselves, and have their own premises, etc. Either the chain of premises (prior arguments) is infinite (false), or it is looped back (circular: false), or it is grounded in first principles and is testable with Reductio Ad Absurdum. There is no rational reason to merely reject based on word-play and redefining terms mid-stream, nor on an inability to agree on premises.
Hugo, I know how you roll. You want to argue. You do what you can to perpetuate an argument, outside of its rational bounds. It is obvious that you don't want any argument to stop merely because it has a logical conclusion. You have always inserted little pieces of radical skepticism in an attempt to divert the argument from its conclusion, apparently just as an ego boost for yourself (why else would you do that?). Your enjoyment comes from the arguing itself (for whatever reason), not from seeking rational answers. So you insert little diversions in order that you can take the argument off path and into the weeds.
And, you consistently avoid addressing the Challenge to Atheists. ("Too many gods" is your diversion).
For those specific reasons, no discussion with you has ever been along a straight rational path. Hence the conclusion of irrationality.
To demonstrate Hugo's irrationality:
He brought up this Subaru argument in response to Anselm's ontological argument on my blog. He used the Subaru argument to demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation.
OK, yes, there is a fallacy known as equivocation. What of it? He never said how it applies to the OA. He said that it does, but never demonstrate WHICH word was being equivocated on.
But he thought that pointing out the existence of the fallacy of equivocation was enough to show that my argument was guilty of it.
????!!!!!!
@Stan: thanks for giving Hugo another chance, but I predict he'll squander this one too. And vex everyone in the process. Which, when you think about what powers most atheists, may be the goal for him.
That delicious sense of outrage, of hurt, of being the righteous victim, of being given a perfectly good reason by his oppressors to carry a grudge and hate - after all, Hugo is the correct one, not us. Never us.
You can't tell me this doesn't fit the current Hugo pattern of behavior. You must know, Stan, just how much black pleasure we get from holding a grudge. Black, because it twists us each day into something a little less willing to resist the temptation to hate someone.
What if that's all the poor guy has left? What if he's deliberately configured himself to be eternally at odds with everyone - even fellow atheists - so that he can eternally be the put-upon victim?
Geez, I hope not. But it does fit the pattern of that book you mentioned. I will have to go look that one up. Is it good? It sounds depressing. That narcissist sounds like he needs someone to give him a fat lip.
@Stan: looked it up, did some digging. No, I did not order the book but I have to say that that main character, Michael, reminded me a lot of Dean Martin.
He also reminded me a lot of a sociopath, as described in John D. MacDonald's "Travis McGee" series.
Not sure Hugo is quite that gone, but you can see the ego edging out the reason with every post he makes.
@Stan: also, that video of George Carlin? I sent the link to my son, but while he agreed with much of what George said, he didn't think the guy was very funny.
John said he detected anger, bitterness and cynicism - with bits of humor here and there, mostly through physical expressions.
Told him George absolutely hated Authority, no matter who it was. Liberal or Atheist or Christian or Republican - he would take them all on and mock the hell out of them.
After fifty years of doing that I would tend to be bitter and cynical, too.
Yes, Carlin was a social commentator who ridiculed everyone. Ridicule is generally not funny, except to partisans, and even then it is iffy.
I never liked Carlin when he was alive, and I was somewhat surprised that he took on such revered Leftist icons. The Left is very much into ridicule, itself, so such contrarian ridicule must smart. So I gave them a dose.
NOTE:
I had a lot of wait time today, so I wrote a lot... but had to keep that aside in a Word doc like I usually do so I don't lose my stuff. Anyway, the point is that there is a lot coming in, but that will be the first and last time I write like this. I may come back next week to discuss certain points if you guys want to, but if all I get back is more insults, well... too bad, I won't waste more of my time nor yours!
Cheers guys!
@Stan
"Hugo, does not apply to any argument made here, nor to any argument made anywhere that I am aware of."
Of course, I told you this was an example of something I discussed with Martin! :-)
Did you even follow the link I posted? Note that the quote was also just a fraction of what we discussed in the comment boxes so it's a bit out of context...
The main goal was to show that I did address the argument logically and attempted to show why I reject the premises and conclusion.
In other words, here's what's happening here:
- You say 'Hugo, you don't address arguments, you just call them false and move on, you refuse your 'burden of rebuttal'
- Then, I say, 'No Stan, here's an example of an argument I addressed'
- You say 'Hugo, your counter-argument makes no sense! that's a red hearing! Doesn't apply here!'
- Then, I say, 'No Stan, it was just an example, which you were not involved in... do you still conclude that I refuse to criticize arguments?'
If you do want to discuss the ontological argument and address why my counter arguments is not valid, in your opinion, we could do that, but that would be you changing the topic and bringing something new... don't accuse me of doing it...
"You have been challenged to address the Atheist Challenge using disciplined deduction. Instead, you claim that there are too many gods to address, and give a weak excuse regarding some vaporous definition of your concept of Atheism."
No that's not the reason why I am not really interested in the 'Atheist Challenge', it's because the challenge is meaningless; it's your own personal view of Atheism. I will quickly address it after replying to comments, if time permits...
It's actually exactly the same as you not wanting to address challenges such as 'Why won't God heal amputees?', which you rightfully decline to address. Or one more example, it's like someone coming to you and saying: 'Stan, your religion says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, why do you believe that?'. Of course you don't, so why would you take up the challenge of proving the Earth to be 6,000 years old?
"You have claimed that you cannot agree to any argument because you cannot agree to truth value of the premises. But if you knew anything about logic, you would know that premises are addressable as arguments themselves, and have their own premises,"
Yes of course, I agree with that too, you are stating the obvious. The problem is that when we hit a premise that we disagree on, you will call me irrational just because I disagree with you, regardless of 'how' I try to make my case.
"You want to argue. You do what you can to perpetuate an argument, outside of its rational bounds. It is obvious that you don't want any argument to stop merely because it has a logical conclusion. "
I like to discuss; that's the only reason why I comment here... in person, people get bored about these discussions and I never run into anybody who strongly disagree with me, so it ends quickly. I do want to reach logical conclusions and that's what I try to do, for my own personal interest. I don't really care if you reach the same conclusion or not; it's up to you. I don't think my opinion has any particular value to anyone.
May I point out that I am not the one with a blog?
" You have always inserted little pieces of radical skepticism in an attempt to divert the argument from its conclusion"
Yes that's how it looks like to you because every time you disagree me with, all you can conclude is that I am irrational, too skeptical, or whatever else you want to call me that day. I can do the exact same thing: you are a radical skeptic regarding well established science such as Evolutionary Biology. You refuse to accept that humans share a common ancestor with other apes and mammals even though the evidence is astonishing. You are a radical skeptic.
See, what does that do? Nothing... It does not explain why you are wrong, where we disagree, and may not even correctly represents your position! It's just an attack on your sense of logic based on my (fake) interpretation of the situation. If we were to discuss evolution more, I would try to understand exactly what you really think and where we disagree.
" apparently just as an ego boost for yourself (why else would you do that?). Your enjoyment comes from the arguing itself (for whatever reason), not from seeking rational answers. So you insert little diversions in order that you can take the argument off path and into the weeds."
Well you don't believe me, ever, when I correct you, so feel free to think whatever you want.
If you decide to LISTEN, here's the truth: I don't care about my ego when writing on an online blog. It's for fun. Period. However, my enjoyment does not come from arguing itself; it comes from the interest I have in the topics at hand, and the learning I get from different points of view. I also enjoy writing comments and thinking about them; it's a good practice for critical thinking and writing skills that I need to use in other areas of my life. The diversions are either labeled as diversion: I will put something like 'here's an example that's not directly related, but serves point X'. It's just normal to have multiple topics come up in such situations.
"For those specific reasons, no discussion with you has ever been along a straight rational path. Hence the conclusion of irrationality."
First of all, we did have stretches of 'straight rational path'. Last time I came back from a longer blogging break for instance, you said something like 'you seem to have changed and express your ideas quite well', to which I replied that I did not change one bit but was glad you were open to discussion, while it lasted.
How can you conclude that a 'person' is irrational based on that? Even if you are right about every argument we ever discussed, that still does not make me someone who is fundamentally irrational. I would fail at so many things I do in life! The decisions I need to make involve reason and logic, predictions, analysis, etc... Sorry to be elitist again but I don't work as a technician who receives instructions and follow them. I am a successful product manager who decides the long-term goals of a product while following its evolution on a daily basis, prioritizing work and defect fixes.
As you said correctly up here, some super smart people can be wrong on some issues, and I am no exception. I am certain that I am wrong about some of the things I believe in; statistically it's impossible for me to be always right... so that's why I like to expose my opinions and facts I am aware of, here or elsewhere, in order to assess the validity of my beliefs. The problem is that I almost never get to discuss what I actually 'think', being stuck in correcting the misconceptions you, or others, have about
Atheism, be it general misconceptions or misunderstanding of my personal opinion.
In other words, I have yet to see someone write something like: Hugo, you believe X and X is certainly false because of A,B,C. At best, what I get is: Hugo, you believe in something like Y, which sounds like X, and Y is certainly false, so you are wrong to believe X.
@Martin
"He brought up this Subaru argument in response to Anselm's ontological argument on my blog."
Nope, on your blog it was for a different purpose; it was on the argument from change, which does commit the fallacy of equivocation with the word 'change' meaning different things at different times. You know, the thing you complain we spend 40 comments on; the thing you accuse me of 'over-thinking', you remember that Martin? I kept discussing the word 'change' precisely because you commit the fallacy of equivocation, yet you don't want me to discuss the word 'change', because that would be... over-thinking ;-)
So you essentially told me that I should not discuss the word 'CAR' in the SUBARU argument because that's over thinking, and that I am stupid if I take 40 comments to try to explain to you why 'CAR' means different things in different premises. Quite funny to say the least.
" He never said how it applies to the OA. He said that it does"
Nope, go read again buddy. Here, I will copy/paste for you:
"the above example is not a good analogy for the ontological argument"
Did you get it this time Martin?
It is NOT, I repeat NOT, a good analogy for the ontological argument. Let me guess, you won't correct that; you will reply back to Stan, whining that discussion with me is impossible, while indirectly replying to me through Stan. ;)
The purpose of pasting the SUBARU argument up here was different. It was merely pointing out the fact that arguments that look valid at first glance may hide issues when you take a closer look. Stan seemed to have over-simplified the approach by saying that if I agree with a conclusion I must accept the 'meaning' of the conclusion. The SUBARU example serves to show that sometimes, an argument may look like it has a valid conclusion at first, which flows from the premise, but when you look closely, you can see errors in reasoning and conclude that the argument fails. We all agree on that I believe, but I wanted to make it very clear...
"But he thought that pointing out the existence of the fallacy of equivocation was enough to show that my argument was guilty of it."
So you also think that you can read my mind. lol. What a fail on multiple levels!
@Steven
You still don't have any point to make but needed 2 comments 20-min apart from each other to make sure you correctly express how crazy I am in your eyes, interesting... Let me clarify a few things though, just in case you care.
" vex everyone in the process. Which, when you think about what powers most atheists, may be the goal for him. "
That would certainly not be my intention, and I know it's not the intention of all Atheists. The problem is that it's very difficult to attack religious beliefs without attacking the person, since many religious individuals feel personally attacked when you call their beliefs irrational.
Personally I don't have anything against Theists, even the more fundamentals one (but not the crazy ones who fly planes in buildings of course; there is a line...) but at the same time, I cannot pretend that I find their beliefs reasonable, so that may sounds like I find 'them' unreasonable.
You 3 however, Stan, Martin and Steven, seem to do exactly the opposite. You don't really know much about me yet conclude that I am an irrational person base on that 1 topic. Martin even agrees with me on everything else as far as I can tell, yet he is just as annoyed by my comments, if not more...
So again, my sincere apologies Steven if something vexes you, it's not the intention. But at the same time, I cannot help but laugh at your reactions and comment... I mean, you are so off track sometimes, I just need to continue going down your last comment for instance!
"That delicious sense of outrage, of hurt, of being the righteous victim, of being given a perfectly good reason by his oppressors to carry a grudge and hate - after all, Hugo is the correct one, not us. Never us. "
Outrage? lol! Not me, not 1 ounce of outrage... Clearly, the one who is the most outrage here is Stan... it's his blog, don't you read the posts? Complete Ruination of the USA! Marriage is now meaningless! Atheists infected politics! Evolution is taught to our kids! The unborn are being butchered! AGW is a ploy to rob us!
Hurt? Being a victim? Hating my oppressors? Again... lol! I don't feel like that at all. We are just talking... what's the worst that can happen, being banned from the blog? Oh the humanity...
I am always the correct one? Ridiculous. I am the one who always insist on saying 'We agree on A,B,C,D,E but not on F', only to hear back: Hugo, you suck because of F! You are irrational!!
"What if that's all the poor guy has left? What if he's deliberately configured himself to be eternally at odds with everyone - even fellow atheists - so that he can eternally be the put-upon victim?"
Oh my... is it really that bad? You do realize this is just a blog, right? I don't think it affect my job that I love, new condo, upcoming 3 trips abroad and upcoming 2 weddings, ya, getting married twice!
"...sociopath... Not sure Hugo is quite that gone..."
Geez, phew! I guess I dodged a bullet on this one. Thanks Steven, I will try to tone down my ego before I become a sociopath!
@ Stan
"Ridicule is generally not funny, except to partisans, and even then it is iffy...
The Left is very much into ridicule, itself,"
Let's scroll through the posts of the last month and note a few...
- 'Hitler Learns about the ObamaCare Exchanges'
- ALERT: New Racist Forbidden Terminology
- There's No Hope: These People Can Vote.
- Whatever Would We Do?
- Who Designed the Dawkins?
- Obama Promised To Reduce America's Profile As Exceptional
...were not using ridicule?
I thought that was all pretty funny AND using ridicule :)
So you used ridicule 6 times, which is 1.5 times per week for that period. How often does it need to be to fall into the 'very much into' category?
"Challenge To Atheists, III"
(I picked the most recent...)
First of all, I find it hard to look at this challenge seriously. It does not address any of the reasons why I am an Atheist and ask challenges that no one could answer, be it Atheist or Theist, smart or dumb... Let's see:
"1. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Reason"
Sorry, I don't know how to do that... I failed already! :(
"2. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Logic."
The laws of logic have standard numbers usually, I think the first 4 are:
Logic is what it is. It is not what it is not. It cannot both be logic and not be logic at the same time. It has to either be logic or not be logic.
So using logic, we can conclude that logic is what it is: logic. Hence it is valid.
Sounds ridiculous... what's the point?
"3. Prove the Validity of Science, using Science."
I think this one is easy because Science is all about validating previous scientific results. We observe the world around us, note down the facts, create Theories that tie these facts together, generate hypothesis, perform more observations to confirm hypothesis and refine/change Theories. Therefore, Science is as valid as Science can be, no more no less...
"4. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Logic and Science."
Same as 1.
"5. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Reason and Science."
Logic is already established as Logic.
"6. Prove the Validity of Science, using Reason and Logic."
(3) explained why Science is valid, starting with Science itself and using reason and logic. How else can we validated something if not through reason and logic?
"7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)."
I don't know how to do that.
"8. Deduce a Detailed Hierarchy of Values (Morals) From Atoms and Atomic Positions."
I don't know how to do that.
" 9. Deduce Materialism From Materialism."
If we say 'from Materialism', it seems to me that this assumes Materialism first. This does not make sense since it ends up being:
-IF Materialism THEN Materialism
-Materialism is true (we start 'from' Materialism)
-Conclusion, Materialism is true.
Useless.
" 10. Deduce Materialism From Reason."
- IF 'Only material things exist' THEN 'Materialism is true'
...but I cannot prove that only material things exist to be true, dead end...
(I cannot prove that non-material things don't exist since it's impossible to distinguish between 'non-material things not existing' and them 'existing but being inaccessible/undetectable/improvable'.)
Therefore, the best I can do here is explain why I find it reasonable to believe that Materialism could be true.
Moreover, there is an important caveat, which explains why there is always so much disagreement on Materialism. If something exists because a human is thinking about it, then I consider that thing to be 'material'. At the same time (and yes I know it sounds contradictory), that thing the human is thinking about is 'non-material' since it is a 'thought', not something that has an existence without the human existing. The existence of that kind of 'non-material' thing is thus not in contradiction with Materialism being true. Otherwise, the mere fact of thinking about what I am writing would instantly disprove Materialism; the words in my head being existing non-material things...
Back to an argument... if we wanted to prove that Materialism is false, we would do:
- IF 'non-material X' exists, Materialism is false
- 'non-material X' exists
- Materialism is false
However, I am not aware of any such 'X'. Therefore, Materialism could be true.
***'X' is the big problem here. It can turn into a full discussion just for that 1 point. It's complicated because so many things we label as 'non-material' turn out to be reducible to the material. It took me a long time to understand how even logic stems from the material world for instance.***
There is 1 more step to take after that, but it's kind of pointless since the debate (if we were to discuss it, which we won't I suppose...) would revolve around why we disagree on non-material 'X's existing or not.
"11. Deduce Materialism From Logic. "
I don't see the difference with 10; reasoning is all about using logic.
"12. Deduce Materialism From Science. "
Science studies the material world, by definition. It cannot prove nor disprove what it does not study. Materialism could be right or wrong.
"13. Deduce Atheism using Reason.
14. Deduce Atheism using Logic.
15. Deduce Atheism using Science. "
I can't. I think it's possible that a god exists so Atheism cannot be deduced (assuming you mean 'no god exists')
"The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge. "
It's not a fun challenge; I wasted my time I believe... the only part that came close to be an actual defense of Atheism is the one on Materialism, since that's the reason why I don't believe in any gods. I don't believe in non-material things existing without humans. Hence, a god, usually defined as non-material, also does not exist until proven. It`s still possible though!
Hugo,
At this time you should realize, that asking a direct proof of God in the type of direct sense data is just begging the question, because is just asking for a description of a phenomenon where you WANT to ignore the mechanics needed to understand it, and that leaves Atheism in general, in the same position, because it is a claim of knowledge.
For the sake of making a terrible but understandable analogy, is like myself, pretending to know that there is no possible indirect causation for magnetism by just reading a university textbook's EM Field Theory (many of the scientific and engineering University Textbooks are full of lies, by the way), taking it at face value and at the same time ignoring the question of how could possibly a magnet work.
For the sake of this badly done analogy, think twice about how there are still people in the Mainstream view of Science, constantly ignoring the particular relationship with:
1) Phase Coherence between electron pairs in covalent bonds (and their "strength"), and the electron movement between orbitals, regarding the precession in space of the wave function (taking the electron as a wave model only, no particle-wave duality needed)
2) The way quantum mechanics would describe EM Phenomena as a particular description in relationship of the general description that happens with classical electrodynamics. Feynmann's Theory was still incomplete: It did not account the dampening of the wave function that actually describes the transient acceleration with the emission of photons and their "collapse", and the occurring Meissner effect with superconductors, for example.
3) The possible indirect causality and control of EM Fields at a quantum level. Specially regarding magnetism.
4) The direct causality of magnetism, is still not known, because, by making an example, there's still no way to make a universal material with good reaction to any magnetic field created by any other material known to exist, because even static fields may have a constant flux momentum density, and there is still not a clear way to describe this at a quantum level (remember there are superconductors too and Ohm's law is not the only way to associate an EM field). But, how to produce two specific diamagnetic and/or paramagnetic materials is something already known and established because plastic magnets DO exist, that exhibit ferromagnetic properties, so, it is logical to conclude that magnetism as a phenomena does occur even if we don't how to exactly describe what magnetism IS.
Something analogous happens, when there are empirical processes that deal with the knowledge of the spiritual, and lead to the rational guarantee of a belief in God, without the need of being picky with religions, their cultural aspects, and also without the need to deal with sectarian people. It has been stated by millennia (if you read carefully) that the knowledge of God is implicitly indirect, because of the nature of such non-material descriptions. Actually the mechanics needed to understand such things require years of study, which you could acquire by yourself about the basics of theology, theosophy and semiotics, or by doing a Theology course.
At the same time, phenomena regarding God may happen in some ineffable ways, that the only way to even consider them is totally inter-subjective. Do we see directly What God is??, the answer is no, but the ubiquitous way the effects occur with some people may give a clue that the phenomena actually "does occur" (no matter if such range from ESP to a general emotional state which is easily confused with a placebo-noncebo effect).
Do you remember what happened with Logical Positivism?
Logical Positivism was the result of carrying away the eliminative type of materialism for too long. Was this kind philosophy applicable with the appropriate contingency? History of philosophy shows that is not the case.
continue...
...continued!!!
Which then leads to talk about this:
Beliefs are people's choices, and that's all that could be said, regarding such, generally. Nonetheless, denying the perennial philosophy (e.g. Confucianism, Platonic, Neo-Platonic and similar, etc), and the metaphorical and metamorphic usage of words regarding the concept of a myth and a legend, is also a matter of people's choices, ideally speaking, without even considering other factors as social coercion from peers and other political stuff.
This would actually imply, that there IS an inter-subjective process behind the objectivity, in the way human beings acquire knowledge. Saying the opposite is the hallmark of ideology, no matter whether religious or secular.
Every time I see you posting here, you only seem to pay attention to negative correlations by confirmation bias and not even thinking about the hard questions.
When I was a non-believer, I made that very same mistake. There are also atheists and agnostics who think about the hard questions, but sadly it still happens that some of them do address such questions in a confrontational way, with a childish animosity to project their worldviews as the best way to have some contingency or total dismissal of the problem at hand, which is ignorance at best, and arrogance at worst.
Kind Regards.
Hugo,
By skipping to the third challenge you handily avoided the basic argument for monotheism. But at least you are engaging in something other than calling liar.
Your first three arguments:
” "1. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Reason"
Sorry, I don't know how to do that... I failed already! :(“
Hugo, if you could articulate why you cannot do this, you would have answered the next two as well. The answer is that Gö del’s theorems apply. No system of thought can validate itself. Yet reason is based on empirical observation (inductive) and contraries analysis of what appear to be universal principles, which are accepted as logic:
”"2. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Logic."
The laws of logic have standard numbers usually, I think the first 4 are:
Logic is what it is. It is not what it is not. It cannot both be logic and not be logic at the same time. It has to either be logic or not be logic.
So using logic, we can conclude that logic is what it is: logic. Hence it is valid.
Sounds ridiculous... what's the point?”
You came sort of close to the principles, yet so far. Logic is not a statement of itself; it is a statement of universal principles derived from observation:
The principles are:
Tautology: if it exists, then it exists; if it does not exist, then it does not exist.
Non-Contradiction: It cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.
Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.
For “truth” principles, substitute “truth” for “exist”:
Tautology: if it is true, then it is true; if it is not true, then it is not true.
Non-Contradiction: It cannot both be true and not true simultaneously.
Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat be true and somewhat not true.
However, these are all inductive, and thus cannot prove themselves; they are called First Principles because they are intuited to be true, universally and without contraries which are valid.
”"3. Prove the Validity of Science, using Science."
I think this one is easy because Science is all about validating previous scientific results. We observe the world around us, note down the facts, create Theories that tie these facts together, generate hypothesis, perform more observations to confirm hypothesis and refine/change Theories. Therefore, Science is as valid as Science can be, no more no less...”
First, the underlying premise of science is that logic applies to observations and mathematics, which are the necessities of empiricism. And logic is presumed true based on universal observations and contraries. So science is based on premises of universals which are not provable; so the validity of science is also not provable, especially by using science itself to prove itself.
You have stated a concept of science which you are assuming to be valid, yet circular; science is always inductive first, deductive second, and yet never presumed to produce completely True, incorrigible, immutable facts because they can always be falsified in future understandings with future technologies. So science cannot prove anything, especially itself (circular) with any other degree of certainty. Also Goedel’s principles apply.
” "4. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Logic and Science."
Same as 1.”
OK.
”"5. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Reason and Science."
Logic is already established as Logic.”
That’s an avoidance. The point is that Reason and Science cannot exist without Logic, and further, that using Reason and Science without Logic is irrational.
"6. Prove the Validity of Science, using Reason and Logic."
(3) explained why Science is valid, starting with Science itself and using reason and logic. How else can we validated something if not through reason and logic?”
You are coming close; you would have outlined the hierarchy if you had clarified your statement thus:
How else can we validated something if not through reason [based on] logic?”
Much “reasoning” is not logic based; rationalization seems to far outweigh rationality. So logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation.
” "7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)."
I don't know how to do that.”
And yet this is something which a Materialist must accept if nothing but the physical exists.
” "8. Deduce a Detailed Hierarchy of Values (Morals) From Atoms and Atomic Positions."
I don't know how to do that.”
This is the theory of deterministic, evolved moral values, another necessity of Materialism.
" 9. Deduce Materialism From Materialism."
If we say 'from Materialism', it seems to me that this assumes Materialism first. This does not make sense since it ends up being:
-IF Materialism THEN Materialism
-Materialism is true (we start 'from' Materialism)
-Conclusion, Materialism is true.
Useless.”
Yet there is nothing else within Materialism which is not Material. If Materialism is true and valid, it is universal, and must be derived from that universal. But it is circular, as you note; therefore, Materialism cannot be a deduction, it is a presupposition only.
” " 10. Deduce Materialism From Reason."
- IF 'Only material things exist' THEN 'Materialism is true'
...but I cannot prove that only material things exist to be true, dead end...
(I cannot prove that non-material things don't exist since it's impossible to distinguish between 'non-material things not existing' and them 'existing but being inaccessible/undetectable/improvable'.)
Therefore, the best I can do here is explain why I find it reasonable to believe that Materialism could be true. “
So by “could be true” you are assuming a probability of validity; then there would also be a probability of non-validity. If you argue probability of !X without considering the probability of X, you have only done half the job.
And here we go:
” Moreover, there is an important caveat, which explains why there is always so much disagreement on Materialism. If something exists because a human is thinking about it, then I consider that thing to be 'material'. At the same time (and yes I know it sounds contradictory), that thing the human is thinking about is 'non-material' since it is a 'thought', not something that has an existence without the human existing. The existence of that kind of 'non-material' thing is thus not in contradiction with Materialism being true. Otherwise, the mere fact of thinking about what I am writing would instantly disprove Materialism; the words in my head being existing non-material things...”
First: you are arguing that thoughts must be physical due to being attached to a physical substrate. This would render the story in a book to be physical due to being attached to ink on paper. If it were physical, it could be understood without language to interpret the meaning: it would exist as a lump called “story”, a physical thing in its own right. But it does not exist physically in its own right; it is meaning which is conveyed by reconstruction of symbolic physical structures into non-physical comprehension. If meaning existed physically in its own right, it could be interpreted by any intelligent being without regard to language barriers, just as cosmic occurrences and fossils are interpreted as physical entities.
A book weighs the same, even if the symbols are scrambled into meaninglessness.
Thoughts have meanings; meaning has no physical characteristic: no mass/energy or space/time. As one wag said, there is a jar full of meaning on my desk which I will sell you…
IF {[meaning has no specific self-contained material attributes in its own right] AND [meaning exists]}, THEN [there is non-material existence].
In order to defeat this argument one of the premises must be proven false, and further, it must be proven false using Material techniques (Materialism being presupposed).
Next, the concept is that the universe contains no meaning without human thought. But the universe is a coherent set of principles which are applied to material things; those principles have meaning regarding the behavior of the universe, and they are discoverable by intelligent beings and codable into coherent, meaningful thoughts which are transferrable as information.
Here is your argument:
” Back to an argument... if we wanted to prove that Materialism is false, we would do:
- IF 'non-material X' exists, Materialism is false
- 'non-material X' exists
- Materialism is false
However, I am not aware of any such 'X'. Therefore, Materialism could be true.”
You have done the following:
First you argued for the non-materiality of thought, then you deny the non-materiality of thought, so you can now deny being aware of any non-materiality.
” ***'X' is the big problem here. It can turn into a full discussion just for that 1 point. It's complicated because so many things we label as 'non-material' turn out to be reducible to the material. It took me a long time to understand how even logic stems from the material world for instance.***”
Logic is the interpretation of observations of the material world which are codified for use in controlled thought; it is not material. Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time.
And yes, the universe follows predictable principles (science depends on this); but those principles are not material things – there is no mineral called “principles of mineral behavior”.
” "11. Deduce Materialism From Logic. "
I don't see the difference with 10; reasoning is all about using logic.
"12. Deduce Materialism From Science. "
Science studies the material world, by definition. It cannot prove nor disprove what it does not study. Materialism could be right or wrong.”
Here’s the point: Materialism is not deducible; it is a presupposition based on the exclusion of non-material existence with no proof, and with the denial of demonstrable non-physical existences. Presuppositions which are not deduced are not a part of rational thought.
” "13. Deduce Atheism using Reason.
14. Deduce Atheism using Logic.
15. Deduce Atheism using Science. "
I can't. I think it's possible that a god exists so Atheism cannot be deduced (assuming you mean 'no god exists')”
“God possibly exists” is not Atheism. But you are right: Atheism (there is no god) cannot be deduced; it is an emotional pursuit of rejection.
” "The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge. "
It's not a fun challenge; I wasted my time I believe... the only part that came close to be an actual defense of Atheism is the one on Materialism, since that's the reason why I don't believe in any gods. I don't believe in non-material things existing without humans.”
Hugo, I suspect that no amount of discussion of pre-existence of the universe being necessarily non-material, nor of rule-based existence, etc would convince you of anything. So you are right; you very likely wasted your time, because the non-deduceablity of either Materialism or Atheism is no barrier to you. I.e., the lack of rational content in Materialism and Atheism has no bearing on your belief system, which is conveniently: either/or.
”Hence, a god, usually defined as non-material, also does not exist until proven. It`s still possible though!”
I suspect that you actually meant that to say “cannot be known to exist until proven.” (You are not in charge of creating any deity’s existence by means of your belief or disbelief…) But that statement has a complement: “cannot be known NOT to exist until proven.”
And under Materialism, “proven” means using material techniques, naturally. So an Atheist must support his denial with objective material evidence: empirical data. And because that is a Category Error, the Atheist has no case for supporting his worldview, which renders his worldview as always internally non-coherent.
Your position is sometimes Atheistic, sometimes Agnostic. And it is also denialist in the sense that you accept certain probabilities but not their contraries which also have probabilities of validity (but you have demanded proof).
Martin,
I'll delete this comment if you consider it rude to post it, as I found this:
Martin's post
Please do not misinterpret this as condescending. It is not relevant the reason of why did you post this and I won't fight with that.
I won't budge in my position, regarding that:
1)Maybe I have presented my case badly in your view, but I have frequently insisted that the reasons I've done this are not primarily political.
2)You insist in making blanket statements that the case I present is emphasizing in a political view.
3)You did not care even to ask what my political inclinations are, even if there is no need to mention them. Also, as I already told you, I'm a centrist.
4)Also, This won't mean I will be coercive with your point of view. Because I still believe there's a logical possibility in which us, humans, could influence climate, but, not in the way the IPCC does, because there's, in the way I see it, evidence that indicate the tampering and manipulation of scientific data regarding the model that the IPCC uses.
One again, I'm interested with the problem of dishonesty and suppression of data in science in general. The political leakages are just the obvious consequences and are not of my primary interest nor my primary intent, in my attempt to show my case.
So, here's more evidence to you:
William Sprigg
Kind Regards.
(copy/pasting from other thread for continuity:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2013/10/cephus-continues-without-me.html)
"By skipping to the third challenge you handily avoided the basic argument for monotheism.
- I don't see any argument for monotheism in these 3 challenges. What are you referring to? All I see is challenges for Atheists to prove something; something they may or may not even believe in.
- My intention was to go to the most recent, thinking that it was the most relevant and/or most powerful argument you had to present. I assure you it was no dodge...
- I put 'why' in bold up there because it's the same problem here. You tell me that I avoided the basic argument for monotheism but the posts you referred me to (Challenges to Atheists) contain no such thing. Am I am missing something? I don't see any sticky post with your reasons to believe in god... point me to your post about 'why' you believe in god and I will surely not avoid it.
"reason is based on empirical observation (inductive) and contraries analysis of what appear to be universal principles, which are accepted as logic:"
Everything you wrote about reason, logic and science makes sense but I don't get what's the point you are trying to make.
Next, are the 'universal principles' limited to what you listed below?
"The principles are: Tautology: if it exists, then it exists; if it does not exist, then it does not exist.
Non-Contradiction: It cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.
Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist."
Obviously, no problem here.
"Much “reasoning” is not logic based; rationalization seems to far outweigh rationality. So logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation."
This is very important, and I agree completely with you.
'Reasoning', if not logic bases, is not the same as 'using Reason'. The verb is still 'to reason' (unfortunately) but in this case it refers to any thinking process reaching a conclusion, but it is not using 'Reason' per se, since the thinking process may or may not be logic based and the conclusion may or may not be logically valid. i.e. the verb 'to reason' cannot be associated with 'using Reason'. The verb 'to reason' does not always refer to a logic based thought process.
"” "7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)."
I don't know how to do that.”
And yet this is something which a Materialist must accept if nothing but the physical exists."
I believe the point you implicitly made is this:
Materialists believe that humans evolved, naturally, and developed the ability to use Reason. Hence, you are trying a gotcha question about how we can link molecules (Chemistry) to simply self-reproductive molecules (Abiogenesis) to human beings (Biology) to humans using Reason.
Correct?
The problem is that each step is complex and is meaningless when it comes to Reason, a purely human affair. You asked for a broad jump between 2 completely disjoints things, as if the belief of Materialist was 'Chemistry hence Reason' Therefore, that's why I replied that "I don't know how to do that".
If nothing but the physical exists, Reason exists as a consequence of the material world existing. As you pointed out, logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation. Logic is a statement of universal principles derived from observation. Since we, humans, observe the physical world and use logic, I guess we can say that we are the ones who bridged the gap from Chemistry to Reason. There you go!
"This is the theory of deterministic, evolved moral values, another necessity of Materialism."
Moral values, both at the personal and group level, evolved over time, yes. What's your point?
Whether the material is all there is or not has no impact on this. It's a fact. It's actually one of the facts that lead me to believe that humans created gods, not the other way around.
" Yet there is nothing else within Materialism which is not Material. If Materialism is true and valid, it is universal, and must be derived from that universal. But it is circular, as you note; therefore, Materialism cannot be a deduction, it is a presupposition only. "
It is 'not' a presupposition. The presupposition of the Materialist is that the material exists, i.e. rejection of the 'brain in a vat' scenarios. If you reject that presupposition, it means you start with the idea that the material world may be all fake and not really existing. You become the Radical Skeptic. The Materialist, on the other hand, starts with the material world to build knowledge and beliefs. Next...
It is also 'not' a deduction. It cannot be. Materialism, just like Atheism, is the rejection of something: non-material existence. Therefore, continuing from the previous paragraph, the principle is that the Materialist never gets to beliefs including the existence of independent non-material things. The Materialist does not need to deduce that 'the material is all there is', no, the Materialist simply claims that he/she does not believe that anything non-material exists outside of human thinking.
It's complicated though since things like numbers, logical absolutes, or the stock exchange clearly exist, yet have no material presence. That's where the concept of 'reduction to the material' arises, where any non-material being explained in material terms falls into the 'material' category for the purpose of existence. A non-material existing thing would need to be shown to be outside this category to falsify Materialism. You wrote some examples that I will address below...
As a side note, this is why Atheism and Materialism are not exactly the same thing. All Materialists are Atheists, but not all Atheists are Materialists. Some Atheists do believe that humans have a non-material soul, for example. This is pretty common among New Age-style beliefs system where people reject gods but keep their supernatural beliefs in an afterlife, soul and some sort of common consciousness.
" you are arguing that thoughts must be physical due to being attached to a physical substrate. "
Correct. Thoughts, human thoughts, the only ones we know of, are attached a physical substrate: the human body. No human body, no thoughts. It's that simple. I don't even know what a non-human thought would be.
" This would render the story in a book to be physical due to being attached to ink on paper. "
No, that's not why the story is 'physical'. But yes, the story is 'physical' because without physical human beings to read the story, there is no story.
" it is meaning which is conveyed by reconstruction of symbolic physical structures into non-physical comprehension. "
You just claim that it is non-physical, but I argue that it is physical precisely because a physical human being is reconstructing the meaning. The meaning is in the consciousness of the human doing the reading. It is physical.
" IF {[meaning has no specific self-contained material attributes in its own right] AND [meaning exists]}, THEN [there is non-material existence]. "
You define meaning as non-material and then claim that because meaning exists, non-material existence exists. Fair enough, but this non-material existence depends on material human beings to exists, so that still does not help your cause. Materialism still stands since the non-material existence you described can be reduced to the material.
" the concept is that the universe contains no meaning without human thought. "
That's accurate, yes. What else is meaning if not human-thought-meaning?
" But the universe is a coherent set of principles which are applied to material things; those principles have meaning regarding the behavior of the universe, and they are discoverable by intelligent beings and codable into coherent, meaningful thoughts which are transferrable as information. "
That actually support my points yes. Humans do all of that, not the universe by itself. No humans, no meaning. You seem to commit the same error I pointed out before, where you reverse the order of discovery: we create laws to describe the universe, not the other way around.
"Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time. "
By stating that none of those 'contain' material stuff (mass/energy or space/time), you concede that you do not understand Materialist beliefs. Observations, interpretation and any other examples you give can be explained in physical terms since humans do the observations, interpretations and so on. It is not necessary to explain how an idea is formed by these 4,000,000 electrons to make it material; that's not the point. The point is that if you did not have your human body to do the thinking, then none of this would happen.
"no amount of discussion of pre-existence of the universe being necessarily non-material, nor of rule-based existence, etc would convince you of anything"
Yes, we did discuss that before. You cannot prove that the universe is not infinite; you cannot prove that 'pre-existing' means anything with respect to the universe. All you do is asserting that there must have been 'something' before the universe existed. No deduction.
" the non-deduceablity of either Materialism or Atheism is no barrier to you "
Correct. I will repeat the same as above to be clear... The 2 are NOT deducible because they are stating a LACK OF BELIEF in the supernatural, to sum up everything in 1 category.
" you actually meant that to say “cannot be known to exist until proven.” (You are not in charge of creating any deity’s existence by means of your belief or disbelief…) But that statement has a complement: “cannot be known NOT to exist until proven.” "
Correct. Correct. However, if we cannot know either, we are justified to NOT believe and we are NOT justified to believe.
"under Materialism, “proven” means using material techniques, naturally"
Of course, there is no non-material technique to prove anything. You are a human using his brain to think about things. You share these thoughts through material media. That's material techniques.
What would a non-material technique be!?
"an Atheist must support his denial with objective material evidence: empirical data"
No. Rejecting an invalid deduction does not require empirical data. The SUBARU example I gave on another thread serves this point as well. I don't need to show you a car for you to believe that SUBARU has 3 letters is wrong. The deduction was wrong, the thought process was wrong. That's not empirical data but that's certainly material.
"the Atheist has no case for supporting his worldview, which renders his worldview as always internally non-coherent."
The problem is that you never attack Atheists' worldview. You only attack the ideas that you have regarding Atheism or Materialism. This line is one of many ad hominem attack that you use while complaining about people like Cephus who do the same. He calls you irrational without really addressing any of your claims; you accuse all Atheists to have internally non-coherent worldviews without addressing their beliefs. Atheism is a non-belief!
" our position is sometimes Atheistic, sometimes Agnostic. "
Not sometimes. It is ALWAYS both! I don't know if gods exist, hence I am an Agnostic. I don't believe gods exist, hence I am an Atheist. I don't believe supernatural things exist, hence I am a Naturalist. I don't believe non-material things exist OUTSIDE human thinking, hence I am a Materialist.
" it is also denialist in the sense that you accept certain probabilities but not their contraries which also have probabilities of validity (but you have demanded proof). "
Oops, end was changed...
I did not have much to reply to that last quote. Instead I added this:
One last thing after this long comment.... I insist that there is nothing emotional here. It honestly seems to me that the emotions come from your side Stan. And by 'your' I don't mean you personally necessarily but the 'Theist' side in general. Most people are raised with the religion of their parents and never think too much about it. They become very uncomfortable when it gets attacked... that's where the emotions lie.
Cheers!
Post a Comment