Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious?
Realityis
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
The Apostle
"Realityis" wrote in message
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
Any arguement that tries to prove the existence of God, has to be
fallacious.
Fallacy - Any reasoning contrary to logic.
Now, consider. You have a creator God, who amoung his other creations, makes
mankind.
He gives them the ability to reason, because they are made in his own image.
But God himself, is all powerful, so having the gift of prophecy, he knows
when he makes mankind, that man will sin, get thrown out of the Garden of
Eden.
But God goes ahead and makes mankind.
Mankind gets so bad, that God decides to get rid of all the evil people.
Thus he makes a flood. But he saves Noah and his family.
Again, having the gift of prophecy, he already knows that it won't work.
Now years later, mankind has again started to sin, and this time God decides
to save them.
How, he decides to sacrifice his only begotten son.
But God has already told us in a number of places, that sacrificing a son or
daughter is an abomination to him.
Now religionists come up with the theory, that God became flesh and came to
earth, as God the son, and was crucified to save mankind.
So, God screwed up in his creating man, knew it before hand, and decides
that in order to save mankind, he should sacrifice himself, to himself
because he messed up.
Is there any logic at all in that?
Fallacy - Any reasoning contrary to Logic.
Can any religionist, explain how The Jewish God exists, along with his son
Jesus, but Zeus, Attis, Isis, Ra, Inanna, Cybele, Mithras, etc. don't
exist!!!!!
Fallacy - Any reasoning contrary to Logic.
Can any religionist explain, how every civilization known to man, has had a
God(s) and/or Goddess(es), a set of moral laws, etc. But only one is the
true God??
Fallacy - Oh, you should get the idea by now.
Epic
"The Apostle" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:5LcVc.52016$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Realityis" wrote in message
>
> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> fallacious?
>
> Any arguement that tries to prove the existence of God, has to be
> fallacious.
>
Yes that is what I have come to believe but I am trying to make sure that I
haven't missed anything.
I think what you are saying is that because the Christian religion is
incoherent any argument for it is then automatically fallacious?
I guess the fact that a god would have to be supernatural is also an
incoherent concept making all arguments for it automatically fallacious?
nobody
>"Realityis" wrote in message
>> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>> fallacious?
>Any arguement that tries to prove the existence of God, has to be
>fallacious.
So far so good.
>Now, consider. You have a creator God, who amoung his other creations, makes
>mankind.
[...]
You should have stopped while you were ahead. Any argument for the
non-existance of god(s) is bound to be equally fallacious, for the
same reason arguments for existance are.
raven1
>You should have stopped while you were ahead. Any argument for the
>non-existance of god(s) is bound to be equally fallacious, for the
>same reason arguments for existance are.
It's similarly impossible to prove the non-existence of leprechauns,
yet no rational person believes they exist. Why should God/s receive
special treatment?
Kronk
>Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>fallacious?
>
>In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
>far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
>fallacies.
And some even fit several:
http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/godexists.msnw
K.
A-Theist
news:516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com...
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
*nemo*
real...@canada.com (Realityis) wrote:
There are some who would say that an argument can be "valid" and
untrueat the same time. The logic flows perfectly, but either the
premises are false to begin with or a step is taken along the way that
leads to a conclusion that gives nonsense in the end.
For instance, here is a proof that 1 = 2:
a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = a^2 - ab
(a - b) (a + b) = a(a - b)
a + b = a
2a = a
2 = 1
Of course the error crept in at step 3, but the math is valid all the
wat to the end.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Epic
"A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6F...@uni-berlin.de...
your claims.
Realityis
Seann
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ckuai01rg2ppmtu4m...@4ax.com...
Seann
Ie, who begat you? your parents. Them? your grandparents, back to adam/eve
or 1st human (evolution), what begat that? Before that, somewhere is the
missing link, then worlds pre human, then primordial ooze, then a rock, then
cosmic dust, then the unified field, then big bang.
Point is, somewhere there's a 1st thing... (Eg what happened 1 second
before the big bang?)
We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God.
"Realityis" <real...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com...
nobody
>There are some who would say that an argument can be "valid" and
>untrueat the same time.
That looks like a badly mangled version of Goedel's Incompleteness
Theorem.
>The logic flows perfectly, but either the
>premises are false to begin with or a step is taken along the way that
>leads to a conclusion that gives nonsense in the end.
Which means the logic does *not* "flow" perfectly.
>For instance, here is a proof that 1 = 2:
>a = b
>a^2 = b^2
>a^2 - b^2 = a^2 - ab
>(a - b) (a + b) = a(a - b)
>a + b = a
>2a = a
>2 = 1
>Of course the error crept in at step 3,
It's at step 5. Subtraction is a valid operation with any arguments.
Division by zero is not.
>but the math is valid all the wat to the end.
No it's not. Division by zero isn't a valid operation to perform in an
equality.
Read up on Goedel, completeness and consistency. It's a little more
involved but much more interesting than math parlor tricks.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
No, he wasn't.
Like all similar attempts at proof, it was merely a statement of what
he believed.
As a proof it fails because it tries to generate information where
there is none.
>Ie, who begat you? your parents. Them? your grandparents, back to adam/eve
>or 1st human (evolution), what begat that? Before that, somewhere is the
>missing link, then worlds pre human, then primordial ooze, then a rock, then
>cosmic dust, then the unified field, then big bang.
>
>Point is, somewhere there's a 1st thing... (Eg what happened 1 second
>before the big bang?)
Time as we measure it didn't even exist then.
>We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God.
That's your problem.
Don't rub your problem in our faces.
What caused your as-yet hypothetical God?
Fatman
news:10ibn9j...@corp.supernews.com:
> St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st
> cause...
>
> Ie, who begat you? your parents. Them? your grandparents, back to
> adam/eve or 1st human (evolution), what begat that? Before that,
> somewhere is the missing link, then worlds pre human, then primordial
> ooze, then a rock, then cosmic dust, then the unified field, then big
> bang.
>
> Point is, somewhere there's a 1st thing... (Eg what happened 1 second
> before the big bang?)
>
> We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God.
>
That is not a demonstration by any sense of the imagination. Lack of
knowledge of 1 second or 1 million years before the big band does not
*demonstrate* a first cause.
"We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God." is just an
affirmation of a religous beleif.
The first cause argument is a fallacious argument.
Every thing needs a cause, except "God", is special pleading.
If every thing needs a cause, so does this so called "God".
Is this a fallacious argument agianst gods?
"Ignorance leads to affirmation of a deity in a theist."
"I don't know how rain falls from the sky, so a god must be involved."
"I don't what made trees, so a god must be involved."
"I don't know how we got here, so a god must be involved."
Fatman
Dixit
Then you don't know logic. If you did then you would know that no
argument to establish that there is no god is ever required; there is no
X is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of an
existential proposition, whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in
evidence.
Dixit
> St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
You are mistaken.
The very idea that there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical first
cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one that cannot have
any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
GodŽ, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due
to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of
GodŽ, which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes as you do that
there might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
that does not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of
it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Andrew Lias
> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> fallacious?
>
> In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
> far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
> fallacies.
It is possible to construct a logically sound argument for God,
bearing in mind that a logical argument is only as strong as its
premises.
So, for instance:
1) Fruit Loops are divine creations -- given
2) I have a bowl of Fruit Loops -- given
3) Ergo, God exists -- 1 & 2
Although statement 1 is empirically false, the argument itself is
perfectly logical.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
Mark K. Bilbo
<10ibn9j...@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero "Seann"
<sea...@diginow.net>:
> St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
Nonsense. He speculated there was such a thing. I don't see any reason
there must be one.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Jez
> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> fallacious?
>
No.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
A-Theist
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want to clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be thousands of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_b...@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
kathryn
"Seann" <sea...@diginow.net> wrote in message
news:10ibn9j...@corp.supernews.com...
> St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
>
> Ie, who begat you? your parents. Them? your grandparents, back to adam/eve
> or 1st human (evolution), what begat that? Before that, somewhere is the
> missing link, then worlds pre human, then primordial ooze, then a rock,
then
> cosmic dust, then the unified field, then big bang.
>
> Point is, somewhere there's a 1st thing... (Eg what happened 1 second
> before the big bang?)
>
> We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God.
>
So where does god come from if everything has a cause?
Besides which not being unable to explain something doesn't mean there isn't
an explanation.
Christopher A. Lee
I would have said it was circular, presuming what it sets out to
prove. The premise can't mention deity, divine, etc.
Christopher A. Lee
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:15:00 -0500 in episode
><10ibn9j...@corp.supernews.com> we saw our hero "Seann"
><sea...@diginow.net>:
>
>> St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
>
>Nonsense. He speculated there was such a thing. I don't see any reason
>there must be one.
These guys go beyond anywhere there is any information, and stop at an
arbitrary point saying "this is the first cause" when they don't
actually know that - or even that there actually is one.
An infinitely old universe wouldn't need one.
Even if the premise hadn't been trounced by QM.
Virgil
wrote:
> nobody wrote:
> > "The Apostle" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>"Realityis" wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> >>>fallacious?
> >
> >
> >>Any arguement that tries to prove the existence of God, has to be
> >>fallacious.
> >
> >
> > So far so good.
> >
> >
> >>Now, consider. You have a creator God, who amoung his other creations, makes
> >>mankind.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > You should have stopped while you were ahead. Any argument for the
> > non-existance of god(s) is bound to be equally fallacious, for the
> > same reason arguments for existance are.
> >
>
> Then you don't know logic.
Says one who proves his ignorance, of logic among other things, with
every posting.
> If you did then you would know that no
> argument to establish that there is no god is ever required;
That depends. One is free to presume no god, at least in the abssence of
evidence that there is one, but if one claims knowledge that there can
be no god, as Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, so often does, then that
person bears the same burden of proof that any other claimant of
knowledge bears. There is no privileged claim of knowledge.
Virgil
wrote:
> Seann wrote:
>
> > St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> The very idea that there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical first
> cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
> cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one that cannot have
> any validity.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is more mistaken than
Aquinas.
The very idea that there MIGHT be a God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator only depends upon the argument that there MIGHT be a first
cause, and, as Russell allows, that might be the case, though he doubts
it.
The very idea that there MUST be a God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator depends upon the argument that there MUST be a first
cause, and that is what Russell objects to and argues against.
Let everyone read Russell for themselves and decide for themselves:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a
cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well
be the world [universe] as God."
-- Lord Bertrand Russell in a Speech entitled "Why I am not a
Christian"
Kronk
<not.for...@to.know.net> wrote:
>"Epic" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote in message
>news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>> "A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
>> news:2olfi6F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> > "Realityis" <real...@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > news:516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>> > > fallacious?
<...>
>> > Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
>> >
>> I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to defend
>> your claims.
>>
>I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to know I'd like
>your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want to clutter
>up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be thousands of
>posts from all comers.
Alt.atheism will have thousands of posts anyway, so you needn't worry
about imposing or causing clutter. At least this would be relatively
on topic.
But if you are primarily looking to avoid a mass critique of your
argument (presumably because you have little confidence that it can
withstand it) then yes, keeping it off usenet would probably be the
best way to avoid thats.
Kronk
Epic
news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-13E557....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Virgil couldn't we just ignore Dixit/Septic?
I think his credentials as a barking mad pendant are well established.
Couldn't you make this branch a new thread?
Realityis
Realityis
news:nemo0037-DD1839...@news05.east.earthlink.net...
Are you saying that it doesn't matter if there is a non-fallacious answer it
still may be a false conclusion?
I agree but I don't think it relates directly to the question which was:
Are all arguments for God fallacious?
Also I don't agree that you premises are valid above. In step 3 you have
assumed the trivial case where a=b. In that case to go from step 4 to 5 you
had to divide by 0 which is undefined in mathematics.
Although there undoubtedly is a valid argument that is untrue I don't think
this is an example of one.
Realityis
I would disagree. Here is an example of an argument against the
existence of god:
The argument from evil and the argument from non-belief:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
Can you explain how these are fallacious with a specific reference to
one of the accepted types of fallacious arguments?
Some may find these arguments unconvincing but I believe they are
valid arguments and they are not fallacious.
Realityis
IT @something.net Don
<realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
>
>"The Apostle" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>news:5LcVc.52016$vO1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>>
>> "Realityis" wrote in message
>>
>> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>> fallacious?
>>
>> Any arguement that tries to prove the existence of God, has to be
>> fallacious.
>>
><snip>
>
>Yes that is what I have come to believe but I am trying to make sure that I
>haven't missed anything.
>
>I think what you are saying is that because the Christian religion is
>incoherent any argument for it is then automatically fallacious?
Please allow me to head off in a different tangent for a moment.
For me, nothing is worth doing only for the sake of "doing." If it
accomplishes absolutely nothing, why waste the time? So it is with
any religion. I think it was supposed to be Bill Gates who said
something like, "I don't dislike Church, it's just that I have better
things to do on Sunday."
If a religion is supposed to accomplish something negative, why bother
with it? If I want something negative, all I have to do is read the
newspaper, watch TV for about 30-seconds or talk to an evangelical
Christian or a Catholic. If a religion is supposed to do something
good, but instead causes harm and injury, again I conclude, why bother
with it??
Most religions have a set of doctrines, usually explaining life, the
origin of man, the after-life, etc. The followers of that religion
are usually expected to embrace most of that doctrinal package as a
whole. Many, like contemporary Christianity, claim several positive
personal benefits to those who embrace the belief system, the aversion
of hell, a joyful life, a changed life from bad to good, from one
direction to another direction, usually including the illusive peace,
joy, love, etc. This is supposed to be a different change from the
normal personality or lifestyle of the individual.
One can usually observe the claims of the religion and compare it to
the lifestyle of those who claim to embrace that religion. For me, if
embracing that set of doctrines/principles results in no "change" in
the person, especially when such "change" is highly promoted, then I
see no reason to assume that the religion is worth my time. I
understand that often much time is taken for such a "change' to
happen. But with much time, people can change on their own, often the
natural result of getting older...nothing to do with a religious
experience.
I have been observing the "lifestyle" of people for over 35 years, to
see if what they "preach" follows their lifestyle. So far, I am still
looking for a so-called miraculous lifestyle difference, one that
cannot be explained by simple psychological manipulation or social
engineering. Ultimately, "Christians" whom I have known for decades
still embrace the same prejudices and personal "tastes" that they had
before embracing their "Christianity." They just "add to" their
package of prejudices and personal preferences.
I had a similar conversation last night with a friend. I said it is
easy to be a "paper Christian" in the USA. Ya know the kind of
Christian who "makes a decision" on Sunday morning, walks down the
isle of the church, signs the little card and "accepts Christ as their
personal savior." Then, that person goes to church on Sunday (instead
of sleeping in or going to the lake,) learns the Xtian lingo, begins
to dress the way Xtians of his/her persuasion dress, likes the things
they like, dislikes the things they dislike, embraces the same social
causes their group embraces, etc, etc., giving the appearance of
Christianity.
THAT is "paper Christianity," it is EASY, EASY, EASY to do whether you
are a protestant of a Catholic.
Here was her observation, she has one friend who is the "old South"
kind of girl, white Christian, still holds to the southern racism of
her youth, admires the upper class simply for "being" the upper class,
considers that the intermixing of the races during slavery only helped
"lift up" the negroes, from their savage background, etc. She is a
"paper Christian," one who has the "Christian" look, knows the lingo,
"knows the Bible," at least the parts of the Bible that agree with
her, yet she is filled with pride and prejudice.
Another example is her friend who daily sends e-mails promoting
whatever is the latest Christian "agenda," the latest social fad of
"pop-christianity." She avoids becoming "involved" with a church
congregation. She FEARS even talking to homosexuals, handicapped
persons, anyone who is "down and out" or on a lower social-econimic
level. She literally FEARS talking to people different from her.
Considering that Jesus said we would be given a spirit of power, love
and a SOUND MIND...one could conclude that her actions portray her as
a "paper Christian" also. Know what I mean?
Of course, your results may vary.
Below are the words of one who has trumpeted her Christianity, her
Catholicism. Why would HER WORDS and actions be attractive to
another, to want to embrace HER version of Christianity???
"someone vomits and you lap it up."
" you left skid marks on the wall this time."
"I will dare to say that if Karen had the need to use K Y it would be remembered the next day."
"You are a stupid hatefilled nutcase."
"the way I see it you are acting like a jackass"
"What you think is not important."
---The Encouraging Words of Scout Lady, aka, Cathy Hall, serial marrier
(and this is the short list)
Realityis
Virgil - Can't we just ignore septic?
Realityis
>
> Ie, who begat you? your parents. Them? your grandparents, back to adam/eve
> or 1st human (evolution), what begat that? Before that, somewhere is the
> missing link, then worlds pre human, then primordial ooze, then a rock, then
> cosmic dust, then the unified field, then big bang.
>
> Point is, somewhere there's a 1st thing... (Eg what happened 1 second
> before the big bang?)
>
> We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God.
>
Thanks for the try Seann. Its generally accepted that this argument
is an example of a "Special Pleading Fallacy" and does not represent a
non-fallacious argument for the existence of God.
Everything requires a cause except for the special thing that you
think shouldn't.
Virgil
"Epic" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
The damage that an unopposed crank can do is out of proportion to his
importance, besides which he is such a temptingly pompous target.
Virgil
"Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
Do you know how to killfile?
Herbert Walker
"kathryn" <b...@bob.com> wrote in message
news:cg59ug$qij$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Seann" <sea...@diginow.net> wrote in message
> news:10ibn9j...@corp.supernews.com...
>> St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st
>> cause...
>>
>> Ie, who begat you? your parents. Them? your grandparents, back to
>> adam/eve
>> or 1st human (evolution), what begat that? Before that, somewhere is the
>> missing link, then worlds pre human, then primordial ooze, then a rock,
> then
>> cosmic dust, then the unified field, then big bang.
>>
>> Point is, somewhere there's a 1st thing... (Eg what happened 1 second
>> before the big bang?)
>>
>> We believe by light of faith that that 1st cause is God.
>>
>
> So where does god come from if everything has a cause?
Well you see, the Earth is supported on the back of a huge turtle, the
turtle shit God out.
Now you know! :O
Herbert
Realityis
news:i7cci05uiosjdeh14...@4ax.com...
Yes I think you are right Chris it appears to be a "Begging the Question"
Fallacy.
I would also argue that it is an invalid argument since the first premise is
provably false (We could visit the factory).
The question was are there any "valid" arguments that are not fallacious.
Realityis
Yes but I don't like doing it for some strange reason - I may miss something
good!
I can understand why you are doing what you do - thanks.
Realityis
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to hear from
anyone else.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
Daniel Kolle
thought hard and said:
>St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
Was he now? Really? Then why are there so many atheists out these
days? What are you and I having this exchange of words?
The first cause argument conveniently ignores the fact that,
if everything had a first cause, then God must too.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Shat?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:15:00 -0500, "Seann" <sea...@diginow.net>
>thought hard and said:
>
>>St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
>
>Was he now? Really? Then why are there so many atheists out these
>days? What are you and I having this exchange of words?
> The first cause argument conveniently ignores the fact that,
>if everything had a first cause, then God must too.
But "everything" doesn't mean everything.
Scott
"Realityis" <real...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com...
> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> fallacious?
They are every bit as fallacious as ethical arguments for moral progress,
Pro-choice, Pro-life, human rights, etc. In any argument for god's existence
replace it with "moral progress" and fallacies with arise. All of those,
including God, require a declaration of the faithful and fundamental
rejection of materialism. "Human rights are only a convenient fantasy" -
stoney.
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to prove
it's true. How's that for circular reasoning? Which is why materialism is a
premise and not a conclusion.
Scott
Realityis
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:FYuVc.2705$QK6...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
So I take your answer to be "No".
Realityis
Realityis
news:AStVc.238$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> "Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
> news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-B458CA....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <FrtVc.23$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> > "Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
> > >
> news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-FBCF12....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <7boVc.44081$mD.35392@attbi_s02>, Dixit <d...@nospam.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
<snip>
> > > Virgil - Can't we just ignore septic?
> >
> > Do you know how to killfile?
>
> Yes but I don't like doing it for some strange reason - I may miss
something
> good!
>
> I can understand why you are doing what you do - thanks.
Some day I might open up a post from Dixit and read:
By God, who might possibly exist!! your right Virgil!
I can say that and ... look .... I am still an atheist!
Dixit
I wouldn't want to miss that.
LP
>raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:25:07 GMT, nobody <nob...@here.com> wrote:
>
>>>You should have stopped while you were ahead. Any argument for the
>>>non-existance of god(s) is bound to be equally fallacious, for the
>>>same reason arguments for existance are.
>
>>It's similarly impossible to prove the non-existence of leprechauns,
>>yet no rational person believes they exist. Why should God/s receive special treatment?
>
>I claimed that when?
>
>That said, god(s) *do* receive special treatment because people
>believe in them.
No, you have it backwards.
The only reason anyone believes in gods, is because many otherwise
rational people give the god concept special treatment.
Why are so many seemingly intelligent, rational people caught in the
grip of the irrational beliefs of religion?
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/compartmentalization.html
“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who
cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.
Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and
that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does
not dare face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however
dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they
are disputed.”
-Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics
Scott
Conditionally. "No" given the conditional *a priori* premise of materialism.
Now all you have to do is convince theists that materialism is true. But how
are you going to do that when you can't prove it is the true nature of
reality?
If materialism is true then moral progress is also a delusional fantasy.
Going from a society of slavery to one without is not progress but only a
change in preference, same holds for that of the Inquisition's to today's
Western democracies. Likewise, comparisons between cultures' morality will
not lend one as being preferable due to one of them being progressively
better. There is only a difference in preference. Without having that
rational bases for which materialism denies existence in, arguments for
moral preferences between cultures (and even individuals) is rationally
pointless. There is no bases for claims that human rights advocacies are
better than that of the Taliban's and Al Qada's morality. The is no rational
bases to argue Pro-Choice over Pro-Life or its inverse. There is no rational
bases to argue Liberal morality over Conservative morality. They are all
*equivalently* attempting to force their morality onto the other...but
that's ok if your moral code says you can be intolerant of the other's.
Without a rational bases to measure against, all moral codes are equivalent
and self justifying so there is no such thing as an unjust law. You can pass
a law to gas Jews if you want and the law will be self justifying. You
believe any of that or does that seem to go against your common sense, as if
against some gnosis? Humanistic materialism is an oxymoron.
It may be rational to have faith but nobody claims faith is rational.
Scott
Andrew Lias
It's no more circular that the classic Socratic syllogy, IMO (all men
are mortal, etc). Never the less, I can construct a less direct proof
of the existence of God.
My point is that logical proofs don't have any necessary
correspondence to reality and that logic, by itself, can lead you
astray.
I have seen some very sophisticated arguments for the existence of God
where the logical chain of deduction is perfectly solid; the problems
with such proofs invariably lie in the axioms.
Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
real world.
Of course, I seriously doubt that I'm telling you anything you don't
already know so I'll shut up now. :-)
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
Scott
"Andrew Lias" <anrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.04082...@posting.google.com...
What *is* the real world?
Virgil
"Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
it appears that it is more likely to read
"By Aphrodite, who might possibly exist!! your right Virgil!
But it has long been apparent that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has
no brains above his belt.
Uncle Dollar Bill
defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
>Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>fallacious?
Yes. Any logically consistent definition of the word "god" that is a definition
of something that can be and is proven via consistent, falsifiable logic to
exist is not fallacious. Such definitions of the word "god" are rare, however,
and tend to exclude most common beliefs about said critter.
<snip>
>Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there is?
> Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
Yes, but not for most gods. Here's one:
God is the Sun. The Sun exists (insert verifiable, logically-consistent
demonstration of sun's existence here). Therefore, God exists.
As long as the complete definition of God is "The sun", it is not a fallacious
statement to say that "God exists". Now if you add properties to this
definition of "God", you need to rationally justify each one. For instance,
"God can cure cancer". Okay, so demonstrate it. Let's see the sun cure
someone's cancer _at all_, let alone in a way that is at all meaningfully
distinguishable from ordinary remission. If that's not possible, at least show
that remission rates are meaningfully higher for people who worship the sun than
for those who don't.
That part of it is where most "God" arguments fail.
Part of it, too, depends on what you consider axiomatic. For most believers,
the argument seems to boil down to, "I believe because I do." IOW, they believe
because they have faith, and consider it axiomatic that you simply have to have
faith in order to believe. That's still circular as I present it, but there are
some, I suppose, who can frame it within a non-circular postulate. However,
unless you accept the axiom that faith is essential for belief as a valid axiom,
such arguments aren't going to be convincing to you.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<i7cci05uiosjdeh14...@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Aug 2004 09:18:20 -0700, anrw...@gmail.com (Andrew Lias) wrote:
>>
>> >real...@canada.com (Realityis) wrote in message news:<516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>> >> fallacious?
>> >>
>> >> In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
>> >> far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
>> >> fallacies.
>> >
>> >It is possible to construct a logically sound argument for God,
>> >bearing in mind that a logical argument is only as strong as its
>> >premises.
>> >
>> >So, for instance:
>> >
>> >1) Fruit Loops are divine creations -- given
>> >2) I have a bowl of Fruit Loops -- given
>> >3) Ergo, God exists -- 1 & 2
>> >
>> >Although statement 1 is empirically false, the argument itself is
>> >perfectly logical.
>>
>> I would have said it was circular, presuming what it sets out to
>> prove. The premise can't mention deity, divine, etc.
>
>It's no more circular that the classic Socratic syllogy, IMO (all men
>are mortal, etc). Never the less, I can construct a less direct proof
>of the existence of God.
But the premise still includes what it is trying to prove.
>My point is that logical proofs don't have any necessary
>correspondence to reality and that logic, by itself, can lead you
>astray.
>
>I have seen some very sophisticated arguments for the existence of God
>where the logical chain of deduction is perfectly solid; the problems
>with such proofs invariably lie in the axioms.
The problem is that the axioms presume it, or reduce to to its
presumption.
Most of the more sophisticated ones hide unjustified presumptions
about hat they're trying to prove, in the axioms. They actually have
to start without any presumption of it at all, and derive it. But
instead they usually slip presumptions in somewhere, without realising
they're doing it, because it's so real to them.
The real difficulty is that we treat these as an intellectual exercise
in abstract logic while the believer treats it as real. Even if he
can't spot the flaw in our disproofs, they have to be wrong because
we're trying to disprove something real. Like "proving" the Sun
doesn't exist
>Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
>to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
>contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
>real world.
>
>Of course, I seriously doubt that I'm telling you anything you don't
>already know so I'll shut up now. :-)
Don't worry - polite conversation is a breath of fresh air.
A.Christian
> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> fallacious?
>
> In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
> far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
> fallacies.
....
> I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
> argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
> as valid argument?
>
> Fallacy Lists:
>
> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Here is St Anselm's argument:
"For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and
another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first
conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his
understanding, but be does not yet understand it to be, because he has
not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, be both has
it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he
has made it.
"Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the
understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived.
For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is
understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than
which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the
understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding
alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.
"Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived,
exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing
greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be
conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt
that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be
conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."
point one, the validity of an argument does not rest on the truth of
its premises, but only on the correctness of its logic, so, is this
argument valid?
point two, the soundness of an argument rests on both the truth of its
premises and the validity of its inference, so, is this argument
sound?
For both points, if not, why not?
A-Theist
news:1XtVc.285$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle dixie.
> As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I was
> hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
>
>
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example. We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
A.Christian
> Seann wrote:
>
> > St. Thomas Aquinas was able to demonstrate the existance of a 1st cause...
>
>
> The very idea that there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical first
> cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
> cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one that cannot have
> any validity.
>
> GodŽ, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due
> to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of
> GodŽ, which Russell points out:
>
> "The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
> If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
> Russell (1872 - 1970)
>
> It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes as you do that
> there might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
> argument for GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
> that does not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of
> it, which Russell points out.
Russell is mistaken. No one has advanced the argument that "anything
must have a cause." That is not what St Thomas Aquinas wrote. He
wrote:
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the
world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is
no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is
found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to
itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not
possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes
following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause
is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any
intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on
to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes;
all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a
first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
Therefore Russell is guilty of erecting a straw man. Further, "the
world, universe, everything that exists," is not a single thing but
many things. St Aquinas rightly points out that nothing can logically
be the cause of itself, and the universe is an effect, or many
effects, so these must have efficient causes. God as the first
efficient cause is not a case of special pleading, but by definition.
The definition cannot just as well apply to the universe, since the
universe is plainly an effect or a conglomeration of effects.
As for you, you also are mistaken when you assert:
"The very idea that there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical first
cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
cause"
There is no logical dependency of "the very idea that there might be a
God" upon St Aquinas' argument from the nature of the efficient cause.
That is not where that idea came from. Take away that argument, and
you still have four more from Aquinas alone.
Scout Lady
then say Plonk.
> > As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I
was
> > hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
> >
> >
>
> One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example.
We
> know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
> concerning it detail the situation.
>
This is going to be so fun to watch!
A-Theist
Goddeloos
>>>Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
>>>prove it's true. How's that for circular reasoning?
Science (materialism) can never be *proven* true.
Scientific theories only generate testable propositions.
Scientific theories can only be invalidated, or
rejected for better ones, never *proven* to be
correct in an absolute sense.
Science can use whatever assumptions it likes to
design theories which generate testable propositions.
So, as always, you assert you misunderstanding of the
nature of scientific epistemology.
--
goddeloos #179
Goddeloos
> What *is* the real world?
You included all that text in your post, then
only added this flippant question to it?
Were you expecting to impress anyone with your
feigned intellectual depth?
As Einstein said, the real world is what we measure
with our sense-impressions. Its the metaphysical
assumption which allows engineers to design things
like computer monitors. A shame, really, that you
benefit so hugely from the clear thinking of others.
Speaking of measurement, how are you coming with
the electron density calculation?
Also, did you find *a density* yet?
--
goddeloos #179
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
That's septic not Russell. He has combined two Russell quotes from
different contexts and still manages to draw conclusions from the
result.
But that's the troll's modus operandi.
And Thomas Aquinas doesn't prove anything - it's just a statement of
what he believes. That's all.
Like all first cause arguments, it goes beyond any point where there
is any information and stops arbitrarily, saying "God did it". Which
both violates its original premise and plucks "God" out of thin air.
>"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the
>world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is
>no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is
>found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to
>itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not
>possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes
>following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause,
>and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
>intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause
>is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
>among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any
>intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on
>to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will
>there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes;
>all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a
>first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
False. Everybody does NOT give it the name "God". Only those who
already believe in it do that, but it is a non-sequitur EVEN IF HE HAD
demonstrated a first cause, which he hasn't in any case.
He waffles to one, invalidly stops where there is no data to make that
decision and at that points invents something again without any data
to go on and says this is the "first cause" in contradiction to
original premise.
BUT (as Russell actually points out) he says that something actually
is causeless after all. Why does this have to be this thing he has
arbitrarily invented out of nothing? Why can't it be the universe?
>Therefore Russell is guilty of erecting a straw man. Further, "the
>world, universe, everything that exists," is not a single thing but
>many things. St Aquinas rightly points out that nothing can logically
>be the cause of itself, and the universe is an effect, or many
>effects, so these must have efficient causes. God as the first
>efficient cause is not a case of special pleading, but by definition.
>The definition cannot just as well apply to the universe, since the
>universe is plainly an effect or a conglomeration of effects.
Aquinas does not "rightly" do anything. Even forgetting the fact that
science (QM) knows about uncaused events and effects, he has not
proven his premises. To do that he would have had to have investigated
every effect. Even if he had he does not show that the universe is
one, he just asserts it.
>As for you, you also are mistaken when you assert:
>
>"The very idea that there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical first
>cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
>cause"
He was trolling, and you fell for it.
>There is no logical dependency of "the very idea that there might be a
>God" upon St Aquinas' argument from the nature of the efficient cause.
>That is not where that idea came from. Take away that argument, and
>you still have four more from Aquinas alone.
A fancy buzzword for his gut feeling, which he turns into a principle
that he cannot justify.
Christopher A. Lee
>> Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
>> to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
>> contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
>> real world.
>
>
>What *is* the real world?
Somebody playing philosophy games that get in the way of discussion.
Scout Lady
Don Kresch
(A.Christian) let us all know that:
>There is no logical dependency of "the very idea that there might be a
>God" upon St Aquinas' argument from the nature of the efficient cause.
>That is not where that idea came from. Take away that argument, and
>you still have four more from Aquinas alone.
No, Aquinas only put forth *2*. 3 1st cause, 2 design.
Of course, all 1st cause and design arguments having been refuted
to death....
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Don Kresch
(A.Christian) let us all know that:
Nope. It switches from one context to another in the same sense,
which is the fallacy of equivocation.
>
>point two, the soundness of an argument rests on both the truth of its
>premises and the validity of its inference, so, is this argument
>sound?
Nope. With the context switch, it assumes that because you can
think of something, it therefore must exist, which is patently false.
Andrew Lias
> > Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
> > to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
> > contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
> > real world.
>
> What *is* the real world?
I've always liked Philip K Dick's definition of reality:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Scott
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:49:15 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
> >> to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
> >> contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
> >> real world.
> >
> >
> >What *is* the real world?
>
> Somebody playing philosophy games that get in the way of discussion.
Nope. I believe in material reality; that doesn't mean I must believe in
materialism. Your statements implies a demand that theists accept
materialism as the factual description for reality. Materialism is a
premise. Dualism is a premise. Neither can present proof that they are true.
When an atheist demands materialistic evidence for a non-materialistic thing
that comes across to me as an ungracious request because it is an implied
demand that the theist accept materialism on par with the atheist. If
materialistic evidence *could* be present for a non-material thing then it
follows that the non-material thing would cease to be non-material. We need
another way. And as you've admitted that other way is their but you reject
it based upon you un-provable premise.
Scott
Scott
"Andrew Lias" <anrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffc8a152.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<%5wVc.2711$v67....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Andrew Lias" <anrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ffc8a152.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
> > > to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
> > > contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
> > > real world.
> >
> > What *is* the real world?
>
> I've always liked Philip K Dick's definition of reality:
>
> "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Ontological arguments don't go away either.
Christopher A. Lee
It does nothing of the sort.
And I have "admitted" nothing.
Any materialism is a consequece not a philosophical premise.\
>Scott
>
Scott
Certainly you realize your argument about naive realism bodes equally well
for moral disagreements? It's easy for a materialist to give up theism (the
later logically follows the former) but I find it interesting that *soooo*
many of these same materialists can't give up the equally naive belief in
moral righteousness. These who do not, factually (call it "naively") reject
materialism. The cross posts between a.a. and religious ngs are ripe with
evidence that they do naively reject materialism. One only needs to observe
moral disagreements on the Pro-Choice/Life threads.
In debates about any non-materialistic thing/quality/whatever with these
materialists, why should I be expected to accept materialism when they
themselves don't fully accept it?
Scott
Scott
"Goddeloos" <godde...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:raDVc.9230$Bt5....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Scott wrote:
>
> >>>Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
> >>>prove it's true. How's that for circular reasoning?
>
> Science (materialism) can never be *proven* true.
Oh!! And all this time in another thread you've been arguing for objective
morality?
>
> Scientific theories only generate testable propositions.
>
> Scientific theories can only be invalidated, or
> rejected for better ones, never *proven* to be
> correct in an absolute sense.
>
> Science can use whatever assumptions it likes to
> design theories which generate testable propositions.
So what to all of that?
>
> So, as always, you assert you misunderstanding of the
> nature of scientific epistemology.
And once again, you have shown yourself to be philosophically challenged.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem gets in the way for proof of materialism.
Jeff, I'm getting to the point that I don't read much of your posts anymore.
Scott
Density is a physical quality of materials. No one disputes that. What
Icarus and I what you to do is give a true analogous example for evil to
density and not you false analogies. You can use physics to measure the
density of a material thing. What physics do you use to measure evil?
Instead of arguing with me over this, why don't you try arguing starting you
own a.a. thread and argue to other atheists. For me, that would be
entertaining to watch.
Scott
Christopher A. Lee
What "argument about naive realism"?
>for moral disagreements? It's easy for a materialist to give up theism (the
>later logically follows the former) but I find it interesting that *soooo*
>many of these same materialists can't give up the equally naive belief in
>moral righteousness. These who do not, factually (call it "naively") reject
>materialism. The cross posts between a.a. and religious ngs are ripe with
>evidence that they do naively reject materialism. One only needs to observe
>moral disagreements on the Pro-Choice/Life threads.
And what "equally naive belief in moral rightness"?
Most "materialists" aren't a priori philosophical materialists. Any
materialism they might exhibit is simply a consequence.
But in any case we were talking about arguments which fail because
they hid their conclusion in the premises.
Which all arguments for deity, divinity, etc do.
When the only reason to do so is pre-existing belief.
Without that there is no reason to come up with it.
>In debates about any non-materialistic thing/quality/whatever with these
>materialists, why should I be expected to accept materialism when they
>themselves don't fully accept it?
Sigh.
You have to use common shared understanding.
Your presumptions about deity are not part of that.
Neither are your strawmen.
But in any case when you are trying to prove it, it has to be a
conclusion. You cannot have any presumptions about it at all unless
you have previously justified them to mutual satisfaction.
>Scott
>
Scott
wrong. All isms (including material*ism*) are prepositional. If I sense
that you were to imply I accept prepositional materialism, it make sense
that I return the favor and ask you to accept proportional dualism.
Scot
Scott
Christopher A. Lee
Wrong.
Most so-called materialists aren't "prepositional" materialists.
But in any case we were talking about the abstract logic of so-called
"proofs" of God.
Why are you insisting that I a priori grant unjustified premises?
>Scot
>
>Scott
>
Scott
You implied it with: "But instead they usually slip presumptions in
somewhere, without realising they're doing it, because it's so real to
them."
>
> >for moral disagreements? It's easy for a materialist to give up theism
(the
> >later logically follows the former) but I find it interesting that
*soooo*
> >many of these same materialists can't give up the equally naive belief in
> >moral righteousness. These who do not, factually (call it "naively")
reject
> >materialism. The cross posts between a.a. and religious ngs are ripe with
> >evidence that they do naively reject materialism. One only needs to
observe
> >moral disagreements on the Pro-Choice/Life threads.
>
> And what "equally naive belief in moral rightness"?
>
> Most "materialists" aren't a priori philosophical materialists. Any
> materialism they might exhibit is simply a consequence.
A propositional one, an assumed premise.
>
> But in any case we were talking about arguments which fail because
> they hid their conclusion in the premises.
as does materialism
>
> Which all arguments for deity, divinity, etc do.
Which all arguments for morality progress, evil/good, human rights, etc. do
>
> When the only reason to do so is pre-existing belief.
Call it a "Declaration of...."
>
> Without that there is no reason to come up with it.
Oh but there is. It just isn't a rational one. Ditto for human rights.
>
> >In debates about any non-materialistic thing/quality/whatever with these
> >materialists, why should I be expected to accept materialism when they
> >themselves don't fully accept it?
>
> Sigh.
>
> You have to use common shared understanding.
Correct. No disagreement there. See the thread where Icarus and I have been
arguing to Goddelloos (Jeff) and Evil Ed (Chris) against objective morality
given a premise of materialism. I assume materialism as the correct
proposition and use it to argue against Jeff's and Chris' belief in Moral
Truth.
>
> Your presumptions about deity are not part of that.
Neither is yours if you demand a theist give materialistic evidence for her
non-materialistic thing.
>
> Neither are your strawmen.
>
> But in any case when you are trying to prove it, it has to be a
> conclusion. You cannot have any presumptions about it at all unless
> you have previously justified them to mutual satisfaction.
Proposition: Materialism
Premise: only materialistic things are real....conclusion Materialism.
Materialism uses materialistic means to prove materialism true. Circular
Scott
Scott
I didn't say they were.
>
> But in any case we were talking about the abstract logic of so-called
> "proofs" of God.
>
> Why are you insisting that I a priori grant unjustified premises?
I'm not insisting you accept any proposition. I'm only describing.
Scott
Realityis
> > >
> > > Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
> > forge on.
> > > Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
dixie.
> > >
> > What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
> > then say Plonk.
> >
> > > > As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
I
> > was
> > > > hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
example.
> > We
> > > know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
prophecies
> > > concerning it detail the situation.
> > >
> > This is going to be so fun to watch!
> >
> >
>
> Tace atque abi.
supprime tuum stultiloquium!
>
If you are trying to use the Bible as an argument for the existence of God I
think you will end up in a "Begging the Question" or "Circular Argument"
fallacy pretty quickly.
"God must exist."
"How do you know."
"Because the Bible says so."
"Why should I believe the Bible?"
"Because the Bible was written by God."
reference:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Scott
"A.Christian" <weask...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83842072.04082...@posting.google.com...
> real...@canada.com (Realityis) wrote in message
news:<516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> > fallacious?
> >
> > In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
> > far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
> > fallacies.
>
> ....
>
> > I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
> > argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
> > as valid argument?
> >
> > Fallacy Lists:
> >
> > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
>
> Here is St Anselm's argument:
Here's Kurt's http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html
Christopher A. Lee
Eh?
I was talking about unjustified logical premises.
Whatever their reason for doing it.
>> >for moral disagreements? It's easy for a materialist to give up theism
>(the
>> >later logically follows the former) but I find it interesting that
>*soooo*
>> >many of these same materialists can't give up the equally naive belief in
>> >moral righteousness. These who do not, factually (call it "naively")
>reject
>> >materialism. The cross posts between a.a. and religious ngs are ripe with
>> >evidence that they do naively reject materialism. One only needs to
>observe
>> >moral disagreements on the Pro-Choice/Life threads.
>>
>> And what "equally naive belief in moral rightness"?
>>
>> Most "materialists" aren't a priori philosophical materialists. Any
>> materialism they might exhibit is simply a consequence.
>
>
>A propositional one, an assumed premise.
Which is why you were wrong.
Please learn to read for comprehension instead of attributing
positions to people that they don't have.
Believers in the supernatural, people who expect others to grant their
metaphysics etc accuse peopel who don't a priori grant these premises
think they don't do because of your phony "prepositional materialism".
Which is their own strawman used ads an ad hominem excuse to ignore
what is said.
In this case to ignore my points about the LOGICAL validity of
premises in an argument, when people hide their conclusion in the
premises.
>> But in any case we were talking about arguments which fail because
>> they hid their conclusion in the premises.
>
>as does materialism
Non sequitur.
Why do you keep babbling on about this instead of addressing what is
written? Especially when it's your own stupid starwmman that you are
using as a combination of ad hominem and tu quoque to cop out.
>> Which all arguments for deity, divinity, etc do.
>
>Which all arguments for morality progress, evil/good, human rights, etc. do
Irrelevant and stupid bullshit instead of addressing what is written.
>> When the only reason to do so is pre-existing belief.
>
>Call it a "Declaration of...."
Call it your own stupid strawman that you are attempting to use as a
tu quoque.
>> Without that there is no reason to come up with it.
>
>Oh but there is. It just isn't a rational one. Ditto for human rights.
No. There isn't even an irrational one.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T USE IT AS A PREMISE IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DERIVE
IT USING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Which all your strawmen about materialism etc seem to be an attempt to
obscure.
Which word are you pretending not to understand?
>> >In debates about any non-materialistic thing/quality/whatever with these
>> >materialists, why should I be expected to accept materialism when they
>> >themselves don't fully accept it?
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> You have to use common shared understanding.
>
>Correct. No disagreement there. See the thread where Icarus and I have been
>arguing to Goddelloos (Jeff) and Evil Ed (Chris) against objective morality
>given a premise of materialism. I assume materialism as the correct
>proposition and use it to argue against Jeff's and Chris' belief in Moral
>Truth.
Another sigh.
I was talking about abstract logical exercises. Where you cannot use A
to prove A.
I *A*L*S*O* pointed out that your use of materialist was invalid -
because very few people are prespositional, presumptive, a priori etc
materialists. any materialism they might exhibit is incidental and a
conclusion not prepositional, presumptive, a priori etc.
It's a strawman used as an ad hominem to cop out of answering
responses.
>> Your presumptions about deity are not part of that.
>
>Neither is yours if you demand a theist give materialistic evidence for her
>non-materialistic thing.
Nobody is doing that - just demanding that they either put up or shut
up after they have insisted that we take it seriously, accede to its
alleged demands etc.
We wouldn't care what they believe as long as they could live and live
live.
But when they insist we should take their beliefs as seriously as they
do, they have to explain from premises we grant. What we actually
grant, not some strawman about "prepositional materialism" which they
use as an ad hominem attack to ignore explanations of what it would
take.
It's the sociopathic inability to realise that they have to do this
which causes the bad feeling. Escalated by the ad hominems because
those aren't just copouts but also offensive.
After all, who are they trying to convince? Themselves using us as an
unwilling foil? Because they're the only people in the discussion who
grant those premises.
>> Neither are your strawmen.
>>
>> But in any case when you are trying to prove it, it has to be a
>> conclusion. You cannot have any presumptions about it at all unless
>> you have previously justified them to mutual satisfaction.
>
>Proposition: Materialism
>Premise: only materialistic things are real....conclusion Materialism.
>
>Materialism uses materialistic means to prove materialism true. Circular
Same red herring again.
>Scott
>
Scott
<Missed this>
"moral righteousness" as if humans *really* do have inherent human rights
and we can assertain what they are. Any argument someone gives for *why*
(including an empathic one) of human rights will inherently contain a
genetic fallacy.
Scott
Realityis
Chris
Can you help me out a bit here. I am new to the field of philosophy so I am
struggling a bit to keep up with this argument between you and Scott.
For my understanding I have simplified the argument as follows:
Chris: Ford makes a bad car, their engine head gaskets fail with high
statistical frequency at 150K.
Scott: Oh yeah, well GM makes a total piece of crap I mean look at this they
use plastic where they should be using metal so if I were you I wouldn't go
around saying bad things about Fords.
Does this capture the gist of the argument or do I have it completely wrong?
Uncle Dollar Bill
<godde...@san.rr.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
>Scott wrote:
>
>>>>Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
>>>>prove it's true. How's that for circular reasoning?
>
>Science (materialism) can never be *proven* true.
I think you might mean "Science (empiricism) [...]". It's not quite the same
thing as "Science (materialism) [...]". Even science admits to
non-materialistic possibilities, just not to non-empirical ones. Or have I
misunderstood the context or some such of the above?
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
Kronk
<not.for...@to.know.net> wrote:
>"Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote in message
>news:1XtVc.285$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>> "A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
>> news:2omo6pF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> > "Epic" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> > >
>> > > "A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:2olfi6F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> > > > "Realityis" <real...@canada.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> > > > > Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
>> > > > > fallacious?
<...>
> One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example. We
>know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
>concerning it detail the situation.
The Bible mentions several places that actually existed. How is that
any sort of argument for the existence of God (non-fallacious or
otherwise)?
K.
Cindy
"A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658F...@uni-berlin.de...
> "Scout Lady" <scou...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
>>
>> >
>> This is going to be so fun to watch!
It sure is, I bet 5 to 2 that the little german school boy gets his ass
kicked! LOL
Cindy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher A. Lee
<realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
>Can you help me out a bit here. I am new to the field of philosophy so I am
>struggling a bit to keep up with this argument between you and Scott.
It's nothing to do with philosophy, although I guess Scott is playing
philosophy games.
>For my understanding I have simplified the argument as follows:
>
>Chris: Ford makes a bad car, their engine head gaskets fail with high
>statistical frequency at 150K.
>
>Scott: Oh yeah, well GM makes a total piece of crap I mean look at this they
>use plastic where they should be using metal so if I were you I wouldn't go
>around saying bad things about Fords.
>
>Does this capture the gist of the argument or do I have it completely wrong?
I was saying that an argument for to "prove" God's (or anything
else's) existence fails if what you're trying to prove is hidden in
the premises.
Scott seems to think that a believer can do that because he grants its
existence.
But instead of realising that we only ask believers for proof when
they talk about it at us (not with us) as though its existence were
universally granted, to get them to either put up or shut up, he
thinks they can grant it even if we don't - in spite of the fact that
they're trying to communicate to us not themselves.
HE keeps introducing strawman red herrings.
bob young
Realityis wrote:
> Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
> fallacious?
>
> In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
> far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
> fallacies.
>
> The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
>
> The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
> Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
>
> The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to Popularity"
> fallacy.
>
> The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
> "Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
> Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
> around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
> change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
> of God".
>
> Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument?
Unlikely. religions are passed on by parents, peers, school teachers and
priests roughly in that order. humans invented gods to fight the evil
spirits that caused all the bad things from the time they could
communicate in simple grunts
religions have become sophisticated in good measure by powerful rulers
who *used* religion to keep the population in check, hence the huge size
os some religions showing too the pitiful state of the human mind in
general that is fooled by not thinking things through.
also a vast number of good people are attracted to religions, giving a
false impression of righteousness.
bob
hong kong
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was
a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe
and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is
exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
[Sigmund Freud]
> Have I seen all there is?
> Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
>
bob young
raven1 wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:25:07 GMT, nobody <nob...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >You should have stopped while you were ahead. Any argument for the
> >non-existance of god(s) is bound to be equally fallacious, for the
> >same reason arguments for existance are.
>
> It's similarly impossible to prove the non-existence of leprechauns,
> yet no rational person believes they exist. Why should God/s receive
> special treatment?
Since man could talk there could well have been millions of magical
beliefs. Man is descended from a hunting pack and still retains this
inbuilt feeling. religions bind man together, gives him confidence and
power. Those that remain today are a pitiful small percentage of the
tens of thousands that have disappeared.
go to the African bush and you'll still find talismans hanging on trees
to frighten away the evil spirits, a throw back to man's earliest
fears.
fear, power, everlasting life companionship in the group are the
cornerstones of all beliefs and at the end of the day they are nothing
but superstition
bob
hong kong
The person ready to believe unlikely and unproved things is readily
made a slave of by the crafty.
[Voltaire]
A-Theist
>
> "A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
> news:2oo658F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Scout Lady" <scou...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
> > >
> > > "A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
> > > > "Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1XtVc.285$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Epic" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Realityis" <real...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:516aeee7.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > > there
> > > > > is?
> > > > > > > > > Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a
> > > flawed
> > > > > > > > > argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't
> > > qualify
> > > > > > > > > as valid argument?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fallacy Lists:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> > > > > > > > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
> > > > > > > > > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared
> to
> > > > > defend
> > > > > > > your claims.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Realityis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to
> > > know
> > > > > I'd like
> > > > > > your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't
> want
> > > to
> > > > > clutter
> > > > > > up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be
> > > thousands
> > > > > of
> > > > > > posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you'd prefer send me an email at
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bad_b...@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
> > > > >
> > > > > That is kind of a strange request.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to
> hear
> > > from
> > > > > anyone else.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
> > > forge on.
> > > > Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
> dixie.
> > > >
> > > What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
> > > then say Plonk.
> > >
> > > > > As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
> I
> > > was
> > > > > hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> example.
> > > We
> > > > know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
> prophecies
> > > > concerning it detail the situation.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> Not a chance.
>
>
Cepe indicum Canis.
A-Theist
> "A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote in message
> news:2oo658F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Scout Lady" <scou...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
> > >
> <snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
> > > forge on.
> > > > Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
> dixie.
> > > >
> > > What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
> > > then say Plonk.
> > >
> > > > > As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
> I
> > > was
> > > > > hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
> example.
> > > We
> > > > know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
> prophecies
> > > > concerning it detail the situation.
> > > >
> > > This is going to be so fun to watch!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Tace atque abi.
> supprime tuum stultiloquium!
Right. Ut si!
> >
> If you are trying to use the Bible as an argument for the existence of God I
> think you will end up in a "Begging the Question" or "Circular Argument"
> fallacy pretty quickly.
>
No just a prophecy contained in the bible that has evidence of being completed.
But hey you can always argue that the dude who wrote it down just got lucky.
Then if you take the 8 most common prophecies concerning Jesus which are clearly
met in the person of Jesus the odds against those 8 prophecies being all correct
are rather high, but they are all 8 dead on. So is it luck or is there someting
to it.
You figure it out.
> "God must exist."
Why?
> "How do you know."
You wouldn't believe me.
> "Because the Bible says so."
That ain't it.
> "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Really?
> "Because the Bible was written by God."
>
Prove it.
> reference:
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
>
>
A-Theist
A test mentioned in the bible itself is the accuracy of the prophecy. So how
accurate is the Babylon prophecy. The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
"help", or at least I'd think so.
> K.
>
>
Virgil
"A-Theist" <not.for...@to.know.net> wrote:
> The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
> "help", or at least I'd think so.
Depends on how may would-be prophets there were.
With enough of them, it is almost certain that one of them will have got
lucky. And the ones that weren't tend to be forgot.
A-Theist
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B6DFC2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Ok predict your own birth. Who has ever done that?
Predict your own death and be accurate about it.
Mark K. Bilbo
<2oqnqkF...@uni-berlin.de> we saw our hero "A-Theist"
<not.for...@to.know.net>:
> No just a prophecy contained in the bible that has evidence of being
> completed. But hey you can always argue that the dude who wrote it down
> just got lucky. Then if you take the 8 most common prophecies concerning
> Jesus which are clearly met in the person of Jesus the odds against those
> 8 prophecies being all correct are rather high, but they are all 8 dead
> on. So is it luck or is there someting to it.
>
> You figure it out.
That's easy. When the NT was written, they had copies of the OT. So the
"prophecies" could easily be "filled" by writing the NT to suit.
Duh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
nobody
>nobody wrote:
>> You should have stopped while you were ahead. Any argument for the
>> non-existance of god(s) is bound to be equally fallacious, for the
>> same reason arguments for existance are.
>Then you don't know logic. If you did then you would know that no
>argument to establish that there is no god is ever required; there is no
>X is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of an
>existential proposition, whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in
>evidence.
X=Gods don't exist. QED.
IOW, that one doesn't have evidence that X=True doesn't mean X=False,
or vice versa.
You are welcome for the quick lesson.
Andrew Lias
> "Andrew Lias" <anrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ffc8a152.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:<%5wVc.2711$v67....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > "Andrew Lias" <anrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ffc8a152.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > Logic is a useful tool, don't get me wrong. It is, however, possible
> > > > to misuse it and to abuse it. The worth of logic is entirely
> > > > contingent on how well a given set of propositions actually model the
> > > > real world.
> > >
> >
> >
> > "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
>
> Ontological arguments don't go away either.
If you are trying to make a point, you're going to have to speak a bit
less elliptically if you're expecting me to understand what you're
trying to get at.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
Scott
> Chris
>
> Can you help me out a bit here. I am new to the field of philosophy so I
am
> struggling a bit to keep up with this argument between you and Scott.
>
> For my understanding I have simplified the argument as follows:
>
> Chris: Ford makes a bad car, their engine head gaskets fail with high
> statistical frequency at 150K.
>
> Scott: Oh yeah, well GM makes a total piece of crap I mean look at this
they
> use plastic where they should be using metal so if I were you I wouldn't
go
> around saying bad things about Fords.
>
> Does this capture the gist of the argument or do I have it completely
wrong?
No, it doesn't capture the gist.
Here is the philosophical...ah...'landscape' as I see it. Set theism aside.
Ignore it. Atheists can be dualists although a materialists can't be a
theists or dualist. IOW an atheist could be a dualist by believing in ghosts
and would not be contradicting her *a-theism*.
I am a dualists. Which simply means I believe in material reality along with
a non-material reality, a spiritual reality.
On the material side of my philosophy, I believe everything that science can
best affirm about the materialistic nature of the World (meaning Universe).
You name it, The universe is on the order of 14 billion years old, evolution
(creationism is bull shit), etc. So on this scientific point alone, what
reason does an atheist have for arguing to me against some *personal* belief
I might hold toward a spiritual existence? I see none at all. What
difference does it make to him except for maybe being a busybody into my
personal beliefs with my personal god. I certainly don't care whether
someone is an atheist and never tried to force any atheist into being a
theists. From a debating POV, I effectively nuke any disagreement that could
arise on this material issue alone.
But if no disagreement might arise in materiality related to my religious
beliefs, where might a disagreement arise? There is only one other area I
can think of. And that is Ethics.
<Keeping in mind I'm describing the philosophical landscape>
And here [Ethics] is were the materialist effectively nukes himself,
philosophically, to any disagreement he might have as to what should be the
*correct* moral position everyone else *ought* to take. Materialistic
naturalism states nature is amoral. Why? It does simply because it denies
all meta-physical things. Not only is/are god(s) denied but other
meta-physical things are denied such as ghosts, souls, *mind* (the
free-will, mind-body problem), and, not the least of which is meta-physical
Good and Evil. You can't have moral progress without that meta-ethical Good
and Evil *Realism*. ("Naturalism", "Materialism", "Materialistic Naturalism"
and "Physicalism" all mean the same thing.)
So for Materialism, ethics is *Anti-Realism*. Meta-ethical Relativism (and
its derivatives) is anti-realism (google these terms) and why it is the only
meta-ethical philosophy compatible with materialism. Two examples of
Relativism are intersubjectivism, best known as "Cultural Relativism", and
Subjectivism (which only means individual relativism). Meta-ethics attempts
to present a factual theory about the nature of ethics by asking "What is
morality". From within Relativism, normative ethics takes a step down from
the meta and simply describes what is moral or immoral *relative* to the
culture and/or individual. What does this mean for Relativism and
Materialism?
It simply means that whatever is evil or good is whatever the culture (the
identified group of likeminded individuals) or the individual *name* as evil
or good, moral or immoral. All that can be said from the POV of materialism
is that, for example, cultures change their mores and morals over time and
comparatively differ between each other. We can observe and study that. But
any claim to moral progress is analogous to the claim for Strong Anthropic
principle in Cosmology.
Materialism, using Relativism's moral anti-realism, must concluded there is
no such thing as moral progress because there is nothing objective in
material reality to measure that progress against.
In a practical sense, disagreements over moral issues are analogous to
disagreement is aesthetics. You might like a painting where I hate it. Which
is to say you might find a painting beautiful (as to good) were I may find
it ugly (as to evil).
It means disagreements over Pro-choice/life issues are rationally pointless.
If you were tried to argue to me that Pro-Choice is better it'd be like you
trying to ague to me that the painting is beautiful. Any and all rational
argument you attempt to present will lead to a fallacy. Begging the
questions will arise. And any attempt to present one moral code being better
than another (to pin down the better to something, including empathy) will
generate The Genetic Fallacy (a naturalistic fallacy).
Let me personalize this with an example I use: In WWII Japanese soldiers
tossed Chinese babies into the air and bayoneted them on the way down. You
may think this an evil act but to them, at the time, it was just having
'good' fun. Which of your two opinions is better or the more correct one?
Neither is. Like the painting example, the two opinions are equivalent. From
a materialistic naturalism POV this act is no more evil than a male lion who
has taken over a pride genociding the previous males' cubs. Humans are just
one more specie on the planet acting out of its own behaviorism.
If a materialist say the soldiers violated the babies inherent human rights
that materialist is factually oxymoronic because materialism denies "
inherent rights". All moral disagreements are rationally pointless because
there is no Objective principle by which to measure a disagreement to nor to
determine what is moral progress. Genociding Jews can be a good thing if
simple name as such and nobody would not be committing a factual error by
materialistic.
And to back up this argument:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
quote
14] An evolutionary account of the origin of moral judgment in human beings
does not tell us what (if anything) makes a specific action moral. On a
materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or
socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing
independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus
there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right
or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to
them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by
empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be
violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our
ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow
them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and
social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec
human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong.
Core ethical rules are no doubt determined by intersubjective consensus
across cultures--for example, incest and murder are universally prohibited.
But such consensus does not demonstrate the objectivity of ethics; it merely
demonstrates that human beings or societies are largely 'built' the same way
and react similarly to certain types of behavior. Suppose we have inherited
an aversion to committing murder. That such a genetic disposition would be
widespread makes evolutionary sense. A known murderer's neighbors will fear
that the murderer might kill them. Out of mutual self-interest they would be
wise to band together and eliminate the murderer before he could eliminate
them. Since murderers would tend to be eliminated before they could
reproduce, individuals with a genetic inclination to commit murder would
tend to dwindle. But this is merely an accident of natural selection, and
trying to base morality on the fact that adhering to certain ethical norms
will make you more "fit" to stay alive and reproduce is insufficient. The
origin of behavior is irrelevant to whether a behavior is right or wrong;
what makes an individual evolutionarily 'fit' (e.g. infidelity) is not
necessarily moral. There will no doubt still be some individuals who are
genetically inclined to commit murder; but we do not conclude that the are
exempt from moral prohibitions on murder because of this. Furthermore, the
fitness of certain evolutionary traits changes when the environment changes.
Would murder suddenly become morally acceptable--even obligatory--if it
provided us a selective advantage? On a materialist account, the only
foundations for behavioral codes are preserving self-interest and satisfying
one's conscience--there are no additional 'moral facts' which motivate
behavior.
end quote
On concept of 'no moral progress' if Subjectivism/Relativism is true (only
one of many):
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
google "no moral progress" if you don't trust that link.
Ok, realityis, I know that's a lot to digest but I assure you it is accurate
epistemology (an accurate discription of the landscape) given a premise of
materialism. If that "no moral progress" and no "inherent human rights" goes
against you common sense of yours it is either naive realism or a gnosis.
Take your pick.
From a debating POV, all a materialist can do is stalemate me in a religious
oriented debate about science or morality if I am being epistemologically
accurate to a premise of materialism. If I lost, it will be due to a failing
in me and not the epistemic.
Scott
Scott
so says you.
Scott
Christopher A. Lee
Oh, the irony.
I was talking about the invalidity of hiding the conclusion in one of
the premises.
And you kept browbeating me with these stupid red herrings.
>Scott
>
Dixit
>
>>"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>In article <FrtVc.23$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>>> "Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>In article <7boVc.44081$mD.35392@attbi_s02>, Dixit <d...@nospam.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Virgil - Can't we just ignore septic?
>>>
>>>Do you know how to killfile?
>>
>>Yes but I don't like doing it for some strange reason - I may miss
>
> something
>
>>good!
>>
>>I can understand why you are doing what you do - thanks.
>
>
> Some day I might open up a post from Dixit and read:
>
> By God, who might possibly exist!! your right Virgil!
>
> I can say that and ... look .... I am still an atheist!
>
> Dixit
>
> I wouldn't want to miss that.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very
idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Dixit
> Dixit <d...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<7boVc.44081$mD.35392@attbi_s02>...
> "The very idea that there might be a GodŽ, the hypothetical first
> cause/creator depends upon the argument that there must be a first
> cause"
>
> There is no logical dependency of "the very idea that there might be a
> God" upon St Aquinas' argument from the nature of the efficient cause.
There is as long as GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator, is still
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator, knucklehead.
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the very idea of GodŽ, the
Virgil
wrote:
> Realityis wrote:
> > "Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote in message
> > news:AStVc.238$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> >>"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-B458CA....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >>
> >>>In article <FrtVc.23$G7G...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> >>> "Realityis" <realityiss...@canada.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>
> >>news:ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-FBCF12....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >>
> >>>>>In article <7boVc.44081$mD.35392@attbi_s02>, Dixit <d...@nospam.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>Virgil - Can't we just ignore septic?
> >>>
> >>>Do you know how to killfile?
> >>
> >>Yes but I don't like doing it for some strange reason - I may miss
> >
> > something
> >
> >>good!
> >>
> >>I can understand why you are doing what you do - thanks.
> >
> >
> > Some day I might open up a post from Dixit and read:
> >
> > By God, who might possibly exist!! your right Virgil!
> >
> > I can say that and ... look .... I am still an atheist!
> >
> > Dixit
> >
> > I wouldn't want to miss that.
>
> Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the [necessity] of God, the
> hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
> pleading for God) so there [need not] be any such of a thing:
As anyone who can read without letting their own biases blind them sees,
Russell's position is that there need not be a first cause, and even if
there is one, it need not be God.