I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

I've been doing this "arguing with godbots online" thing for some time now, probably as long as I've had a reliable internet connection, yet some things never change.

First, some background. This week, word got around that Moore College, a cult consolidation center here in Sydney, had an open twitter wall. And as we all know, open twitter wall means TROLLIN' TROLLIN' TROLLIN'.

Soon, atheist quotations and provocative tweets were flowing onto the #MooreCollege hashtag, in the sure and certain hope that they'd make it onto the tweet wall and cause either some annoyance (blackhat trolling) or cause someone to genuinely question their beliefs (whitehat trolling).

As it turns out, the tweetwall was pre-screened so very few, if any, tweets got through. But I did recieve this reply in response to one of my tweets.

 Oh dear.

That's a seriously telegraphed punch. I can see what's coming a mile off, and if you've ever argued with theists online, you probably can too. But let's examine the possiblities, shall we?

First of all, it's plainly evident from the twitter name that young Jaswa_ichtys is a theist, of the man-on-a-stick variety. Still, checking his profile reveals his twitter bio:

Jesus is tops and so is studying mathematics =]

So it's evident that what he's looking for here is a chance to stretch the powerful philosophical muscles he's built up pumping paper in bible study, allied to the mad skills in proofs and logic that he's gained in maths class. Essentially, he wants me to reply "yes, I assert that there's no god" for a couple of possible reasons (there may, of course, be others).

Possibility 1.

Once I've replied in the affirmative, Jaswa_icthys will proceed to regale me with "evidence" which will clearly make the assertion incorrect, probably topped off with "explain that, ATHEIST!"

Possibility 2:

More likely, Jaswa_icthys has heard the statement "it is impossible to definitively prove a negative" batted around at some point, and is waiting to spring that one, probably coupled with some "so you see, you have just as much faith as we do" McGrathian nonsense. He's been led into this by the juxtaposition of the firm, solid and reliable Logic of mathematics and the pretend, round-cornered, safety-scissors 'logic' of theology.

sigh

I, of course, do not play this game. While it is true that I often use the phrase "there is no god", I am of course aware of the weaknesses of such language with respect to epistemological claims. I am also aware of the principles of negative proof. While I may say "there is no god", I certainly cannot definitively, logically, prove it, any more than Jaswa_icthys can definitively prove, in line with the precepts of his cult, that there's no Thor*.

Or can I?

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There are lots of things we know don't exist. Take, for instance, the luminiferous ether.

The ether was once the leading and most probable hypothesis for how light could be transmitted through a vacuum. To all intents and purposes, the ether was considered true by many authorities right up until the early 20th century, when Einstein's relativity put a final nail in its coffin by not only showing that it was not required, but by dispensing with ether's last major property, its immobility. The corpse continued to make audible noises through the lid, however, as Lorentz and others tried to square relativity with etheric hypotheses, but at the advent of modern physics, the ether was dead, and one may say, conversationally if not axiomatically, that the ether does not exist.

Whither, then, the god hypothesis? Can we dispense with that in a similar manner to ether?

Of course we can, but we need to be extremely careful over how we define "god". The thing that allowed physics to kill off the ether hypothesis was the fact that ether was well defined in terms of its observable properties. Once careful observation and calculation demonstrated that these properties were non-existent, uneccessary or untrue, ether went the way of all flesh.

Of course, theists constantly refuse to define their god in any more than vague, fluffy terms. Whereas the ether was an edifice at which science could level a punch, "god" claims are just so much fine mist.

Not unlike the ether itself, really.

This is what makes theology a pretend subject. It has nothing to study and refuses to demonstrate that what it studies actually exists before pronouncing on it. It is, in modern terms, etherology.

So I prefer to respond to Jaswa_icthys's question in this manner:

While I may state, conversationally, that "god does not exist", the real evidence for its non-existence comes in the failure of theism to demonstrate its claims with good, reasonable data. Bleat all you like, but in consistently failing to demonstrate your god's existence, you're the one showing that it doesn't exist.

That's right. Bigfoot hunters may continue to assert that Bigfoot is real, but until they bring some concrete evidence to the table, we are not unjustified in saying "bigfoot does not exist". Likewise ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, effects of homeopathy and John fucking Edward.

And don't try barnyard-grade rhetorical tricks on me. I don't play along**

 

* Thor is, of course, real. Praise Thor.
** unless I'm in the mood to do it for the lulz. This rule covers everything.

posted @ Thursday, April 26, 2012 11:43 AM

 
 
 

Comments on this entry:

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Fred at 4/27/2012 7:50 PM
Gravatar
This post and this blog is awesome! I can't believe I haven't seen this before (given I'm on Skeptalk too). I love the tone of your writing - a lot more "look at at how dumb this shit is" than my writing. Love the Aussie honesty (and I'm a Kiwi).

- Fred

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/28/2012 11:22 AM
Gravatar
To be honest most of your post is mostly worthless because you resort to mudslinging and are flat out wrong in places.

For example, characterising me as a chump learning some philosophy in bible study: in fact, while my bible study is full of people who love and serve Jesus as their Lord, they often cringe at the use of philosophy. Again, I don't have mad skillz in logic because of math class but because I've studied philosophy both formally and quite indepth informally. You assumed I went to Moore College and they were letting me down, ironically I don't agree with some of the theology they teach, and on that note I still think you should respect them by recognising they're an established tertiary education facility and not a cult because people willfully go there.

My point is your posts are driven with emotion and rife with ad hominem and red herrings, and hey that might get people on your side, but you making unsubstantiated judgements about me and I returning in kind won't get us anywhere. What I care about in this scenario is proper rational argumentation, so that is what I shall now focus on.

You can make all the assumptions you want about my inital response on twitter, but here is why I want to know, what I wanted to know...
If you are to assert the proposition "God does not exist" this carries with it an equal burden of proof as with asserting "God does exist". Both of these are metaphysically positive propositions and need justification for their validity. If you can't provide anything reasonable as to why you'd assert the former, then I see not the need to classify yourself as an atheist - whereas you should be agnostic on the issue if you merely don't think there's any justification for the latter because of "the repeated failure of religion to provide evidence is assertion enough".

Side note:
Let's take for example the proposition "unicorns exist", I won't assert this, but I also won't assert "unicorns don't exist" since that has the same burden of proof. I am agnostic on whether unicorns exist or not. Now if we start asserting things like, "a unicorn is the First Cause", we CAN reject that on the basis of it having contingent
traits. Similarly for schoolyard antics like "hey, the flying spaghetti monster created the world." (this will be applied later)

You seem to be asking for 'evidence' for God's existence, am I right in thinking you want some kind of empirical data? I don't want to commit time to attacking something if you don't hold to it but this would of course be fallacious since discussion of God is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one - and science itself is predicated
upon philosophical principles. Empricism is demonstrable fallacious, etc. So then, let's get into some more philosophy!

To claim that no good argumentation for the existence of God has been provided by philosophy/religion is utter ignorance on your behalf. Let's analyse some syllogisms for their validity. First let's establish some rules for rejecting a syllogism. You either must deny a premise or show that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, otherwise it is irrational to reject the conclusion. With that in mind, let me propose some ideas:

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/28/2012 11:25 AM
Gravatar
Argument from Necessity
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Justification for 1) Anything that begins to exist has gone from a state of becoming to being. There are potencies for something to become. Being is contingent because other potencies could have been actualised. Because it could
have been otherwise, a causal agent is required to actuate a particular potency to produce the resultant being.
Justification for 2) This is widely accepted by leading and credible scientists and cosmologists. Possible objections to this are that the universe keeps cycling or continuing in some form into eternity past infinitely but this is denied by both philosophy and mathematics since actual infinites cannot exist.
Justification for 3) Logically follows from 1. and 2.

Here we have established that the universe must have an external causal agent.

We call this the First Cause of all things. All being is contingent and since all contingent being requires a prior cause we must arrive at an 'otherwise than being' which is ontologically necessary. This means the First Cause can't have contingent traits such as 'unicorn-ness' since that would presume space, time, form, etc. all which are contingent properties.

Argument from Design
1. The complexity of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity, or design
2. It is not due to chance or physical necessity
3. Therefore it is due to design

Justification for 1) We can logically add as many disjunts as we like to this proposition without changing the truthfulness of it. You could add whatever you want but it will be dismissed in the same fashion as chance is in 2.
Justification for 2) not due to physical necessity since our physical laws are contingent, ie. we can easily imagine a plethora of possible worlds where they are otherwise. Now it is logically feasible that it is due to chance, but rationality dictates that we assert the most probable out of a proposition and its negation. Since the probability of it being due to chance is so infintesimally small it is irrational to take this position. Likewise for any other logically feasible disjuncts we instantiate.
Justification for 3) Logically follows from 1. and 2.

Here we have established that the complexities in the universe have a designer.

So from the things we have established, we simply call this (so far) Ontologically Necessary, Universe Causing and Designing Agent, God!

Now for you to maintain atheism, not only must you disprove the above arguments, but as that would leave you back at agnosticism you must show the truthfulness of 'God does not exist' since this claim is metaphysically positive.

I think I've said enough for now to discuss, but I want to point out in www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/.../395.aspx you have structured the ontoloical argument incorrectly. I'm not sure whether you've done this purposefully or negligently, but either way you have resulted in producing a straw-man. I don't want to discuss this just now but point out this fallacy. For example, Philosopher Alvin Plantinga initially states St Anslems argument like this:
1) God exists in the understanding but not in reality
2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone
3) A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived
4) A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God
5) A being greater than God can be conceived
6) It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived
7) Hence it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality

I think if you, as 'atheists do' want to maintain an intellectual highground, it would do good to start with intellectual integrity.

tldr;
-discuss using logic, not emotion
-science isn't only truth source
-atheism has burden of proof
-rational to believe God as a creator and designer exists

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by B. P. Burnett at 4/28/2012 1:57 PM
Gravatar
The reason why it is significant to find out whether or not a so-called 'atheist' affirms the proposition "There is no God" (call it (~G)) is because such a proposition is a claim to knowledge. This is no word-game. As opposed to the self-psychological-analysis of "I lack a belief in God/gods" which carries no propositional content, (~G) is a claim about the world, and therefore requires epistemic justification. I don't see why many so-called atheists today are so ambivalent to affirm that proposition and then give us some arguments leading to the conclusion of "Therefore, (~G)" like many atheistic philosophers have in the past have. I can think of three possible alternatives, and a person might hold on, two or all or more: (1) internet atheists hold a faulty epistemology; (2) internet atheists are intellectually/philosophically lazy; or (3) internet atheists are not seeking truth but rather trying to hold onto their way of life in hatred of an authority (like YHWH) to whom they are ultimately morally accountable.

Having said that I want to now make a comment about that "Thor" point, since it's a favourite usage of internet so-called atheists. The problem here is one of definition. Thor is a time-bound spatial pagan deity. Pagan gods like him are spatially located, they are not transcendent. Compare this fact to the definition of the Hebrew God YHWH, whom Christians and Jews believe in, who is transcendent. That means that if there is any good reason to think that the universe is not eternal and that all physical matter, energy, space and time came into being at some point in the ancient past, then you can arrive neither at a Thor, nor a Ra, nor a Brahman. In fact, you cannot arrive at about 99.99% of all pagan gods in the world because they all lack the quality of transcendence. This means that traditional monotheism like YHWH in which the deity possess transcendence is the only plausible view in a non-eternal universe.

My 2¢.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 3:27 PM
Gravatar
"Empricism is demonstrable fallacious"

Wait, what?

"Empricism is demonstrable fallacious"

Seriously?

My brain actually shut down in self-defence at that. The sheer inanity overwhelmed me.

If that is in fact your position then this 'conversation' is over. There is no point. I cannot reach you, because you have rejected evidentiary enquiry. Our views are so diametrically opposed that there is no bridge that can be built. One or more of us is wrong, but it's clear that there's no way your mind can be changed, at least by a methodological naturalist like me.

Empirical examination of reality is, in fact, the bedrock upon which science rests. The empirical worldview looks out at the universe, gathers evidence, measures reality and asks "what conclusions can I draw from this?". You just rejected that in favour of thought alone. And in a stunning, tragically ironic twist, you did it on a computer, on the internet, one of the greatest achievements of science. Without empirical methods, you would never have had that opportunity.

I deeply pity you for your theism, but I don't want to convince you that you're wrong. That would put you in my camp, and the sense-of-humour quotient in the atheist movement would take a severe hit if you joined us.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 3:31 PM
Gravatar
"In fact, you cannot arrive at about 99.99% of all pagan gods in the world because they all lack the quality of transcendence"

Oh, how convenient. See above, sparky.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Deb at 4/28/2012 4:28 PM
Gravatar
Whut - the probability of this universe is tiny therefore it was designed?

You can't talk about the probability of something that has happened - it already happened therefore it's a probability of 1.

Take a pack of cards. The chances of dealing any particular card are 1/52. But after you deal yourself the 9 of spades the chances of you having the 9 of spades is 1. You can't go backwards and say how amazing it is that you got the 9 of spades - you had to get something.

The fact that I exist means that ancestors from all over the world, including Germany, France, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland all had to make it to one little city, meet at the appropriate times and have children. Then my parents had to have sex on the correct night and the right sperm had to make it to the egg. It's incredibly unlikely for all that to have happened. But that doesn't mean that my great-grandfather went out to the goldrush in order to produce me.

If a different sperm made it and Tim were here instead of Deb it wouldn't mean our family must have all inevitably come together to produce the special and amazing and incredibly unlikely him, we are both equally unlikely but one of us was going to happen.

The fact that the universe has the conditions we need to exist is not amazing - we are here so it must have. If it hadn't, the diprotons might be having this conversation rather than us, but it wouldn't have made diproton universe any more special than ours.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by B. P. Burnett at 4/28/2012 4:53 PM
Gravatar
Jason (with guitar picture; not Jason G.),

Seeing as you wanna be a wise guy and are unwilling to substantially engage with my points, let me pose you this question:

What good reason is there to think that atheism is true?

You seem to think that is is obviously true! Fair enough, but demonstrate it. There's obviously something us pesky little theists are missing in all of this, and you have evidently possess the Golden Answer to all these mysteries of the universe.

So, here's to the hope of a good impending deductive argument for atheism! ~ BPB.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 5:21 PM
Gravatar
I do not agree with your definition of atheism.

You (and Jason G) are insisting that atheism is the position "there is no god". This is not necessarily the case. Let me break it down for you.

Theism is the belief that there is a god.
A-theism is everything else - and that includes what's commonly known as "agnosticism". The "there absolutely is no god" position is referred to as strong atheism.

My position is that there are definitions of gods that are falsifiable, but one cannot, on a point of principle, say anything about unfalsifiable definitions of gods, other than that they're largely useless.

I have never seen any good evidence to suspect that there *is* a god (and I've asked, often). Therefore I am an atheist.

If you want to argue with this and say I'm an agnostic, first ask yourself "is Richard Dawkins an atheist?", and when you say "yes", my point is proven. Dawkins's position is very close to my own.

I'm willing to be persuaded, but you won't do it with ontological arguments or fancy-pants philosophy. You need evidence.

The fact that theism has failed for thousands of years to present good, reliable, repeatable evidence for a god is good enough for me. End of story

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/28/2012 5:38 PM
Gravatar
Jason, I sincerely apologise: what I meant to say was "SCIENTISM is demonstrably false". Although I wouldn't be surprised if you adhered to that position considering your constant need for presentation of 'good, reliable, repetable evidence for god' - yet as I have said, God is a question of philosophy not science anyways. Whether God exists is a question of ontology, which is metaphysics, which is philosophy.

"Oh, how convenient. See above, sparky."
Like your convenient excuse to not deal with the rest of my logical argumentation? Saying this, again, shows you are trumping logic with emotion. Just because it doesn't feel right to you doesn't mean it's wrong. And in fact, it's the fault of our opponents for miscategorising YHWH as non-transcendent.

Deb you hit home the main point when you say "The fact that the universe has the conditions we need to exist is not amazing - we are here so it must have."
My argument questions not that the universe exists, but that questions what the complexities, or say conditions, are due to. Now saying the universe exists therefore it is due to chance is so fallacious. I could say that the universe exists therefore it is due to God! or any other arbitrary disjunct. The point is that it is irrational to assert that the complexities of the universe are due to chance because of the astronomically low probabilities of the conditions inherent in it. My turn for an example :) It is logically feasible that there is an elephant in the room next to me, but should I believe it so? Affirming the negation of this proposition is higher, ie. there is a much higher probability that there is not an elephant in the room next to me - therefore is more rational to accept.

Jason, do you watch QandA? Ironically, Richard Dawkins himself says that what he really is, is agnostic but he should call himself atheist to grab attention? Is this what you're doing? Because so far you haven't refuted my philosophical arguments for the existence of God, nor have you provided any to show he doesn't exist?

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 5:42 PM
Gravatar
I've told you. I cannot argue with you because you have rejected the very foundations of evidence-based reasoning. Anything that I do to refute your nonsense from here out will be summarily rejected by you because you disagree with the basic principles of how I see the world.

I'm not going to play your game, but I will say this: you need help.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/28/2012 5:54 PM
Gravatar
"I've told you. I cannot argue with you because you have rejected the very foundations of evidence-based reasoning. Anything that I do to refute your nonsense from here out will be summarily rejected by you because you disagree with the basic principles of how I see the world."

How exactly have I done this? And so you're not open to criticism of the basic principles of how you see the world? Do you adhere to scientism? If so we could discuss that first and foremost.

"I'm not going to play your game, but I will say this: you need help."

This is such a copout and another resort to fallacious ad hominim. You're not doing well to maintain the intellectual high ground, which atheists seem to want to, with lack of response and such emotion based attacks.

I'd hope it is evident to anyone else reading this that Jason is resorting to attacking me since he clearly can't substantiate his views. It is so dishonest to say that religion has never shown any why God exists when you refuse to engage in discussion on the topic.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 6:30 PM
Gravatar
There's no such thing as "scientism". It's a word made up by christians to label and group together something they fear.

Here's the deal. My worldview is based around evidence and enquiry, and yes, science. It is the most successful means we have yet found to examine the world. Your constant badgering around empiricism and "scientism" makes it abundantly clear that you are not one to be reasoned with.

By the way, it's "ad hominem".

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 6:31 PM
Gravatar
BY the way, it's not ad hominem to suggest you need help. If you really believe what you say you believe, I actually think you do.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by justasitsounds at 4/28/2012 6:56 PM
Gravatar
Jason G

-discuss using logic

I haven't 'done' philosophy since high-school, but even I can see a few problems with your logic.

You rehash Kalam's formulation of the cosmological argument and invoke a very weak argument from design to conclude that Aristotle's 'First Cause' is Jesus.

To rehash, myself, some of the arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Recursion to First Cause. Basically it is special pleading to state that there must be one thing that doesn't need a cause - what makes that thing different from every other thing in existence so that it doesn't require a first cause of it's own?
2) Most importantly - why is the First Cause Jesus? What reason is there to think that, if there is a First Cause, it must be your god?
3) You also espouse that empiricism is demonstrably fallacious, yet the cosmological argument relies on the premise of causality which is arrived at by 'inductive' reasoning, which requires empiricism.

Your 'Argument from design' is laughable : 'Golly, the universe looks like it is very complex. I imagine it must have been designed… by Jesus'.

You graciously admit that it could be mere chance that the universe exists, then assert that the possibility of it existing is so small that it must have been designed. Exactly how many universes have you observed, with your non-empirical senses to conclude anything about the possibility of this universe?

One could also claim that in order to create a complex universe one needs a more complex creator and whence this creator - but then I suspect you'd just be back to special pleading - again.

-science isn't only truth source

I would assert that empiricism is the only USEFUL and demonstrable truth source, the rest suffices to keep philosophy students busy with navel-gazing.

- atheism has burden of proof

Only if the cosmological argument and the weak anthropic principle you have invoked count as proof of anything - apart from special pleading. Otherwise it's down to you to show me that the fairies you claim are at the bottom of the garden are actually there and not in your head.

-rational to believe God as a creator and designer exists

Not buying it, for the reasons stated above

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Deb at 4/28/2012 9:40 PM
Gravatar
I did not say the universe is due to random chance – you said it is not due to random chance. Two completely different things.

The universe is complex, but it is only special to us because we happen to be living in it. To an outside observer it is the 9 of spades – whatever happened to come up. If something else existed with different laws, that particular universe would be just as special to the beings or chemistry in it, as if it were designed specifically to allow diprotons to exist. It’s an illusion based on not understanding how probability works.

To rephrase – the universe is only amazing *if it started with us in mind.* If the whole shebang existed purely so we could be here to admire it, then it is indeed amazing that every single law is just right, and maybe something made it that way. But if the cold, hard universe doesn’t care about us, and we are just a particularly complex piece of chemistry, then any universe and any laws would have done, and the fact that we got these particular ones is only remarkable to us – getting something with the probability of 1 is nothing special.

What I am trying to explain here is the anthropic principal, mentioned by justasitsounds. It’s what your argument is based on, and I strongly recommend you try to get your head around it to see why it’s so weak. Basically, we aren’t as special as you think we are.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/28/2012 10:04 PM
Gravatar
"There's no such thing as "scientism"."

Yes there is, scientism is a position that only the scientific methodology is a source of truth. It has nothing to do with Christians labelling it and fearing. What are we fearing exactly? I love science! Science can be used in the justification of premise 2 in my first argument. It does however have limits, eg. discussing something philosophical, like God.

I am to be reasoned with, but you've barely provided me with any reasoning! All you do is dodge the argumentation I've presented and offer none of your own for the propositions you affirm!

You don't dance when someone else has picked the tune, and by your continual lack of addressing things I say, you seemingly don't dance when you've picked the tune either :O

justasitsounds, thank you for actually engaging with the discussion at hand.

"1) Recursion to First Cause. Basically it is special pleading to state that there must be one thing that doesn't need a cause - what makes that thing different from every other thing in existence so that it doesn't require a first cause of it's own?"

This is a misunderstanding of the argument at hand. Every contingent being needs a cause. So thing x needs a cause, that thing needs a cause, and so on. This CANNOT occur ad infintum, therefore we must arrive at a NECESSARY cause, ie. not contingent.

2) Most importantly - why is the First Cause Jesus? What reason is there to think that, if there is a First Cause, it must be your god?

I haven't actually asserted this yet. At the moment, all I have commited myself to is saying that there is an Ontologically Prior Reality which is the First Cause of all else. We simply name that cause God. As to ascribing other attributes to Him, that would be left to other arguments. So to establish God as the Timeless-Spaceless-Necessary-Immaterial-Omnipotent-Omniscient-Omnibenevolent Designer, Creator and Sustainer of the universe would take multiple arguments.

3) You also espouse that empiricism is demonstrably fallacious, yet the cosmological argument relies on the premise of causality which is arrived at by 'inductive' reasoning, which requires empiricism.

If you look above, I apologised for this at the start of one of my posts, what I meant to say was that a position of scientism (which people don't seem to know...) is self-refuting. If you'll look above, my justification for 1. in that argument can be made entirely through philosophical principles, which I did.

"I would assert that empiricism is the only USEFUL and demonstrable truth source, the rest suffices to keep philosophy students busy with navel-gazing."

Well, you can believe immature things like this, but clearly philosophy would be useful if it can deduce to us that God exists, or other such claims. Also, propositional logic has a plethora of uses outside of science, a big one being Mathematics, which Science presupposes!

In your response to "- atheism has burden of proof", you missed the point. Whether I make valid claims or not does nothing to the proposition "God does not exist", this is a metaphysically positive assertion and needs justification independently of what I argue to the opposite.

Deb, I'm not saying that you say that the universe is due to random chance (that felt like a bit of a tongue twister =] ) but was stating why it is not due to chance. Whether you, or I think it is special or not is irrelevant to enquiring as to why it is the way it is.

Again, even though I disagree, thank you to the people who have actually engaged with the topics at hand.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 11:38 PM
Gravatar
"All you do is dodge the argumentation I've presented"

You call it argumentation, I call it bilgewater. Grow the fuck up.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/28/2012 11:52 PM
Gravatar
"Whether I make valid claims or not does nothing to the proposition "God does not exist""

See, this is the problem with 'debating' self-absorbed fairy-strokers like you. I've outlined exactly why "god does not exist" is not the atheist position, but you've entirely ignored it, largely fulfilling my prediction that it's pointless debating with you, because whatever adjustments are put forward to re-align your strawmen with reality will be summarily ignored.

Even when told, clearly, that modern atheism is fully aware of the problems of falsifiability, you still steamroller ahead on the same tired old talking points.

Sometimes I hate being right, but I was right about that one.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/29/2012 3:55 AM
Gravatar
"You call it argumentation, I call it bilgewater. Grow the fuck up."
"See, this is the problem with 'debating' self-absorbed fairy-strokers like you."

Okay, call me whatever you want, I'm cool with it. Also you can redefine atheism contrary to scholars in this field, whatever. It's actually doing you more harm than good to look so immature in your tone and ignorance of standardized definitions.

But at the end of the day you still have deductive arguments to refute, which you haven't even attempted. Your colleagues above at least have engaged in discussion on them which I respect. Calling them 'bilgewater' does not invalidate them, you must show the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises or that the premises are not justified.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Deb at 4/29/2012 10:16 AM
Gravatar
C'mon, this is highschool maths. Which you allegedly understand.

You want to talk about elephants, fine. It is non-sensical to talk about the probability of an elephant in the room with you. It's already happened - just look, is there one there or not? If there is, then it's a probability of 1. If there isn't, then it's a probability of 0.

*Things that have already happened do not have probabilities.* At the most they might have a frequency. Only things in the future can have a probability.

You want to talk about the probability of an elephant being next to you tomorrow then you can do it, because it hasn't happened yet. I'll even agree that the chances of an elephant randomly wandering into your room by chance tomorrow is so low as to be non-existent. Let me know if it happens.

But that is not the equivalent of your argument about the universe. The universe has already happened. It has a probability of 1 because it's most definitely here. Your argument requires something to happen in the future so we can talk about the probability. So, for example, if the speed of light changes to 4 x 10^5m/s next week. Now that's incredibly improbable. I'll even agree that if something that improbable happens random chance can be discounted. I don't think it's something we need to worry about though.

You do think the universe is special in a mathematical sense. It's not amazingly wow special, but your argument is based on it being special because it matches a pre-determined set of conditions. The 'probability' of this universe is only extremely low if someone set the conditions they wanted beforehand - if they predicted the 9 of spades would come up. If the condition was only 'a universe exists' (which it is) then it would be a very high probability and so no designer needed, just some physics and chemistry.

And now you're going to tell us we don't know what atheism is. Jason's right - it's bilgewater. All you have is some Greeks and a fail in Year 8 Chance and Data. Rather than thanking us for engaging with you, why don't you do us the courtesy of reading and comprehending the arguments. I'm out.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/29/2012 10:25 AM
Gravatar
"Also you can redefine atheism contrary to scholars in this field"

[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org/.../Negative_and_positive_atheism

I attended a conference in Melbourne a couple of weekends ago, with about 4000 other atheists. "Strong" atheists, the "gods definitely don't exist" faction, were in the minority.

I have told you. You aren't in a position to even accept the beginnings of any refutation I put forward. There is no point debating this with you. But you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over. I feel like I'm Bill Murray and you're Cher.

The fact is this: There are falsifiable (pacé Karl Popper) definitions of gods. They can, in principle, be examined and refuted (or confirmed). Since science has encroached on theists' turf, however, definitions of gods have become less and less falsifiable, and therefore, to a scientific worldview like mine, useless. Or, colloquially, 'bilgewater'.

You have explicitly rejected empirical principles, then backtracked but introduced "scientism", which marks you out as someone who is not willing to argue on this turf. I, for my part, am not willing to argue in the abstract world of pure closed-room philosophy. Our worldviews do NOT overlap. Discussion over.

Do you understand now why I will not engage on this further? Or do I need to repeat myself?

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/29/2012 1:21 PM
Gravatar
@Deb, again you misunderstand. It's not the probability of the universe existing, that is of course 1 - we're asking the question WHY does the universe exist. If we examine the initial conditions to instantiate the universe, then we can determine the probability of 'why does the universe exist', not 'does the universe exist'. Scientists and cosmologists have determined these probabilities to be infinitesimally small. In my analogy with the elephant in the adjacent room, I would be questioning now what is the probability that say; an elephant of suitable spacial distance from my home is uncaged and can trek here, can enter into the room, can do so without alerting me say via sound, etc. These probabilities would all be low and so it is most rational to assert the negation.

You say no designer is needed, just some physics and chemistry. While I don't agree, lets for instance imagine this is the case. How exactly does said physics and chemistry come to be in the first place?

@Jason, yes there are falsifiable definitions of gods, I've never asserted anything similar to said gods. I am asserting that a TRANSCENDENT God is necessary for the creating of the universe. B P Burnett discussed this in his first post and all you responded with was "Oh, how convenient. See above, sparky." I sincerely hope you don't think this counts as refuting his argumentation...

I have not explicitly rejected empirical principles at all, and I was questioning, DO YOU accept 'scientism', ie. the position that only the scientific methodology can produce truths? I'm trying to have discussion, but you're the one stopping it =\

Abstract world of pure closed-room philosophy? You have a nice way of phrasing things I guess :) But that however doesn't mean we should dismiss them. As said above, whether God exists is a question of Ontology, which is a subset of Metaphysics which is a branch of Philosophy.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/29/2012 5:12 PM
Gravatar
"I am asserting that a TRANSCENDENT God is necessary for the creating of the universe"

I disagree, but I'll note that if you're defining a god which is undetectable and effectively outside the universe of observable, empirical matter, then you're not espousing theism. You're espousing deism.

"whether God exists is a question of Ontology"

Absolutely wrong, unless you have a radically different definition of the word "exists" to mine.

You're confusing logical coherence with necessary existence

Philosophical exercises like the ontological argument are thought experiments, and as such have nothing to say about the condition of the real world, only about what is possible, given a set of precepts and axioms established within the thought experiment.

You're deeply, tragically confused about this, and this is why this conversation is utterly pointless.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/29/2012 7:58 PM
Gravatar

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/29/2012 9:52 PM
Gravatar
Yes, you're correct - theoretically at the moment all I've committed to thus far is espousing deism, and while I hold to theistic beliefs they too would need further justification. As above I already said, "As to ascribing other attributes to Him, that would be left to other arguments. So to establish God as the Timeless-Spaceless-Necessary-Immaterial-Omnipotent-Omniscient-Omnibenevolent Designer, Creator and Sustainer of the universe would take multiple arguments."



Can we deal with something else I said above?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Do you accept or deny premises 1 and 2? Therefore, do you accept or deny conclusion 3?

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/29/2012 10:05 PM
Gravatar
As for the blog you linked which says "ignores empirical evidence", I don't ignore empirical evidence... It just isn't relevant to some deductive logical arguments.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 4/29/2012 10:32 PM
Gravatar
"It just isn't relevant to some deductive logical arguments."

Again, you're missing the point. How many times can you come up aqainst this and still not get it?

Yes, you can make logical deductions in the absence of empirical observation, however you cannot then use those deductions to make claims about reality. Logic can be valid while also being completely untrue. Observation is required to demonstrate a link between your logical framework and the actual universe.

Now, as for you "uncaused cause" gambit, have you done any reading around Quantum Electrodynamics?

Quantum events are, by a strict definition, uncaused. Here's some background, which, conveniently, calls this out specifically.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Determinism

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the best-verified theoretical framework we presently have, and it throws a serious spanner in the works of premise 1. I certainly agree with premise 2, that the universe began to exist. This, again, is observationally verified, though many speculative models exist as to what, if anything, came before the initial singularity.

Here's a talk from Lawrence Krauss, of the link provided earlier, outlining, in easy terms, why the universe doesn't need a cause and doesn't need to have come from something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

It's long, but I'd encourage you to watch it to the end. I find this far more compelling than any god claim I've yet heard.

Now, as for your "desim" point, this raises the possibility that your intention is to go on a long and, I fear, tedious journey from first principles all the way to rib-woman, talking snake, big boat and the whole magic jew on a stick thing. If this is the case, please don't. I have no intention of keeping this going into the long term.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 4/30/2012 10:11 PM
Gravatar
Here's a response to your youtube video :)

www.youtube.com/watch

He doesn't have a chance to respond? They've debated before too :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqANWuXQ3Z0

No, I don't intend on going on a 'long, tedious journey' - all I was stating was that my current argumentation hasn't committed me to those things I believe to be true. As for your characterisation, I think you might have better discussions with people if you don't make so many assumptions about them. You made many assumptions about me in the OP and in your last post which are just wrong, and this isn't helpful for promoting mature, intelligible dialogue. I don't believe all the things you demean above necessarily actually happened - except for the death of Jesus of Nazareth on a Roman crucifix for the sins of mankind to reconcile people to God.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/1/2012 12:09 AM
Gravatar
Ah, well at least we've established the fact that you can use google. It's a start, I suppose.

As for "my characterization", there's something you're just going to have to learn. Not everyone automatically respects loopy beliefs, and people who don't respect things often mock them. And frankly, christianity is very often worthy of mockery.

In my experience., there's an unwarranted assumption of 'automatic respect'. Respect, in my book, is not automatic, but must be earned.

Question. Did you actually watch the Krauss video, or did you just do what I've had several online christians do and immediately google up the response without having digesting either initial 1hr video or their own posted rebuttal? I ask merely for informational purposes, before I view the videos you've posted. I haven't even looked at what they are yet.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/1/2012 12:47 AM
Gravatar
oh, and apologies for the shitty grammar there. It's late-ish, I'm tired. meh.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by jason at 5/1/2012 11:17 AM
Gravatar
I clicked on the link. WIlliam Lane Craig? Really? That's the best you've got?

I provided you that video to illustrate a point, which is that quantum mechanics, a framework verified to a greater degree than any scientific framework before it, utterly shatters determinism and the assumption that any event must necessarily have a cause, and therefore demolishes your latest gambit.

And you, in return, gave me the sneering face of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? A man with no appreciable background in physics, the area we're talking about, who has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be a slick debater but a terrible scientist?

REALLY?

Hang on, I've got a response to that one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA.

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

OK, that done. How exactly does WLC refute the point we were discussing, to whit: quantum mechanics? As I understand it, his entire schtick is Kalam, the Moral argument and a splash of ontology - which basically takes us right back to phase one of this whole turgid mess.

I'll remind you: at this point, we're on science's turf. There is no point trying to fight that war with staged debates.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/1/2012 2:06 PM
Gravatar
There's been much talk of "something from nothing" hypotheses in recent times. Michael Shermer did a very high-level potted summary of the major contenders here, on the 27th:

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm

Krauss is mentioned, of course, as it the slightly-more-favoured-by-me "quantum foam" candidate which he builds upon in his talks. I'm not convinced that there's quite enough support for Krauss's extended quantum universe model, but I think overall I'd be happy if observations came down on the side of either. These models are sufficiently explainable that you can, over no more than two or three beers, explain them to a friend in the pub and have them more-or-less understand it. If you more-or-less understand it yourself. This appeals to the conversational human mind.

M-theory, on the other hand, is profoundly difficult to wrap one's head around due to the 11-dimension aspect and the fact you have to start at quantum mechanics, travel through strings and then find your way to m-branes and p-branes. I haven't read the latest pop-sci offerings that explain it (not since Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe"), but it's also pretty nifty.

None require a god and all (well, arguably most*) have both evidence to support them AND observational properties than make them falsifiable. None require a cosmic consciousness to start them off.

* since multiple-universe theory is, as I understand it, not directly testable by only verifiable by inference, it may or may not be counted as observationally verifiable

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 5/1/2012 2:06 PM
Gravatar
Again, your tone and *laughing* show you to be immature, whatever your problem not mine if you want to be taken seriously and rationally...

Yes I listened to Krauss' lecture which was quite interesting and informative on a scientific level. However, he redefines 'nothing' to actually be 'something'. So when he says the universe 'could come from nothing' (he's not even giving us certainty...) is fallacious. Now did you listen to the response podcast?

What he says is 'nothing' is empty space and time and then quantum fluctuations within that produce matter. Quantum fluctuations aren't a counterexample to everything needing a cause because they presuppose space, time, energy, matter which are all contingent being.

For example, even if space is empty of matter and energy, it still has form, ie. is space Eucledian, curved, or any infinite number of co-ordinate systems etc. When you commit to any of these, which you must do, then space itself is 'something', not 'nothing', even if it is void of matter, energy or even time.

Space and time themselves need an explanation for their state of affairs, one which science can't answer and which is thus a metaphysical question.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/1/2012 2:38 PM
Gravatar
OK, let's imagine your objection is true (I don't think it is), and that science can't currently examine the origin of space and time.

Why then, god claims? Why not phenomena that create their own spacetime (which is actually what we're talking about)? Why not self-creating universes, circular time or any one of many other potential explanations? Why not a giant lobster that snapped its claw, or a cosmic polar bear that unveiled his black nose, or a sneeze from the great green arkleseizure? Why not an accident? Why not inevitability? What grounds, indeed what business do you have in rejecting every other possibility in favour of stickman and his dad (who is also stickman)?

Why this obsession with a "creative intelligence"? It borders on the pathologic, it really does, especially since to posit something that created space and time you need to posit something that had no space or time to exist in. The word "exist" breaks down and becomes meaningless at the edge.

And again, positing something that's outside space and time (which it would have to be to create it) brings us back to pointless deism, and you can't get from deism to burning witches.

By the way, my tone and laughing might demonstrate the fact that your ideas are laughable. You really need to pull that stick out of your ass and lighten the fuck up. There is much to laugh at in religion, and, yes, irreligion.

Hitchens had much to say on the irreconcilable gulf between the ironic and the literal mind. A life devoid of humour is a life not worth living, if you ask me.

And no, I didn't listen to the response youtube vid yet, mainly because I'm at work right now with no headphones. Besides, I've watched so much WLC that I now have a reflexive tic which sends me straight to the off button.
Entirely aside from the fact I disagree with his ideas, I find his manner odiously smug. I have better things to do. If you can demonstrate that it's relevant, then I might force myself.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/1/2012 2:49 PM
Gravatar
I've got a hypothesis. In the beginning there was nothing. Then something very small and weird happened, and suddenly there was a pair of subatomic particles, in space they'd just created, during a time that wasn't there before but certainly was afterwards.

One of them was wearing a t-shirt that read "I'm with stupid".

They got together and annihilated, leaving behind a tiny patch of spacetime that didn't know what to do with itself.

Luckily, because the tiny patch of spacetime now existed, lots more particles were able to pop into existence along with some more spacetime in tow, at the very edge of the first patch, and soon they reached a critical point where there were so many pairs of particles, and so many "I'm with stupid" t-shirts, that everything went kaboom.

The t-shirts were rent asunder, and the word "stupid" winged across the universe, creating the major motivational force for species which were to come later.

THE END

(Or was it?)

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 5/1/2012 4:07 PM
Gravatar
Look, by your OP you seem to have assumed I'd just been some bible-bashing fundamentalist moron, and do away with me. I've shown my appreciation for science, logic and rational inquiry. I have been extremely patient with our constant belittling tone and attacks at me. I'm just baffled that someone could be so obtuse to not reciprocate the same respect shown. Of course I can't make you, but like I said it would be helpful for you in the future if you want to maintain mature, rational dialogue.

"Why not phenomena that create their own spacetime (which is actually what we're talking about)?"
What explains these phenomena then?

"Why not self-creating universes, circular time or any one of many other potential explanations?"
God of the gaps? Try multiverse of the gaps. These are all unsubstantiated hypotheses as a scapegoat. You prove my previous point further with 'circular time', this would be it's form and thus a contingent property.

"Why not a giant lobster that snapped its claw, or a cosmic polar bear that unveiled his black nose, or a sneeze from the great green arkleseizure?"
BP Burnett dealt with this in the second paragraph of his first post above. God is posited as transcendent and without contingent properties, which these all have, like Thor or the FSM, etc.

"I've got a hypothesis. In the beginning there was nothing. Then something very small and weird happened"
Sorry, what explains this 'something very small' from nothing?

The problem with all these are that they aren't metaphysically necessary. Take this example from the article you linked as well "But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe." No logic doesn't dictate this at all. The universe needs a creator because of it's contingent properties, God does not because He is necessary.

Yes some phenomena might have created the universe, say the multiverse. Some phenomena might have created that, then something that, maybe another 70 regresses back. There can't be an infinite regress, so we must arrive at an un-caused cause. What would stop this thing from being caused? Well it wouldn't have contingent properties that need explanations for their existence. For it to not have contingent properties, it's transcendence would stipulate that it has to be: space-less, timeless, formless, immaterial, self-sufficient.

"positing something that's outside space and time (which it would have to be to create it) brings us back to pointless deism" Yes, I've already said I'm not trying to go any further than this for now. All I'm saying is that a metaphysically necessary cause is prior to all contingent being. This thing we denote as God.

"OK, let's imagine your objection is true (I don't think it is), and that science can't currently examine the origin of space and time."
So what created space and time exactly?

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by jason at 5/1/2012 5:12 PM
Gravatar
"you seem to have assumed I'd just been some bible-bashing fundamentalist moron"

No, you're worse. You're a logical emptyvist. You've got an idea in your head that a god exists (of who knows what actual kind), and you've gone right down the primrose path of so-called "sophisticated theology" until you've reached a point where you've got absolutely nothing to demonstrate, and you seem to think that's a neat trick. You've defined yourself out of all objections and haven't realised yet that you no longer have an actual subject. At least a fundamentalist has the courage of his own ridiculous convictions and tells people what he really believes, instead of trying to tie them up in mind games.

"No logic doesn't dictate this at all. The universe needs a creator because of it's contingent properties, God does not because He is necessary."

Utter drivel. Complete, dribbling bollocks. Seriously, we're just going round and round in cirlces here, and you're adopting this holier-than-thou "oh look at how respectful I am" tone, while simultaneously wasting everyone's time with pointless, empty philosophising that gets you precisely nowhere.

Theists have arbitrarily defined themselves out of trouble, as science knocks over their tin cans, for so many years that now they're left with a "trancendent" definition of god that's so far from anything useful that it's become tragic. The way you and burnett are proposing it, "transcendent" doesn't even mean anything. It just means "placeholder here, we'll get back to you, maybe".

Ironically, you've reached the point where you're now saying "I know what created the universe. It's a thing with no properties, no temporal existence, and no detectable effects." You're showing me the emperor's fine new silk robes and expecting me to congratulate you.

"All I'm saying is that a metaphysically necessary cause is prior to all contingent being"

Yet again, you're confusing "logically possible" with "necessary". You really need to stop this.

"So what created space and time exactly? "

I've told you. The word "created" is almost certainly the wrong word. "Caused" might be better, but again is meaningless in the light of Quantum Mechanics.

I don't know for sure, but here's the big point: neither do you. But you're the one who's taking a stab at it in anyway, in the absence of anything else to go on, you're just making it up. Or, to be more exact, you're taking other people's guesses and shoehorning them into your own worldview as "necessary". I don't think you know what the word means, to be honest.

Get a fucking grip. This has gone on too long and is going precisely nowhere.

# @Jason

Left by Alex George at 5/4/2012 5:42 AM
Gravatar
Yawn, if only you could focus all this supercilious bluster into something you could actually benefit from.

"Get a fucking grip. This has gone on too long and is going precisely nowhere." - Despite knowing this, still you smash ever more cliched garbage together and hit "post".

It's trite and already on 36252 blogs already, it's old and worn. Less bluster, more original thought. Currently it's like reading someone still in the honeymoon period of discovering google and "cut'n'paste" at the same time.

It will pass.

Oddly:
"Seriously, we're just going round and round in cirlces here, and you're adopting this holier-than-thou "oh look at how respectful I am" tone, while simultaneously wasting everyone's time with pointless empty philosophising that gets you precisely nowhere."

Yet still, you suckle. Not just mental masturbation, worse again you never finish.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 5/5/2012 10:36 AM
Gravatar
Again, I've told you I do believe particular truths pertaining to Christianity, but I'm not currently arguing for them.

No I mean necessary not logically possible, ironically you seem to be the one who doesn't know what it means...

And I've already said that quantum fluctuations presuppose space, time and energy. These are efficient causes.

No, quantum mechanics didn't cause space and time at all... Whatever form you presume space and time to take means they require an explanation.

I sadly agree, there's not much point continuing when you don't realise the limits of science and when the philosophy you presuppose yet disagree with is to be applied =\

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/5/2012 5:11 PM
Gravatar
"I sadly agree, there's not much point continuing"

Finally, you figure out the thing I've been saying since the very beginning of this extremely tedious conversation, back in comment 2124.

There is no common ground on which our worldviews agree. I, as a methodological naturalist, insist on the primacy of physical, repeatable, detectable evidence. You, on the other hand, as a philosophical supernaturalist, insist on the primacy of logic, that is closed-room reasoning, in the absence of empirical observation.

In the great Venn Diagram of competing worldviews, our two circles do not intersect.

There is no handhold for me to convince you that your view is wrong, and there is likewise no handhold for you to convince me. This was clear to me at the very beginning. Why it was not clear to you I can only put down to youthful christian arrogance.

You are, of course, in absolutely unsupportable territory, and you're not even arguing what you actually believe! You're arguing the tepid, watered-down deist view, which if anything is closer to atheism than you're probably willing to admit. Deism is just one step away from atheism. It presupposes a god which is outside the material universe, and therefore uninvolved in it, undetectable from it and incapable of interference in it. Go one step further, and you're an atheist.

You likewise cite limits on science but fail to acknowledge the far more obvious limitations of imaginative philosophy - which are, to not put too fine a point on it, rooted in the very human ability to come up with imaginative but cockamamie fairy tales which are simultaneously logically valid and utterly incompatible with the real, observable world.

You also failed utterly to distinguish serious points from obvious mockery. There's a common and unfortunate stereotype of christians that states they have no sense of humour whatsoever. I don't like stereotypes, but you've gone a long way towards validating this one. This has been perhaps the third most tedious conversation I've ever had with a theist. You should be proud.

Again, I pity you for your theism, and I'll leave you with this.

I'd respect you more if you actually argued what you believe, rather than something you, by your own admission, do not.

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason G at 5/6/2012 1:00 AM
Gravatar
Just to engage with the bold part, you missed my point there. I'm not against arguing what I believe, I was just not arguing what I believe YET. There would be a long, long build up which you yourself said you didn't want to wait around for :P

# re: I don't dance when someone else has picked the tune

Left by Jason at 5/6/2012 7:05 AM
Gravatar
Do I really have to explain it again?

Really?

Look, if you seriously want to go on this long journey down the rainbow-coloured furry slide of madness, get your own blog.

As for trying to suggest that this is somehow *my* fault, I'll remind you: You're failing so hard at deism, why in the world would you do any better after another few thousand words? There's no way from deism to witch burning. Get over it and move on.
Comments have been closed on this topic.
«December»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234
 
Vaccination Saves Lives: Stop The Australian Vaccination Network
 
 
Say NO to the National School Chaplaincy Program