Re: The logic of atheism

[mucho grande snippage]

jwarrend@xxxxxxx wrote:

> I disagree that math and logic are part of the natural world; I
> would say, rather, that they are abstract mental constructs that
> assist us in our description of the natural world, but they are
> not themselves part and parcel of nature, except insofar as
> rules like the law of non-contradiction, like the laws of
> physics or chemistry, accurately describe phenomena we observe.

This is one of the fundamental disagreements over the nature of
reality that tends to come up occasionally in discussions between
theists and atheists. In short, you're making a distinction
between the material and the immaterial that frankly baffles me,
and has every time I've come across it.

How you can assert that basic logic isn't ``real'' and doesn't
directly interact with the universe but that your god /is/
``real'' and /does/ directly interact with the universe is beyond
me.

>> Take the fact that it's impossible for me to run a one-minute
>> marathon.
>
> But this isn't a mathematical or logical limitation; a machine
> that could supply sufficient power (a rocket, eg) *could*
> perform the task.

You prove my point. The impossibility isn't in simply covering the
distance in that amount of time; orbital mechanics means that I
cover /far/ more than that distance in /far/ less time just by
sitting here on my ***.

The impossibility lies in /me/ running a one-minute marathon. Not
some rocket, not some six-million-dollar cyborg...but me,
unpropeled, unaltered, unmodified.

> comes into play as a tool for expressing the relative amounts of
> power required and available and comparing them to see whether
> the task can be performed.
>
> To see why math is a mental device rather than a physical
> reality, let's do a thought experiment. How would you go about
> designing an experiment to demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4? "Duh",
> you might say. "Just put two objects on the table. Then put
> two more on the table. Now there are four objects on the table.
> 2+2=4. QED".

Frankly, I would be a blithering idiot to use that demonstration
if I had any clue that my audience might have even a single
wise-ass in it. Unless, of course, I wanted to cut said wise-ass
down to size, but that's not usually my style.

Instead, I'd not start by talking about objects in general, but
specifics. ``Object'' is too vague a term for a smart-alek like
you. ``Apple'' would be a lot safer. Or ``penny.'' Or perhaps
electrons, if we're in a physics class and it seems like a good
excuse to pull out the Millikan experiment, or bits if it's a
computer science class.

>> Well, now you're bringing in a very specific deity who has a
>> very specific essential supernatural power: omnipotence. And
>> ``omnipotence'' can /only/ mean ``able to do absolutely
>> anything and everything.''
>
> I would say it means "able to do anything that it is possible to
> do", but I don't mean to take us down that path if that's not
> where you were going. It's just that you used similar language,
> and I don't have a terribly high opinion of the "stone so heavy
> he can't lift it" line of reasoning. Your opinion of the
> cogency of such arguments may differ from mine.

But of course it does. All the objections to this line of
reasoning I've ever heard from theists can be plotted between
special pleading and simple whining.

If you'd care to take a whack at it, try this one: ``All but God
can prove this sentence true.''

And if, as I've stated elsewhere, ``able to do anything that it is
possible to do'' is a valid definition for ``omnipotence,'' then
/I/ am omnipotent. Think it through: let's say that something's
impossible. Therefore, the fact that I can't do it doesn't
count against my omnipotence, because it's one of those things
you've already explicitly excluded. I /am/ able to do anything
that is possible to do--by definition. Anything I can't do is
impossible. Duh!

I'm sorry, but you don't get to re-define perfectly good words
into oblivion just to support your favorite faery tale. The real
world just doesn't work that way.

> Well and good -- then they should be capable of manifesting
> themselves without respect to a particular natural system.
> Otherwise, violating a rule is simply a violation of one of the
> physical rules of that reality, and not a violation of the
> underlying mathematics itself.

Funny. You just provided an excellent example of just such a
manifestation below. You know, how you offered a symmetry-based
proof that square circles are impossible? Even your god couldn't
draw one in an Euclidian space...but your faith means that that
somehow doesn't limit his omnipotence, of course.

>> ``Creating the universe'' is nonsensical.
>
> Well, since you have previously argued that supernatural
> abilities must entail the ability to violate the laws of logic,
> and since something that violates the laws of logic is nonsense,
> then perhaps here we have an example of what you might consider
> a supernatural occurence -- the creation of the universe!

<sigh>

The universe wasn't created. That presupposes both a beginning
/and/ a creator, both of which are meaningless separately--and
especially when combined. But we'll get to that below.

>> In this context, the only meaningful definition for
>> ``universe'' is ``the set of everything that exists.''
>
> Say, rather, "the only definition that is convenient for me, Ben
> Goren, for the purposes of this discussion" and I'd agree with
> you. I think that the "universe" more conventionally refers to
> the material universe -- to those entities and phenomena that
> are governed by the laws of nature.

You could make such an assertion, but only if you wanted to dodge
the parts of the argument that you know in your heart prove the
lie to your fantasies.

How so? Simple.

Let's say that we're in a Matrix-style simulation, and ``God'' is
the programmer who ``created'' our universe. Congratulations,
we've got a self-consistent creation story that perfectly fits
with standard theological mumbo-jumbo. It's trivial to see how God
could muddle with things as he sees fit, how it's impossible to
describe the spiritual nature of the ``real'' universe, blah blah
blah.

But you haven't done *** to explain the origins of the world
in which the simulation is housed; the real questions remain
unanswered. All it would mean is that the fundamental nature of
our own corner of the universe is different from what we suspect,
which is a pretty standard state of affairs for humanity.

So. Just to beat it into your head, let's take the standard
theistic argument for a supreme creator and see where it leads.

That is, of course, that every effect has a cause, that every
thing that exists has a creator. The universe obviously exists;
our premise demands that it has a creator, whom we'll refer to by
the monosyllabic name, ``God.''

But we can't stop there; God, too, must have a creator, or else or
initial premise is but an archetypal example of that favorite
theistic logical fallacy, special pleading.

So. God exists, and his existence demands that he have a
creator. Let's call him Grand-God. But Grand-God's own existence
demands that he have his own creator, Great-Grand-God. And
Great-Grand-God begets Great-Great-Grand-God, and so on /ad/
/infinitum./ Turtles all the way down, as they say.

But here we see a most peculiar thing emerge--an infinite
regression of creations and creators which itself cannot possibly
have a creator. Thus, we've invalidated our initial premise that
/everything/ must have a creator. Some things /might/ have
creators, but we /can/ be certain that there /are/ things which
/don't/ have creators. You yourself would agree with this; you
would, for some inexplicable reason, claim that God doesn't have a
creator.

But, having invalidated the original premise, we can no longer use
it to ``prove'' that any particular thing has a creator--let alone
to demonstrate anything about the nature of that supposed creator.
/First,/ we have to determine whether or not that thing is of the
class of things that even have a creator at all. And no theist I'm
aware of has ever been able to offer a cogent reason why we should
even pretend to suppose that the Universe is one of those created
things, why it couldn't be perfectly happy in being of those
things that just /is,/ without having been created.

Now, let's look at the same question from an informal perspective
of set theory.

Let's say that the act of creation is when one entity causes some
other distinct entity to come into being. And let's also define
existence as the set of everything that exists.

If God exists, then the set of everything that exists already has
(at least) one member, and therefore existence itself already
exists. There's no way for God to create existence, because he
can't cause something to come into being if it's already there in
the first place.

On the other hand, if there isn't any existence, then there aren't
any members of the set of everything that exists, which means that
God isn't a member of the set of everything that exists...which
means that God doesn't exist.

So your god, even if real, couldn't possibly have been the cause
of all existence.

> One thing human experience teaches us is that if someone dies,
> and no one intervenes with any kind of medical assistance, the
> dead person will stay dead. Right?

Worng. Ask anybody who's spent a long time working in a busy
hospital and they'll tell you their own experience about somebody
who was clearly dead, removed from life support, etc., and who was
later seen moving under the *** and fully resuscitated.

> No one has ever buried a friend only to find him walking around
> the next day.

Worng. History is replete with stories of people who've been
``dead'' and buried but who, by modern understanding, were clearly
in a coma and who later came back to life.

> But hold the phone -- there's an account that a long time ago,
> someone died, was confirmed to have been dead, was buried in a
> sealed tomb, and several days later, the tomb was found to be
> open and the person was alive and walking around again.

Do you have any idea of just how many accounts we have from all
throughout history of exactly that sort of thing happening?

Clearly not.

Do you have any idea of just how ludicrously unsubstantiated
and--frankly--fucking goofy the particular account you're
referring to really is?

Clearly not.

Here's a hint. Tell me the /earliest/ evidence there is to support
the mere existence of the person in question. Now tell me the
/earliest/ evidence of /any/ biographical detail of this person.
Then tell me what the people who were there at the time said about
this person, and what people who wrote of the time and place for
the few generations said of this person.

Now, finally, tell me of just /one/ account of the details of this
person's life that isn't rife with blatant contradictions, doesn't
make up *** about historical events we know for certain never
happened, and isn't full of bog-standard mythical fiction.

If you still think Jesus rose from the dead after doing all that
research, you're bat*** insane.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Loading