Re: The logic of atheism

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.
>
> I think the distinction I'm making is more between the material
> and the intangible. Let's suppose that in a million years,
> humans no longer exist. Would the laws of physics, chemistry,
> etc still exist and govern the way the universe works? Clearly
> yes. Would the laws of logic, or the laws of mathematics? Not
> really; like the sound made by the proverbial tree in the
> forest, math and logic are really only consequential if a
> sentient observer is there to use them as tools to describe what
> reality is like. They don't superintend reality in the same way
> the laws of nature do. 2+3 = 3+2, Stoke's theorem, and the law
> of cosines would still be "true", but wouldn't really be
> terribly meaningful.

Are you really this stupid? Do you really know so little about
physics and chemistry to think that they're perfectly devoid of
logic and math?

>> 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.
>
> How does basic logic interact with the universe?

I see. You really /are/ this stupid.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the role that logic plays
in the universe, you're even more of a basket case than most of
the theists we get 'round here.

>> 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.
>
> Smart-alekery has nothing to do with it. An object, a penny, a
> quantized charge, a bit, it's all the same. Let's go with
> pennies for now. Math happens in the way you choose to group
> the pennies. Prior to the addition operation, they all exist.
> You make a mental decision to view the two pennies on the table
> as one subset and the two pennies not on the table as another
> subset (and, additionally, you view all pennies everywhere else
> as a third subset). Then, you add the pennies together by
> choosing to consider the subsets to no longer be subsets, but to
> instead constitute a set. But you haven't actually done
> anything other than changing your frame of reference. It's
> entirely semantic.
>
> Physical laws work very differently. You don't heat up a pot of
> water by choosing to see it as having a higher temperature. And
> the local temperature of the water doesn't change, whether
> you're looking at just the pot, at the entire room, or at the
> whole world.

Yeah, you really are this stupid. And illogical.

I mean, what the ***? On the one hand, you argue that adding
pennies somehow isn't real, but that adding kinetic energy to
water is? And you're too dumb to suppose that, just maybe, I'd
suggest that heating water by adding energy to it is--duh!--an
example of addition?

I bet now you'll try to say that you're not /really/ adding energy
to the water; after all, matter/energy can be neither created nor
destroyed, so all you're doing is shuffling it around. Heh. Ain't
I smrat.

>> 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.
>
> Are the conventions of language now, too, part of physical
> reality?
>
> The truth is that I'm not redefining omnipotent. If you look up
> the word "omnipotent" in a dictionary, you'll get things
> like "all-powerful", "almighty", "having [virtually] unlimited
> authority or influence" ([] from M-W.com). None of these
> unambiguously indicate whether the ability to perform logically
> absurd tasks are included in the definition or not.

Basic reading comprehension problems, too, I see.

What parts of ``all'' and ``powerful'' don't you understand?

> Atheist: "If God is omnipotent, he should be able to make a
> gleeg".

Lovely straw man. Here, have a match.

Look, how many times do I have to explain it? I'm not asking your
invisible hairy sky ape with buttocks to make a gleeg, or even to
make a square circle.

I'm giving him clearly-defined parameters for him to complete. In
Euclidean space, draw a figure of four line segments of equal
length that intersect at their endpoints, forming four equal
angles, and in which all points on all four line segments are
equidistant from the same point.

Can you do it? No. Can I? No. Can an all-powerful being? No. Well,
then, this being's power is something less than ``all,'' now,
isn't it?

But it's even worse than that. ``All but God can prove this
sentence true.'' /I/ can prove that the sentence is true. /You/
can prove that the sentence is true. But your god can't. Now, just
what kind of sense does it make to speak in terms of an
all-powerful being when said Omnipotent One can't do something
that I can do with ease?

>>>> 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.
>
> I think my view makes more sense than you're giving credit. I
> would say, rather, that "reality" is the set of everything that
> exists.

Fine. You'd claim that your god created reality, too, right? I'm
sorry, but this game of linguistic dodgeball doesn't do *** for
you.

> I don't think the "who created God?" argument is really germane
> to the conversation about the nature of the supernatural and the
> requirement of the ability to perform logically absurd tasks as
> an essential component of supernaturality.

Erm...hello? Creating the universe is a supernatural action,
no? And ``who created God'' is an essential part of that
supernatural action, right? And it demonstrates that the whole
notion is logically absurd, yes?

No wonder you don't think logic exists.

> You didn't really say anything original on the subject, and I
> don't think I can offer anything that someone else hasn't
> equally well explained somewhere else. We can agree to disagree
> on this point.

No, but I'd be happy to agree that you're an illogical theidiot.

>>> 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?
>
> To be honest, no, I don't. What accounts are you aware of where
> a person was actively murdered (NOT just "slipped into a deep
> coma"), was buried for a day, and was later found to be fully
> alive?

Oh, come on. It's one of the oldest religious archetypes,
usually associated with sun gods or horticultural gods. Osiris,
Persephone, Krishna, Adonis, Mithra, Orpheus, Isis, Bacchus,
Balder...

>> Do you have any idea of just how ludicrously unsubstantiated
>> and--frankly--fucking goofy the particular account you're
>> referring to really is?
>
> Again, the historicity of the account is a separate matter. You
> are arguing that the event, even if historical, doesn't count as
> a supernatural occurence. I think it's reasonable to say "I
> don't believe the event occured" (I don't think it's correct,
> but it's at least reasonable). I think it's unreasonably
> selective to say that the event wouldn't count as a miracle on
> the grounds that comatose people have been mistakenly pronounced
> dead.

What. The. ***?

You want to take a mythical account of something that never
happened as a meaningful example of the supernatural?

Just what the *** /are/ you smoking?

I mean, why not use Zeus's ability to toss thunderbolts around as
your example? Or the stone that held Excalibur for only Arthur to
retrieve? Or, for that matter, Yoda's ability to raise a
submerged space fighter from a swamp only using the power of his
mind?

Jesus tittyfucking /Christ/ dude...step away from the crack pipe.

Kids, this is your brain on Jesus. Just say ``NO!'' to Jesus.

(ThismessagebroughttoyoubytheAdCouncil.)

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