Religions > Atheism > Re: God hated and tortured the Pope with extreme pain -- Ken Smith: Pro-Mendacity Tiger!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" \- Prof. Jonez©" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2005 11:40:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: God hated and tortured the Pope with extreme pain -- Ken Smith: Pro-Mendacity Tiger! |
Kent Wills wrote:
On 17 Apr 2005 13:57:05 -0700, "forevernitefan" <fvrnite@yahoo.com>
wrote:
My apoligies. I misread the last sentence and did not see the "not".
I apologize Kent. I should have realized you would not have made
such a statement.
No problem. You're still wiser than Jonez, and more honest.
I'd be amazed if he were to ever admit an error.
Strong Atheism (also called Explicit Atheism, Positive Atheism) is the belief
that gods do not exist. What does this mean ? It is a belief about reality. More
precisely, the belief that no gods exist in reality (a concept without
existence).
Such a position is held by a small minority of atheists (and does not represent
weak-atheism, which is disbelief in gods, or agnostic atheism, which is
arbitrary disbelief), and is mostly considered to be arrogant and unproven.
Indeed when I presented a first version of this text to a group of atheists,
they, for the most part, jumped on it and argued me away without even reading
the content. Surely strong-atheism must be either a touchy or a very stupid
topic to generate such a drastic response. But perhaps this criticism is correct
how can such a radical position be argued ?
First of all, we must define what a god is. What definition shall we take ? Let
us define
god = 1. a being 2. creator of the universe 3. possessor of omnis. This might be
said to be a restrictive definition, but it is the one commonly used (the omnis
are not necessary for all the arguments though). As such I take it to be
correct. Since it is a purely Western view (although I disagree with other
instances), it might be understood to be a "narrow" version of atheism (1).
Clearly this topic is beyond the scope of this text, but it can be demonstrated
to be otherwise.
The concept of god is therefore a floating abstraction, whose definition is
taken from stolen concepts. Those stolen concepts are : Existence,
Consciousness, Identity, Life, and others. This is derived from the following 5
contradictions, and 4 minor contradictions, which constitute the rest of this
text. (2)
Since this is not a full-blown discourse, on the footnotes I refer to two books
"Atheism : The Case Against God" by George Smith, which is a good introduction
to the subject, and "Atheism : A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin,
which is an extensive philosophical book on negative and positive atheism. More
detailed explanations of key concepts can be found on the pages or chapters
listed.
Contradiction #1
There is no life or consciousness outside of body (Argument from the
impossibility of supernatural life).
This is a corrolary of minor contradiction #1 (see below).
Consciousness is the quality of being aware of something. This awareness comes
through sensation, thought, emotion and voilition.
Life is the quality that distinguishes a vital and fuctioning body from a dead
body. This distinction is shown by an organismic state characterized by a
capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.
Those two properties are in direct contradiction with an infinite (and therefore
supernatural and immaterial) being.
One could refute this by saying that I cannot know whenever these definitions
will always hold, and as such cannot know whenever immateriality really can be
alive and conscious or not, thus that I am begging the question.
The answer to this is twofold. First, this objection does not take into account
that words have precise meanings, derived from our own perception of entities.
These meanings are present and actual. No one speaks using potential meaning of
words, in a hypothetical future or that have been used in the past. Such an
objection also posits that the objector is himself omniscient. In effect, what
he is saying is that he, in his omniscience, knows that the possibility exists
that one day these words will be redefined in such a way.
Secondly, it is telling that this objection posits that such concepts as life
and consciousness could be applied to something which nature not only cannot be
defined, but will never be defined (see minor contradiction #1). Properties
which are applied to unmeaningful objects, or in an illogical way, are not
meaningful (3).
Contradiction #2
There are no infinite beings (Argument from the non-actuality of infinity).
This can be formulated as follows.
1. Existants have an identity.
2. The identity of an infinite being is infinite, unlimited.
3. An identity, to exist, must be defined.
4. Anything that is defined, is limited.
5. From 3 and 4, we deduce that an identity must be limited.
6. From 2 and 5, we deduce that an infinite being cannot have an identity.
7. From 1 and 6, we deduce that there cannot be any infinite being.
A rebuttal could be made on intuitive grounds. A mathematical set can be used.
For example, consider a set S of all rational numbers between 0 and 1. The
identity of S is, as we have seen, defined. But it is unlimited in number.
Therefore premise 4 is false.
The answer to this objection is also twofold. First, S is in fact limited (it
has boundaries). But then, let us imagine the set T of all rational numbers. The
set T does not have boundaries. But what about its identity then ? This is in
fact the second part of the answer. The set T is indeed infinite in number and
unbounded, but not unlimited, for it is limited by non-rational numbers. And we
do find that its identity is defined (set of all rational numbers).
Hence to the question, can something defined be unlimited ? we must answer "no",
because being unlimited implies that the object has no limitations, hence
nothing to distinguish it from other objects, and to define it. The only way to
disprove this would be to show how a being could have an unlimited and defined
essence, which is impossible unless you posit the existence of a god. Thus
premise 4 stands to scrutiny.
Contradiction #3
Divine creation is impossible (Cosmological Argument).
The most concrete of the 5 contradictions, it can be shown as follows :
1. Divine creation entails a god taking an empty state of the universe, and
causing all matter to exist, thus making another state of the universe where
there is matter.
2. Without matter, there is no causality.
2b. The absence of causality is equal to the absence of time (by definition).
3. From 1 and 2, we can deduce that an empty state of the universe would entail
absence of causality.
4. From 1 and 3, we can deduce that divine creation is impossible.
A rebuttal could be made againt proposition 1, by arguing that it might be
possible that the god would have created the universe without any prior empty
state. But then this would alter the use of the word "creation" which implies an
earlier state. Otherwise the god would have been created with the universe, thus
not making him the creator.
Another rebuttal that might be put forward would be that, at least in the
christian tradition, a god is supposedly "outside of time", whatever such a
thing means. Even if such a concept is basically meaningless (because of premise
2b), let's analyze if it untangles the contradiction. If we understand being
"outside of time" as being able to act at any point in time as one desires, we
could say that a god could act at the beginning of time, implying that there was
no empty state. But here lies the problem : even if a god is supernatural, if it
is to act in the material "realm", it must act according to its laws. Thus time
would still enter into play.
It would be no use to a supernatural being to be outside of time, if there is no
time at all. What would it then be outside of ? This also brings another problem
if a god is outside of time, then it is also outside of change.
Confirming this deduction, we have good scientific reasons, given by quantum
cosmology, to believe that the universe has always existed, and that therefore
divine causality would have no time to act on.
Finally, a case could be made that the universe came to existence and that a god
completed its creation by making all the entities inside it. There are two
problems with this : it would also be against the idea of complete creation by
the god, which is implied in the definition. But the strongest objection to it
is that the potentiality would not be there, without this divine creation. The
universe cannot create itself, necessarily. There would be no space, only
nothingness : thus divine causation would have no ground to act on.
Contradiction #4
A god cannot be omniscient or omnipotent (Argument against omnis).
This argument has been well expanded elsewhere (4), so I will merely resume it
here.
A god is omniscient and omnipotent, but is also immaterial. This conflicts
because it then cannot have many kinds of physical and moral knowledge. Indeed
an omniscient god should have physical knowledge but being immaterial, it
cannot. A god should have moral knowledge, but being omnipotent, it cannot.
A rebuttal could be made along the lines that a god is omniscient within its own
limits, i.e. that it can only have knowledge that it can possibly have.
But this is unacceptable, in the sense that then any being who know everything
that it can know can be called omniscient in that sense. Such a meaning reduces
omniscience to a triviality : indeed even humans, or lesser beings, could
theoretically be omniscient in this case.
Here there is an enlightening example that can be made. Imagine a being called
McNose. McNose can only logically know how to scratch its nose and can only have
knowledge relative to nose itching and scratching. If McNose has all the
knowledge relative to these actions and sensations, he could then be called
omniscient, despite the fact that its total knowledge is indeed quite small
compared to a normal human being.
Another flaw in this reasoning is that this does not set aside the major problem
with a god's omniscience : that it cannot logically know some things that humans
can logically know. Even if it is omniscient in the sense described, the paradox
would still stand.
Contradiction #5
Abstract objects, by definition, have no causal properties (Argument from
abstraction).
There are two types of concepts : material objects and abstract objects (5).
From the Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy :
material objects - "an object that causally interacts or inter-relates with
other independently existing things."
abstract object - "an object that is not a material object"
An abstract object is an object that does not causally interact with other
indepedently existing things.
A god, to exist, must be either a material object or an abstract object. But a
god is clearly not material because it is supernatural. It therefore has to be
abstract. If it is abstract, it has no causal properties. Hence it could not
cause anything, let alone the entire universe. Thus divine causation, creation
and omnipotence is impossible.
The problem of how supernatural entities could act on a natural plane is also
called the modus operandi problem.
Contradiction #6
god essence cannot be positively defined.
Indeed the nature of a god, its essence, has never been defined. This is shown
by the use of positive and negative theology. It also seems that a god could
never be thus defined, since it is by definition unobservable in a direct or
indirect manner. Thus the concept of god is basically meaningless, as we do not
know anything about its nature (6).
The concept of gods also implies other contradictions. Note that these following
arguments are not proof of strong atheism but other contradictions that makes
the concept of a god irrelevant or paradoxal (and could possibly be reconfigured
as to make a proof). If they are correct, then we are justified to ignore the
concept of god as irrelevant.
Minor Contradiction #1
gods cannot be proven in any rational way.
This inductive argument is built on the proposition that all theist arguments
have been refuted so far. Since a rational proof of the existence of gods cannot
be built, we can deduce that probably no such proof will ever be proposed.
Indeed we have reasons to think that the best arguments for the existence of
gods ever proposed were those from the past, and not present time. In the words
of Michael Martin :
"I think the arguments that are hardest to meet, are the traditional arguments,
and I am talking in particular about the argument from first cause -
cosmological argument - and the argument from design, I think the oldies are
still the goodies. " (7)
We then have reason to believe that gods will never be proven in any rational
way. Thus our analysis in favour of strong-atheism should remain valid.
Minor Contradiction #2
Occam's Razor - gods are neither a valid or needed explanation for anything
The Occam's Razor is a rule that states that entities should not be multiplied
unnecessarily. When we have two different theories, that can satisfactorily
explain the same facts, we must prefer the simplest theory. The addition of
useless entities brings no explanatory power to the theory.
Here we are presented with two competing theories, theism and atheism, which are
mutually exclusive. Even if we exclude the argumentation presented in this text,
we must still reject the concept of god because 1. It is more complex then
natural processes (unknowable) and 2. It does not explain anything more then
atheism can. Thus the existence of gods can be considered irrelevant.
Minor Contradiction #3
Science, morality and logic presuppose the absence of gods.
Scientific inquiry always assumes that the nature of entities is uniform and
therefore that there are no such things as miracles (a miracle being usually
defined as a break from the law of identity applied to the behaviour of objects,
i.e. to causality). As science's track record so far is excellent, there is
reason to cast doubt on the notion of miracles and divine intervention in
general.
Morality and logic both depend on reality, as any form of knowledge does, and
they are necessarily what they are. But if they were created by a god, then they
become conditional (be it directly on the god's nature or his decisions), which
is a contradiction. Furthermore, particular religious moralities are
contradictory, since religious texts are contradictory on points of morality.
To resume : since religion's epistemological basis is against knowledge, there
is good reason to disbelieve in gods, otherwise we have to reject all forms of
"secular knowledge" like science, morality and logic (and banning logic
effectively bans all of cognition).
The complete version of this argument is called the TANG (Transcendental
Argument for the Non-existence of God) and has been developed recently by
Michael Martin (11).
Many inductive arguments can also be made against the existence of gods, but
since induction does not lead to certainty but probability, they are not
relevant to strong-atheism. More arguments could also be made on the basis of
the omnis taken together, but here is only analyzed omniscience, omnipotence and
the infinity that results from the posession of omnis (10).
(1) For more information on narrow and broad atheism, see Atheism : A
Philosophical Justification (Michael Martin), p 464-465.
(2) All definitions taken from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
(3) Identity, the last axiom not covered, could be used in a variant of
contradiction #2 (but for clarification we used the Thomist notion of essence).
Thus we find that the concept of god denies all three axioms of thought.
(4) For a detailed explanation of this argument, see A:APJ p287-297.
(5) Some philosophers argue for a third realm of "souls" in which they include
gods. Unfortunately this can only be achieved by circular reasoning, since we
know of no other objects belonging to this category and cannot prove that any
object could theoretically belong to said category.
(6) For details on this whole argument, please consult Atheism : The Case
Against God (George Smith), p51-60.
(7) "An interview with Prof. Martin", http://atheism.org.il/inter.html
(8) The TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God) presents
such an argument. It it applied to Christianity but can be taken also in a
general theistic concept (divine intervention). See the TANG on paragraph 4,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
(9) See A:TGAG, chapter 4-7, for a complete refutation of faith as
epistemiological device.
(10) See A:APJ, chapter 12,13,14.
(11) For the text of TANG, see
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
Kent
.
|
|
| User: "forevernitefan" |
|
| Title: Re: God hated and tortured the Pope with extreme pain -- Ken Smith: Pro-Mendacity Tiger! |
20 Apr 2005 02:13:44 AM |
|
|
Jonez, you and pretty much everyone else can play the human logic mind
game thing to " prove" atheism is right and that there is no supreme
being. Like I said in an earlier post, its all human thought, human
bias, human perceptions, which are all limited. A good look at human
history can show that what humans believed was " true" in past eras we
now see as wrong.
I can see Kent's point in the POSSIBILITY of an intelligent design
type creator, but as a finite human mortal, I do not KNOW for sure if
the supreme being ( or any deity, for that matter) exists. I could
interpret certain events and experiences in mylife as " supernatural"
or " spiritual, thus BELIEVING that comfirms there are god(s) around,
but that would be subjective, not objective. As it is, Ifind beinga
Pagan /Wiccan to be the right path for me and I relate best to the
Deity in terms of the Goddess. I wholeheartedly admit my religion is
not the right one for everyone, nor should it. I see Deity as relating
to us by how we relate to It. IOW it can be Allah to the Muslims, Jesus
to the Christians ,and so forth. I don't follow that sin-blood
sacrifice salvation track that Christianity does, which is one of many
reasons I am not Christian. My only reel beef about Christianity is
when the followers, in their extremism, try to prevent me or anyone
else from disagreeing with their views.
If religiion is all fantasy, as one atheist said to me, well at least
let me have my choice of fantasy. If you think atheism is right, it
is-- for YOU, not for Kent or me.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "sawzall" |
|
| Title: Re: God hated and tortured the Pope with extreme pain -- Ken Smith:Pro-Mendacity Tiger! |
20 Apr 2005 04:21:55 PM |
|
|
forevernitefan wrote:
Jonez, you and pretty much everyone else
Better know what kind of traitor you're replying to Moe:
<the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
And exploited and abused all those who died on 9.11
the USA *deserved* the 9.11
kick in the nuts --
The US troops in Iraq DESERVE to DIE, they are
terrorist war criminal scum, each and every one
of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "forevernitefan" |
|
| Title: Re: God hated and tortured the Pope with extreme pain -- Ken Smith: Pro-Mendacity Tiger! |
23 Apr 2005 05:19:18 AM |
|
|
Sawzall, yes I have read Jonez' tirades concerning 9/11. I disagree
with him that we "deserved" it. IMO if Jonez thinks that way, maybe he
should ship his ***** off to Afghanistan or iraq or iran, where he cam
meet folks who approve of terrorism. But to them, Jonez would be just
another American scum worthy of death.
Jonez. like Sammie, talks the big talk but has no backbone to walk the
walk.
And the USA troops in Iraq do NOT deserve to die. Actually, if youl
ook at theFACTS, the troops are NOT acting as terrorists do. I would
suggest to Jonez that if he wants to rant about "terorist war criminal
scum" , maybe he should go to some Third World country ( like somewhere
in south africa or central America) or to China and see actual military
brute force. But then, that would mean that Jonez would have to face
reality, not what he wants to hate.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
