John is right. This is in the running for the dumbest theist argument ever.
The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
It’s from Answers in Genesis, so what else can you expect?
God makes your brain melt into goo.
Ok,I admit that I’m a theist.But, even I admit that the
the statement was worthless.
As an aside, that silly post made me think of a new unit. Let’s name it as the aiger and define it as :
1 aiger = number of words you read in an AiG post before you hit a (generally non-relevant) biblical verse.
Any takers ?
The paragraph would have made more sense if this were the first sentence and not, as it was written, the last. It’s an interesting assertion, actually: the existence of an unresolvable contradiction would pose a significant challenge to any world view, atheism included.
In this case, the argument is utterly wrong, of course, but at least it’s a coherent start.
I read this yesterday and couldn’t quite get my head around it either. Apparently, because you cannot ‘touch’ or ‘feel’ the laws of logic, that are non-material and therefore non-existent to the materialist (or something like that). Fundies seem to not be aware that the ancient Greeks were trying to work out logic and ethics at least half a millennium before Christ appeared on the scene. Fundies are apparently unaware that the ancient Greeks existed and did anything at all in the realms of ‘pure’ thinking. They genuinely seem to believe that ethics, logic and morality all started with the semitic tribes that formed ancient Israel, and no other culture ever got round to having any discussions about these things. I wonder who they think plato, socrates and aristotle were and what they were doing?
OUCH, that hurt
Having spent so much time on this blog, I’ll be happy to answer that question from the theist’s perspective. Ahem.
Who, who, and who?
So god has to exist so that 2+2=4. If there was not god, that simple bit id mathetical logic cannot be figured out. Big sky daddy is truly the glue that holds everything together.
Hey, that symbolic logic table is prove that god exists. God is needed so that something that mechanical can work.
The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
This is the sort of conclusion that comes from never having met a real atheist or secular Christian or anything except extreme, literalist fundamentalists. The AiG writer has no idea what the worldview of a real atheist is, so he makes up a bizzare strawman. Had the writer ever met a real atheist or even a normal person, he would have found out that we believe in this thing called a “brain” that has the power of reason built into its architecture. Brains are completely outside of the experience of the AiG writer. He has never met anyone who has one and has no reason to believe they exist. He believes that reason is a magical power that can only come from a magical being. He is more to be pitied than scorned.
Durpy durp durp durp. *drools*
I think when you clear away all the dust that the author throws into the air, you find him/her begging the question:
Our ability to reason proves god exists because we wouldn’t be able to reason without god.
1. My best friend is Harvey the Invisible Rabbit.
2. Harvey is the cause of all rain.
3. Yesterday it rained.
4. Harvey exists.
Theism in a nutshell, AiG style.
And what about our demonstrated ability to screw up the process of reasoning? The difficulties we have with long division alone suggest that the God who granted us the abilities of reason is an incompetent bungler.
What about some exile/quarantine so he doesn’t infect the rest of us with his retardogenic vapours?
Uh-oh. I can feel myslef geting dummer alredy! I musta bin ‘fected jus’ bi I red this. Plez kil mi b4 is to laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait….ksdjla skljdkfwr80uiojreqjveeeehuscvajl asdv lsdvhklsdkl wfjkl wefiop
I’ve seen the argument before, that God created the laws of logic (and, we assume, mathematics). Since the laws exist independent of humanity, the argument goes, who created them other than God?
But I’ve also seen the question posed about whether God could make a square circle, or make two plus two equal five. And the theists’ answer to this has been that God can do anything that is logically possible, and those things are illogical, so we can’t expect God can do that. It’s silly!
Which sort of paints them into a corner: did he create the laws of logic, or is he bound to them just like we are?
The theist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in my brain evolved.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires an evolved brain, not a profession of belief in an evolved brain. Of course the theist can reason; it’s because evolution has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic–and that’s the point. It’s because evolution exists that reasoning is possible. The theist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
And what about our demonstrated ability to screw up the process of reasoning?
Mmmmmm, I don’t know. Maybe
.
.
.
Satan?
I love the air analogy. Trap someone in a room and pump the air out. Whether they believe in air or not, they will find it impossible to breathe, and eventually, reason. If reasoning is granted by God, surely it should remain as long as God is around. If reasoning is reduced, God must have been pumped out along with the air, and parsimony would suggest that God IS air. Since God is the greatest of all things, and nitrogen is the greatest part of air, this would further suggest that God is primarily nitrogen.
This explains why too great a concentration of nitrogen in the blood, such as experienced by divers, is colloquially known as “Rapture of the deep”.
Welcome to Presuppositionalism and the joys and wonders of playing TAG (Transcendental Argument for God). My understanding is that this style of argument mostly comes out of Calvinism/Presbyterianism, and while it’s not taken seriously in philosophical circles, it’s effective among some theists (and very confusing to nontheists who are suddenly asked to “justify reason without assuming reason or God exists”).
Basically, presuppers try to place the atheist in the same position as a postmodernist or extreme skeptic who argues that “there is no truth” while assuming that it’s true that “there is no truth.” That’s a self-contradiction, or what’s sometimes called Fallacy of the Stolen Concept — assuming what you deny, in order to deny it. And that is a fallacy — for self-evident, basic common ground assumptions in logic or reason that can’t be reduced to anything simpler.
But God’s existence is not like A=A or A=/=non-A — unless they just up and say it is because there’s nothing wrong with their sense divinus.
So the argument boils down to several things. First, the bland assertion that “God’s existence is self-evident and cannot be doubted.” Which isn’t even an argument, it’s an accusation that the doubter is defective. It’s also a genetic fallacy: if you deny the maker, you have no right to believe in what was made. Which doesn’t follow — a source dispute doesn’t mean you can’t see or use the product. And then they just throw every philosophical paradox and conundrum in the book at you, demand that you resolve them, and then claim that they are all resolved satisfactorily with “Goddidit.” Which is another example of both ‘tennis without a net’ and God of the Gaps.
It’s just a neverending cornucopia of crap.
The last sentence of the AiG piece …
“On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.”
Having just read the preceding N paragraphs of AiG drivel, I suspect the author wrote this sentence first, then spent the rest of the time making up what passes in his mind for logic to fit his pre-determined conclusion. Nothing new there then.
It’s because doofuses exist that God is possible.
Profession of belief in God makes your brain melt into goo, surely?
This AiG argument must be some kind of desperation tactic by theists to stop an argument they are loosing by sounding so batshit nuts they stun they other side in silence by saying something utterly ridiculous. “God is logic” as in the God in The Bible, that’s funny.
There’s dumber ways to spell this out, like here: http://proofthatgodexists.org/
I could have lived without laws of physics, logic or morality, but how dare they take maths away from me!
If I’ve got it right, by the same argument, the atheist created God. This is very complex theology.
You know, when I was younger I used it think it was fun to damage my brain. Sometimes, even now, I still do.
But that? Damage; no fun.
Dr. Lisle, “what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent [essay] were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having [read] it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
If only we could make stupidity more painful…
No, God does it; he’s an evil son of a bitch. ;- D
“The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.”
Better than not being able to reason at all.
From what I’ve read so far in “Philosophy 101” (“General Education” requirement that I’m having to go back and take), Descartes seems to have done pretty much the same argument in places…
Heck, why do we have to choose?
I would ask if the laws of logic are logical because God thinks them, or if God thinks them because they are logical. If they are logical because God thinks them, then they are purely subjective and could have been otherwise. If God thinks them because they are logical, then logic exists apart from God, and God is unnecessary to logic. Easy to refute? Bite me, Christer.
What the crap! That proofthatgodexists.org is such an exercise in false dichotomies, it’s ridiculous. Just because one thinks that rape and child molesting are wrong, means that all morals are absolute? I don’t think so. Does that mean that the “Thou shall not kill” is absolute? Seems to me like that one is always pretty flexible one for the religious…
Brain! Brain! Must have brain!
Ow ow ow!
I just spent 45 of the most wasted minutes of my life (and I am measuring against things I did when I was much younger and much less aware of things like “Actions have consequences”) I have come to the conclusion that it would have made much more sense for me to simply bash my head against a concrete pillar. At least THAT would stop hurting. Eventually.
That … Essay would be shot to flames in any self-respecting logic course, and offers evidence that even a PhD (or MD – I have no idea what Dr Lisle is – if he even IS a real Dr. Maybe in Basketweaving.) can be stacked up to the eyeballs in equine solid waste. If work like this earned him his doctorate, we need to find out what school awarded it, and avoid it at all costs.
I wish I could successfully argue from a conclusion like this when I’m dealing with the IRS.
Unfortunately, the argument will work for good Christians, anyways. The first two introductory paragraphs are the only part most true believers will understand, and after that they will simply become robots for Jesus, uttering “Yes, yes, yes…” as their eyes glaze over and they gladly leave all that complicated philosophical stuff for the more “intellectually” minded among them. After all, such knowledge is not really necessary for –Praising Jesus!
Dear Dr. Jason Lisle:
“Likewise, logical reasoning requires God,”
This is where you assumed your conclusion. Just FYI.
–Brendan S
I think that the guys behind proofwhygodexists.org need urgent neck surgery. With a guillotine.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeessssh what bs !
you gotta love the man’s “references”:
Moreover…
Dr. Bahnsen most feared? most laughed at, more like.
SMC (#31):
Yes and no. Descartes does argue that if we aren’t certain about God’s existence, then we can’t trust even our “clear and distinct” reasoning — in which I take it he includes logic.
But the linked argument goes beyond that to argue that we can know it to be impossible for there to be reliable logic without a god. I don’t think Descartes made this further claim.
from linked page:
One hears versions of this argument quite often, and I think it is a challenge that (we) materialists shouldn’t ignore: we need to articulate what materialism is (and isn’t) because there are many (otherwise intelligent) people, even in academia, who misunderstand the commitments of the materialist. And it is a real challenge to offer a consistent formulation of materialism or physicalism. It’s easy enough to deny the existence of ghosts, but what is one to say about laws, morals, etc.?
Trying to work this difficulty into an argument for theism obviously fails, however, for it rests on a false dichotomy (the ever-present creationist argument from ignorance — bolstered by their seemingly endless ignorance . . .). The theist sees god as the objective source for morality, standards of reasoning, laws of science, etc. Then when one denies the existence of this (supposedly) objective source, they claim (and presumably believe) that the only other option is the adoption of a subjectivism or conventionalism in all these areas.
But clearly there are other options: we should believe that the objective world (sans god) grounds all these facts objectively. But I do think it’s a real challenge to understand exactly how this works.
The argument is a particularly tight circle.
One might liken it to a sphincter.
“The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.”
No, that would be: “…within Jason Lisle’s worldview, the atheist cannot account for his ability to reason.”
And that would be because, regardless of God’s existence or not, Jason Lisle cannot reason.
Whoops, convention error: I used double-quotes instead of italics for the quote proper. Dang, and this after I’ve been trying to get consistent about italics vs. boldface…
And Denis Loubet, I am so stealing that!
It used to be painful, Dave. But now, everything comes with a damned warning label on it to protect the stupids.
Isn’t it cute when two-year olds type at a keyboard like mommy and daddy?
Hi SMC,
Although Descartes’ arguments have the same sort of question-begging/trickery feel, he really doesn’t give any argument like the one given here. You may want to go back and look a little closer before your 101 exam.
Of course, his arguments are pretty much just as crappy.
Why should I burden my beautiful mind with anything from AiG?
I got the biggest chuckle out of the classification of the original essay on the AiG site as “semi-technical”. Honestly, they’re doing our work for us.
LOL! What a great thread! “Retardogenic vapours”… ROTFL!
fardels bear, you are right. Check out the original thread.
LOL! What a great thread! “Retardogenic vapours”… ROTFL!
fardels bear, you are right. Check out the original thread.
“semi-technical”=”hooey”
“Semi-technical”… LOL!
“Semi-technical”… LOL!
I want those neurons back!
“I felt a great disturbance in the Force…as if millions of neurons suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.”
IIRC, Jason Lisle has a Ph.D in astrophysics from Harvard.
It is a bit of a mystery what he is doing hanging around with AIG writing nonsense.
You know that scene in Scanners? Yeah, that’s the rough effect of AiG on reasoning people.
“How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?.”
This shows two common mistakes in theist reasoning. The first flaw in reasoning is to assume that the presence or absence of a supernatural being should have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of laws of logic or laws of mathematics or even (hypothetical) laws of morality.
The second flaw is called ‘reification’ – to assume that abstractions have concrete form. This leads to bizarre conclusions such as that mathematical or logical laws can’t exist in a purely material universe. Something can be both true and also abstract.
“Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute.”
OK, then stop blathering on with nonsense like this and do it.
I see. There are other applications.
The atheist uses English to say words, words that are in many tenses. How can this be? This is self-contradiction. but a Christian can respond because he knows that God speaks English.
Quod erat demonstratum… that this is really, painfully stupid stuff
I suppose that no one has ever pointed out to this man the pre-Christian origins of writings on logic. What a rabid, deluded fool.
Owww….
Denis Loubet #41 says, “The argument is a particularly tight circle. One might liken it to a sphincter.”
Indeed. Any tighter and he could have dispensed with the “argument” (or semblance thereof) altogether, and merely piped out through a purple point, “God exists because I just said so” and said as much. Circularity reduced to singularity.
Actually, he doesn’t even need the “reason” except to put a certain flourish to it in the dressing.
This wallpaper-pattern method of “thinking” is tedious in the extreme. It comes from endless rote recitation of prepared prayers and passages from scripture. Its a stutter-storm of the mind expending a great deal of effort that goes nowhere. The APPEARANCE of substance is what’s important…religious observance is full of it. Logic and rational critique just muck up the desired preordained pattern; these things are therefore wicked impurities in the crystalline lattice of faith.
But, like the illiterate medieval copyist monk who can’t understand what he’s “illuminating”, doesn’t the result look pretty?
Ah, I’ve had a really crappy day and this post gave me a much-needed laugh.
Can someone please explain to me how I wound up in the corner playing with a ball of blue yarn after reading that gibberish on the AiG site?
Oh look! A monkey!
The phrase “I think, therefore Jesus is Lord!” joins other phrases, such as “DNA is hard, therefore Jesus is Lord!”, in the armory of right-minded fundamentalists everywhere.
I keep trying to read it, but every time I read this:
I become illiterate. I tthink itz a dfens mekanzim. i haf to go li duwn befor i lah gha ieiofn, shour dlgkj;o.
So I wonder if AiG misses the irony that their God fails with this argument. According to their logic God despises reason in humans.
Ok, let’s see if I’m getting this right:
One must believe in an unseeable, impalpable deity because there exists an unseeable, impalpable gas ?
Okay… so.. Cogito Ergo Deus ?
My brain hurts. Me Go now.
A hypothetical “critic of air” would claim that he was breathing in something other than air — just as the atheist claims that reason is not dependent on God. The difference is that in the first case a scientist would be able to explain and demonstrate how air is different than whatever the heck the air-critic thinks he is breathing, show him air, show him the other stuff, and persuade a reasonable air-critic to change his mind.
In the second case, the presuppositional apologist would dismiss any other theories on reason as “inadequate” and simply state the analogy over again, so that the atheist understands that not believing in God is just like not believing in air. In the one case, demonstration by science. In the other case, philosophical sophistry and browbeating.
Bad analogy. Oh yes.
people! people!
get a grip.
Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist and since God is the greatest thing, then he has to exist.
get it?
sheesh
OK, I didn’t go look at the article itself, just because I re-read that snippet several times and STILL couldn’t figure out how the heck it was supposed to make sense. I mean, if someone who doesn’t believe in god can’t reason, then wouldn’t someone who doesn’t believe in air be unable to breathe? If that were true, it might be kind of fun to not believe in gravity and be able to fly, I think. If the ability to reason comes from the existence of god and not the belief, and the ability to breathe comes from the existence of air and not the belief in it, then the ability to be abducted by aliens comes from the existence of aliens, not the belief in them. And the ability to be a brainwashed idiot comes from the existence of brainwashing, not from the belief in it. Wait, I think I’m starting to get it. . .
Curt Cameron: Which may have been why the theist (but non Christian) Descartes thought god COULD have made 2+2=5. (For those wanting a reference, contact me off site and I’ll look it up. I think it is in the Discourse on Method.)
Sastra: “not taken seriously in philosophical circles”. Except by Alvin Plantinga, of course. For the reason, see the Philosophical Lexicon.
I’m surprised so many people here seem to have never heard a transcendental/presuppositionalist/Van Tillian argument like this one before. C’mon atheists! Get with the program! You can’t call yourself a True Atheist® unless you’re versed in Theistic Apologetics 101. It’s a 1 unit General Ed class, and last I heard, it’s a small GPA booster, so don’t take it Pass/Fail.
First homework assignment: Read up on Cornelius Van Til.
“The phrase “I think, therefore Jesus is Lord!” joins other phrases….”
Cogito, ergo Jesus.
Alison, you seem to have read it incorrectly; he is saying that a person who doesn’t believe in god can reason, but only because god gave him that abilitiy, whether or not he believes in god. Which still doesn’t make any sense, for reasons already provided.
Keith, the Dutch and their pressup BS… is there any reason we should take Alvin Plantinga (and his ‘evolutionary arguement against naturalism’) seriously?
You’ve got to wonder if creationists are this irrational in all areas of their lives and if they are how do they operate in the real world. Hard to fathom.
The article makes light of my fellow air skeptics and our thankless crusade against breatharians.
According to their logic God despises reason in humans.
why, I think you’ve nailed it right on the head!
that does seem to be exactly what they’ve been trying to tell us all these years.
unfortunately, they’ve abandoned reason and logic to such an extent, that they simply appear unable to communicate in a way that most reasoned persons can understand.
that’s just a guess, of course, since I can’t make heads or tails of what the hell they are gibbering about myself.
“The article makes light of my fellow air skeptics and our thankless crusade against breatharians.” -Ex-Drone-
Priceless!
Sometimes, I wish atheism was like Zen, so I could just hit these people with a stick until they enlightened.
Well, the “ultimate” question, if you want to call it that, is why is there anything at all as opposed to nothing. As #3 says, it’s a legitimate question to ask. However, as it stands, “because it is” is currently a far more satisfactory answer than anything else which can be proffered, including “god did it.”
Dead. On.
I agree completely and thought of that too, many times. The laws of nature are subjective and relative compared to an absolute deity. Otherwise, if they are absolute irrespective of the deity, that deity is not absolute. TO say that the Deity IS those laws, then you don’t have a deity. You have laws.
Al (# 71):
Some of us are new to the program. I’ll try to get to the homework assignment, but my other classes have papers and midterms coming up . . . (Any chance I could get an extension . . . ?)
Is it just me or does this line of
reasoningwords strung together remind you of the philosophical concept of “universals vs particulars” – as in, that there has to be a place storing the pure, universal version of everything, including logic? It’s like they’re saying that the color RED is proof of the immaterial, because red isn’t made of anything.Ichthyic @ that’s just a guess, of course, since I can’t make heads or tails of what the hell they are gibbering about myself.
My read of it is it can be summed up as “Since we can prove God doesn’t exist, it proves God does exists” which proves this Van Til fellow as a BS artist with big brass ones.
“Since we can prove God doesn’t exist, it proves God does exists”
that reminds me a bit of how the babelfish disproved god’s existence in Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
Al (#71), it’s so absurd, people can be excused for not being familiar with it. For those who’ve never waded through this particular heap of theological manure, read about presuppositional apologetics on wikipedia. Here’s my favorite line:
They call this an argument? They simply define reality and god such that their Xian god must exist; therefore, the Xian god exists.. and any objection you raise proves it (because they say so). Well, glad we finally managed to settle that one–wasn’t that easy? *brain melts*
I sheel foor that we all — er — most steeply rebut the defensible, though, I trust, lavatory, Aspasia which gleams to have selected our redeemed inspector this deceiving. It would — ah — be shark, very shark, from anyone’s debenture . . . .
Sure, it’s a really dumb argument, but a bit like Al in #71, I don’t see it as particularly new or surprising. It seems to me just a variation on the oft-used “X can’t exist without God, X does exist, therefore God.” With the first of those three statements simply assumed without any evidence. “Morality” is the most frequent X used, and that claim has been discussed here plenty already.
Sure makes for a fun thread, though.
It’s been tried, actually… and we know how that turned out ;-)
Aiieeee! Teh brain damage, teh brain damage…
Re; 23.
Thank you, Halcy. I just had to check out that link. I am not sure if it was more stupid than the ‘god is logic’ argument but the combination of the two did not do me much good. I love how rape and child molestation being wrong (As examples of absolute moral good) are conflated to the realm of science, math and logic. While I will agree that rape and child molestation are wrong, it is not the category as algebra. (Yes, I know how strange that last sentence is.)
Isn’t this AiG thing a confused attempt at narrowing the “argument” from consciousness? (Can’t recall who that one is attributed to.)
I don’t think it’s quite as brain spinningly goofy as Anselm’s ontological “argument”.
Close enough, though. It (still) burns…
How do these people survive such devastating brain trauma?
Somebody needs to spend five minutes at the Argument Clinic…
LH: Any clinic at all would do.
Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen often used this analogy. Dr. Bahnsen was known as the “man atheists most feared.”
~
Funny!
I don’t think it’s quite as dumb as all that. The question of why it makes sense to reason about our contingent, uncertain world using the immaterial laws of logic and mathematics is a hard philosophical problem. This is an argument for the God-of-the-gaps in philosophy.
Compared to Lord-Liar-Lunatic or other such total idiocy, this is positively intelligent.
The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
This atheist’s car works, but within his own worldview, which includes little mechanical knowledge, he cannot account in any detail for his car’s working condition. Ergo, the car must have been made by God!
Hmmm…
AiG theists don’t believe in non-Biblical argument, therefore they can’t argue without quoting the Bible.
AiG theists don’t believe the scientific method, therefore they can’t do science.
AiG theists don’t believe in evolution, therefore they can’t evolve.
AiG theists don’t believe in rationality, therefore they can’t reason.
Damn, this kind of reasoning is starting to sound persuasive. Maybe I have gotten dumber…
Just returned from holiday (good company,weather,wine and no machine) to find these morons still exist, definately a lack of effort here. A possible solution may be the formation of death squads, so if there are any ex SAS types out there?
How bizarre. I read the self same thing just hours before this post. Was really bored and looking for webby entertainment, found myself at AiG and chose a silly looking argument.
Odd how I come to Pharyngula for biology and end up doing bible studies!
Oh, man, thiz iz ol’good pesuppositional apologetitics
:
before you can use justifications you have to justify that justifications can justify anything. But you can’t because, of course, you can not use justifications yet.
.
Therefore in your atheist materijalist librul worldwiew you can not justify anyhing, included your worldwiew.
.
before you can use proofs you have to prove that proofs really do prove what they are supposed to prove. But you can’t because, of course, you can not prove anything yet.
.
Therefore in your atheist materijalist librul worldwiew you can not prove anyhing.
.
before you can use definitions you have to define definition, which of course you can not, because definition is still nor defined.
.
Therefore in your atheist materijalist librul worldwiew is everythingie undefined. So anything you say or write is just a meaningsless word salat, so shut your **** houl and listen to wiser ones who say that the only way to escape thiz pararadox is to akzcept Teh Hooly Trinity of :
– The Spaghetti monster which thru it’s noodly appendages defines definition.
– The Scalar Field If Invisible Pink Unicorns which casuels proofs to prove
– Russel’s Teapot which makes justifications work by vigorous circling in the steroid belt.
So, after rhuothily retufing your materialist bigotri you have no posybility but to repent and asriropagu the orifi463
obeyewyu43y4b32rfwfccy n xc7g t437rc7KERNEL PANXC
Let us ponder for a moment, the implications of a gaseous deity.
Can god be compressed and used to inflate a basketball? Can it be supercooled and liquified? Can it be distilled into constituent sub-deities? If god is electrically charged, does it strike a plasma and glow?
Does the venturi effect apply? In other words, if we move at a high rate of speed, relative to the deity, does its pressure upon us decrease?
-jcr
Heh. Very good, T_U_T. It gets more sophisticated than that of course (Plantinga is considered one of the ‘best’ of the apologists alive today), but that’s not far from the gist of it.
The ironic thing is that evidentialist apologetics and presuppositionalist apologetics are at cross purposes. They take different tacks. The first argues that the existence of God is derived from an examination of the evidence; the second argues that the existence of God must be assumed before anything can be derived from anything. You’re supposed to use one or the other. Not both.
Answers in Genesis is clearly coming from an evidentialist perspective — a careful, reasonable study of the Bible and the world will lead to the conclusion that God exists and Christianity is true (and the earth is only about 10,000 years old). In some ways, this approach brings them much closer to how most scientific humanists consider the issue. They accept our framework, but bicker over what the evidence really is and what conclusions should be drawn.
But by throwing a presupper argument in with the rest of it, they’re contradicting themselves with a kind of any-method-to-the-conclusion form of intellectual dishonesty.
Kitchen sink apologetics.
Paul, (#96), I disagree; while Liar-Lunatic-Lord (silly as it is) was at least an attempt at an argument, “presuppositional apologetics” is simply an arbitrary declaration that reality not only is exactly as (what do you know?) the apologist wants it to be, but any attempt to challange that assessment is, by definition, “unitelligible”. As silly as religious people can sometimes be, presups are a category unto themselves. Here, have a look at Dr. Bahnsen’s fine work. WARNING: your will be viewing some high-potenecy inanity if you click the link; this poster assumes no responsibility for the effects thus rendered.
Ugh… please excuse the spelling errors; in a bit of a hurry….
Likewise, masturbation requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can masturbate; it’s because God has made his hand and given him access to his dick–and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that masturbation is possible. The atheist can wank, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to wank.
How about that? I just showed that jerking off proves the existence of God! Boy, am I smart! How come Aquinas never came up with that one?
Already posted over there, but for those who don’t bother reading the comments…
God’s Logic
The orbits of the planets
In their paths around the Earth
Are circular–it must be true
If logic has its worth.
The circle, you must understand
Is God’s Most Perfect Shape;
If orbits are elliptical,
Why, Man is but an ape.
If circles are God’s favorites,
Why not in logic, too?
Assuming your conclusions
Is the Holy thing to do!
When I assume that God exists
And Logic is his tool,
An atheist who tries to use
God’s methods is a fool.
When I assume that Logic is
The tool of the devout,
My argument is clear:
IF garbage in, THEN garbage out.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/10/gods-logic.html
Cuttlefish:
You rock.
Re: #33
Substitute “morality” for “laws of logic,” and you shoot down the Christian claims about their god being necessary for “absolute morality.”
And if, as quoted in #34, “rape and child molesting are wrong, means that all morals are absolute,” then the Old Testament shows that its god, having many places condoned or even ordered such actions, cannot be the source of “absolute morality.”
Want to see weeping and gnashing of teeth? Spring that on ’em!
— CV
*Clutching head in agony*
Okay. So from his full article (http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/atheism-irrational)
comes this gem:
So, since Christians model themselves after the God from the Old Testament (most fundies seem to really relish the fire and brimstone Old Testament in lieu of all that hippie crap that Jesus preached), I’d say that this really explains why, like God, fundies seem to be wrathful, blood-thirsty, insecure, arrogant jerks preoccupied with who is screwing whom.
And, I’m sorry, Godtm is not consistent. Smite smite OH I’LL SAVE YOU smite smite END OF THE WORLD SMITE.
And, what’s this “can’t deny Himself” bit? What, He has no self-control? If there’s one last piece of chocolate cake, He *must* have it?
Finally, I find the universe quite contradictory.
Anyone that thinks that the universe is a seamless flow of woohah magic logic has never contemplated on the existence of the platypus.
Do materialists believe that non-material things like laws of logic exist?
Do materialists believe that non-material things like laws of logic exist?
Define ‘believe’ and ‘exist’, and you may begin to approximate a meaningful question.
Paul Crowley #96 says, “Compared to Lord-Liar-Lunatic or other such total idiocy, this is positively intelligent.”
Only if one thinks positively dizzying circularity in the form of cookie-cutter wall-paper pattern thinking is “intelligent”.
Like I said earlier, this sort of thing only LOOKS pretty to those who are incapable of recognizing an intelligent argument, usually, like the authors themselves, who think they have accomplished one.
This is just the sort of thing that gets even LESSER intellects who advocate without a smidgeon of reason to proclaim they have intelligence on their side, even though THEY don’t understand a word of it either, let alone that its baloney. And so it goes on, ad nauseam…
God exists. There is a book that tells me he exists and I have read the book. The book also tells me not to believe in anything else that is not in the book or believe in anything that people who do not read the book, say or do. The book says not to believe them even though the book says that God made them too and all the conditions for them say and do all that they say and do. The book tells me, I think this is what it says, to kill the people that do not read the book. I will do that later maybe. That part of the book is scarey and though I believe it, I think that I will wait to do that. The book does not talk about CT Scans or cell phones or HIV antivirals. I do not believe in those things but I can use them. This is why atheists can go ahead, use logic and live until I get around to taking my book seriously and not be scared to do what it tells me to do. But the Book says that I will be scared so its ok.
OK, I’ll rephrase it … just trying to understand …
Do materialists think that laws of logic are material or non-material.
Please don’t turn this into something where I can never get an answer because I have to define each and every word I ever use, or justify that the world is real, or first prove that I really exist, etc. …
An attempt at an answer is all I’m asking for …
J Myers, I see what you’re getting at, and in some ways I agree – at least LLL is an effort to invoke something vaguely related to evidence. But I could forgive someone who fell for this argument because they were bamboozled by the philosophical complexities of the issue at hand, whereas someone who thinks LLL is an argument has shut down their critical faculties altogether.
Jack @ #106,
Exactly correct! If god didn’t want us to masturbate, wouldn’t he have made our arms shorter? Or put our genitals somewhere else (not to mention preventing it from feeling good)?
Oh really…
“But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.” (Martin Luther)
One way of looking at the question is that the laws of logic are human ways of defining the behavior of the material universe. Of course, “material” universe may not be best term for it, since the material universe itself consists of stuff that isn’t matter per se, including energy, space, and time.
Perhaps “monistic universe” would be a better term. So, yes, the laws of logic are definitions resulting from observations of the monistic universe.
J Myers said:
Well, of course I read it incorrectly. It’s so darned wrong, I don’t think it can be read correctly, unless by chance your head has already exploded.
A “materialist” or atheist ( I think some people use these interchangeably at their own peril) thinks that the laws of logic are useful to describe and predict things about the world around them and before them and after them. Kinda like some math.
But Owlmirror says this better than I. Laws of Logic have evolved too if anyone had not noticed.
Someone should organize a convention. Do you think the Holiday Inn would put “Wankers for God” on their signs? Would they have appropriate facilities for worship?
Alison:
Fair point.
Ha! Basically; see my comment #86.
m. #111 asks, “Do materialists believe that non-material things like laws of logic exist?”
I’m with Brownian, but the definition deficit goes deeper.
Let me hazard a response anyway (uh boy):
I don’t know what the heck a “materialist” ought to be (have you a definition?), but I do think my “non-material” mind generated by my “material” brain easily and quite happily accomodates the “existence” of the idea of order, both in general and in the intricate, which is falsifiable from (likewise “non-material”) information sources coming from outside of my “material” head.
(I must remember my breathing exercises)
This “non-material” train of thought leads me to conclude that “things” like “the laws of logic” have an independent “existence” apart from my “non-material” mind which is and has frequently been validated by said “non-material” information sources, and therefore leads me to make an “non-material” conclusion that there is a natural basis for logic that “exists” independently of my “non-material” mind (consistent with the notion that my “material” brain has evolved not only within an orderly universe, but in a COMPREHENSIBLY ordered universe).
And if you can read any of THAT ellipsis swamp without getting a migraine, the AIG topic of this post is a piece of cake. I will now observe that significant “material” brain damage CAN affect “non-material” thinking, and that I have a serious “material” migraine.
YOWZA CARRRAMBA
Y’know, I did try putting human genitalia out of reach. Really, I did. I put them right in the middle of the back, right where you can’t reach.
Guess what your clever ancestors did?
That’s right, they invented back scratchers. And started trading back rubs. Pfui.
So I just gave up, and combined the genitalia with the wastewater line, just to show you Who’s Boss around these here parts.
Fear My Almighty hissy-fit!
So “laws of logic” are indistinguishable from “laws of nature” (like F=MA and E=MC^2)?
That seems to make sense … is there anything wrong with that analogy?
Please don’t turn this into something where I can never get an answer because I have to define each and every word I ever use, or justify that the world is real, or first prove that I really exist, etc….
I wasn’t intending to drown you in semantic soup, but in my experience these kinds of discussions go a lot further when we can agree (or try to agree) on some common definitions. There are few things more frustrating than arguing for hours before realising that one person is discussing apples and the other is discussing crabapples.
So “laws of logic” are indistinguishable from “laws of nature” (like F=MA and E=MC^2)?
In the sense of ‘existing’ in the way it seems you mean it, m., I would say they are.
Sometimes, I wish atheism was like Zen, so I could just hit these people with a stick until they enlightened.
Well, if you hit them hard enough, they will find out for theirself. Unfortunately, they won’t be able to tell you about it afterwards….
Ok. Brain damage induced by post.
Followed by seizures induced by sheer stupidity of “proofthatgodexists.org”
Conclusion: reading stuff found on Pharyngula bad for the brain.
*drooling*
I’m going to start by assuming reason exists. I need to do this, because if I don’t, I wouldn’t be able to reasonably conclude I could get anywhere by typing, let alone convince all youze kWaZy atheists.
Now that I’ve presumed reason exists, I’m going to use it to provide reasons why God is the basis of reason. You see, without God, you can’t have reason at all, because reason must have a basis outside of reason, or else you are begging the question. See? I use reason, to show that God is the basis of reason. Reason -> God -> Reason. What’s the basis of that first reason in the chain? Why, God of course. How do I know that? Why, reason, of course. And what’s the basis of that reason? Why, God of course.
careful, you’re gonna make yourself dizzy, Al.
AL can’t be serious.
What does it even mean to say “reason/logic must have a basis outside of reason/logic”? If reason/logic describe existence as we experience it, well, that happens to be the way we experience existence; it is what it is, instead of being something different. If our existential experience were “different” (whatever that might mean, if it’s even possible), then what we call reason/logic would be something else, instead of being what they are now. Basis? Reality is the basis.
Okay – Digital Cuttlefish for Poet Laureate of the Science Blogs. Seriously, someone give this cephalapod his own gig so he can write regularly for you all!
Al: Aha! I think I see what you’re getting at.
Every time you breathe in, you need a reason to do that, and that reason is God. Now, you can’t just breathe in without ever breathing out, right? Well, when you breathe out you complete the cycle, (the circle!) and there you have it again, God! It’s not rational to not breathe, our reason tells us that, but if you don’t believe in God then you see no reason to breathe–but you breathe anyways! Breathing air happens whether or not you profess a belief in breathing or not, thus proving that God is the reason for our beliefs, and that the basis of reason is God!
See you at prayer meeting, Thursday? ;- )
m. #126: Basically, yes, those things are the same. The hideousness of anthropic “reasoning’ aside, order in nature does not require us to appreciate it. It “exists” quite independently of those sub-set slob-pockets of existence that like to refer to themselves as “conscious”.
But after all of that materialist detouring, we have to remember that the idea of “material” is a wildly obsolete notion. As the late physicist Heinz Pagels once observed, “Science shows us that the visible world is neither matter nor spirit… the visible world is the invisible organization of energy.”
That’s all there is, energy. And, again, yes, it’s organized, but the organization is an emergent property, not creatively prepared by some external agency (which must perforce require a supernatural realm infested with supernatural beings which violates the hell out of Occam’s razor, not to mention several other important lines of consideration).
What we refer to as “matter” is but a frozen form of it, via E=mc^2. The emergent properties exhibited by this frozen energy “matter” may all be thought of as a kind of elaborate interference pattern of nothing but waves of energy. Think of fundamental particles as standing waves that persist with their particular characteristic mass-energies in the present.
The implications are rather interesting for anyone who cares to look: note that without time, energy becomes quite meaningless if non-existent. For example, if there is no time for a wave to wiggle, it is no longer a wave of anything and therefore there’s nothing there to carry any energy which might otherwise exist in any form. FORM itself, as a matter of fact, may be defined as a consequence of the interaction (in time) between waves of energy.
In other words, the timeless “eternal” character which is so often attributed to the notion of God in itself requires forthwith the NON-existence of such a(non)entity, since the absence of time precludes the necessary criterion for existence known as “change”.
Change. Fundamentalists despise it. But without it, there is no there there. With it, you get multitudes – an entire universe – of “things”, quite consistent with what we evidently see. They may not realize it (and all the evidence suggests that they DON’T) but fundamentalists must therefore deny that anything at all exists.
How’s that?
Don’t tell the fundies about the second dimension of time. They’ll tell everybody it’s the Son of God.
Comment 118 is great. It wakes the megalomaniac in me.
You see, Luther sort of says we scientists are the Gog and the Magog. We are Attila, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlan. We are the Cyborg (resistance is futile), and we are CATS. You know, the one that set up you the bomb when war was beginning: HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN !! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US. YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION. YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME. HA HA HA HA …. And have I mentioned that geologist hammers look stunningly similar to medieval war hammers?
(Yes, I have. Way too often.)
I thought my sister was unique in the world in not being able to tilt her shoulder blades off her ribcage and scratching herself everywhere on the back?
Comment 118 is great. It wakes the megalomaniac in me.
You see, Luther sort of says we scientists are the Gog and the Magog. We are Attila, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlan. We are the Cyborg (resistance is futile), and we are CATS. You know, the one that set up you the bomb when war was beginning: HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN !! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US. YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION. YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME. HA HA HA HA …. And have I mentioned that geologist hammers look stunningly similar to medieval war hammers?
(Yes, I have. Way too often.)
I thought my sister was unique in the world in not being able to tilt her shoulder blades off her ribcage and scratching herself everywhere on the back?
You’re being facetious. I can tell.
However.
People forget that the original etymology of “spirit” is “breath”. Similar concepts in other languages also come from the same words that mean “breath” or “wind” or “air” — “pneuma” (πνευμα) in Greek; “atman” in Sanskrit; “ruach” (רוח), “neshama” (נשמה), in Hebrew. “Yahweh” looks like it could well be onomatopoeia; the sound of the soughing wind.
If someone is trying to figure out what’s what, and doesn’t really have any kind of real scientific knowledge, they might well focus on breathing as being really, really important, really “special” in some undefinable way. After all, every living thing needs to breathe, and what’s being breathed in and out is invisible, so maybe breath is magic?
And sometimes strong winds blow and make the trees sway, and sometimes really strong winds blow and knock things down, so maybe the wind is like a really angry person stomping around.
So we can see how someone might give a superstitious reverence to nothing but air. But while this sort of thinking is understandable in the primitive and ignorant, it’s kind of appalling to see in the intelligent and educated.
Anyway, if someone says that they are “spiritual”, one response could well be “in other words, full of [hot] air”?
I vaguely recall reading that some ancient philosophers who believed that breath was part of the immortal self were very worried about farts — “wind” which came from the wrong end, and which smelled bad. These philosophers were strongly opposed to the eating of beans.
Funny thing.
Googling “man atheists most feared” (with the quotation marks for the exact phrase) produces only 1 link containing the phrase – the AiG article making that particular claim.
You’d think that given how connected and voluble atheists are such a scourge would make a blip on the radar.
“People forget that the original etymology of “spirit” is “breath”.”
Yes, it’s easy to forget how recent scientific knowledge is. When early man acquired the ability to grasp concepts, it must have been almost impossible for him/her to not to live in a world of spirits, where natural forces were alive and conscious.
I’ve no doubt that many different kinds of true believers today would be shocked to learn how their current beliefs evolved over the years.
And wouldn’t you love to have a time machine and go back a few thousand years to see how ancient people actually thought about, and lived with, nature?
(To actually see it, not second hand like the bible or other ancient texts.)
I know the time has passed to have this comment read, but here I go anyway.
It seems everyone agrees that this is a poor argument, but unfortunately no one has tried to demonstrate its failings. I have no life, so I have decided to try and put up something to the effect that this argument is piss-poor and in fact leads to contradictions of theism itself. Just read me-seez blog:
http://gilgamesh42.blogspot.com/
Gilgamesh,
I haven’t read your blog post, but the failings of the argument have been addressed several times here. Presuppositionalists argue that reason cannot justify itself (their position), because that would be begging the question. Therefore, it requires something “transcendent” (presuppositionalist arguments are also known as transcendental arguments) to reason in order to “ground” or “justify” reason. (I’ve argued with presuppers a lot, and these are terms they use.) To them, the transcendent being which grounds logic is of course, the character from the Bible who manifested himself as a Jewish carpenter.
Several problems have been pointed out here by various posters. The most obvious one being that you can construct a modified Euthyphro dilemma. Are reason and logic what they are because god made them that way, or is god bound to keep them? If the latter, then god doesn’t really “justify” these things at all. If the former, then god can undo any aspect of reason and logic, rendering them entirely contingent. If logic is entirely contingent, then there is no such thing as a “logically necessary” being, and so the presupper has undermined his own claim that god is logically necessary to ground reason and logic. If the theist turns around and says “well, everything is logically contingent except god, who is the one logically necessary thing,” then he is conceding that there is some aspect of logic beyond god’s control, and thus undermining the claim that logic must be grounded by god. Either out he chooses, it doesn’t bode well for the theist.
Furthermore, we can see straightforwardly that invoking god doesn’t really “justify” or “ground” reason and logic at all. As I joked in a previous post above, you have to assume reason and logic in the first place in order to make a reasonable and logical case that God is the basis for reason and logic. So the presupper hasn’t “ground” reason and logic, he is simply bootstrapping them.
I think the question of how reason and logic are justified is philosophically interesting. It may be an ill-posed question, since reason and logic are what we use to epistemically justify anything, so it may not make sense to ask how to justify the very epistemic tools of justification. It’s something that should be examined. But religious apologists addressing these issues, as usual, turns it into a big joke.
Gilgamesh, I think the stupidity of this argument has been aptly detailed in any number of comments above. From what I’ve read of your link, you seem to consider that there is actually some substance to the presuppositional “argument” to address; there is not. The whole notion that there must be a “force behind” or a “source of” logic is but an arbitrary, unsubstantiated assertion. Things relate to each other in a certain way, and we call that logic. If they related to each other in a different way, we (or whatever “we” would be under those circumstances) would call that logic. If things did not relate to each other in any coherent manner, it’s unlikely that any conscious entities would have developed to call anything anything.
J Myers: “The whole notion that there must be a “force behind” or a “source of” logic is but an arbitrary, unsubstantiated assertion…If things did not relate to each other in any coherent manner, it’s unlikely that any conscious entities would have developed to call anything anything.”
Beautifully expressed!
RamblinDude #137 [hey, where have I seen THAT number before] says, “Don’t tell the fundies about the second dimension of time. They’ll tell everybody it’s the Son of God.”
Indeed. Maybe something like how the catholics got the idea of the holy trinity from 3-D space(“lessee…spirit = dimension…EUREKA!”).
Or maybe it was just triangles (“ooh, look, its got 3 sides AND 3 pointy-thingies!”).
Or maybe it was just a tri-podal stool that didn’t fall over for some miraculous reason (which in an rapturously epiphanous moment of revelation, inspired some deep theologian thinker sitting on one that THREE [bless the lord] legs are required to stably keep us from falling over into hell).
Nah. Maybe it was only because they could actually count that high.
Just justify them empirically.
As you know, all science rests upon methodological naturalism, the hypothesis that the universe is reasonably predictable — that miracles don’t happen so often as to make it unpredictable. Fortunately, this hypothesis is itself scientific: it is testable, and it is tested in every single observation (experiment or not).
We are the scientists. We are the Cyborg. Resistance is futile. =8-)
Just justify them empirically.
As you know, all science rests upon methodological naturalism, the hypothesis that the universe is reasonably predictable — that miracles don’t happen so often as to make it unpredictable. Fortunately, this hypothesis is itself scientific: it is testable, and it is tested in every single observation (experiment or not).
We are the scientists. We are the Cyborg. Resistance is futile. =8-)
I suppose I could have simply said “Science… It works, bitches”. But I don’t know where the “it works, bitches” joke comes from. Telling the fundies “I’m whatever threatens you” is more fun in any case. =8-)
I suppose I could have simply said “Science… It works, bitches”. But I don’t know where the “it works, bitches” joke comes from. Telling the fundies “I’m whatever threatens you” is more fun in any case. =8-)
J Myers: Only to be aware of it, and how sneaky Plantinga really is. (See his entries in the Blackwell epistemology handbook, for example.) Fortunately the presupposition is “buried in plain sight”, once one is aware that he does this sort of thing.
Inoculated Mind: (Re: deity and laws) Or some bastardized Platonic/Hegelian mishmash. (Who would have thought one could have more of a mishmash than Hegel, but there you go.)
Paul Crowley: Why logic and math work is something of a difficult problem, yes, but postulating god doesn’t solve the problem either. Notice than in the Timaeus, Plato has to postulate the forms AND god.
Jack Rawlinson: Not so fast. In Manchean theology, your penis and your hand were presumably made by the evil supreme power, or something.
m.: Please avoid begging the question. Good (#115). Now, no, I don’t think they are immaterial. They are abstracted – we feign their existence, like numbers and (in a different way again) idealizations like frictionless surfaces and ideal gases.
Owlmirror: Energy is a property of matter in the broad sense – materialists have no trouble with that. And space and time are viewable as abstractions from spatiotemporal things and events. If there are any spacetime substantivists out there, we can talk …
dogheaven: Your warning of peril is justifed – Epicurus was basically a materialist theist, though one also thought the gods were irrelevant, except perhaps as role models of the ideal epicurean life.
m.: Except that I would regard laws of logic as like law statements and constraints on any discourse whatever. Which these logical laws are is an interesting question, of course, and a theist/idealist defending some sort of “logic in the platonic realm” owes us an answer as to why the particular laws and not others. Why doesn’t god like paraconsistent von Neumann set theory with urelemente, finite choice, embedded in a ultrafinitist category theory?
Arnosium Upinarum: E=mc^2 says no such thing – it says that mass and energy are interchangable under certain circumstances. See above, to Owlmirror.
Owlmirror: Except that we’re guessing (and by now have a tradition about) how to say YHWH (or rather the Hebrew consonants). And the bean thing (I hadn’t heard it had anything to do with what you said, though) is attributed to the Pythagoreans.