tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post3646551947028345441..comments2023-05-26T01:08:22.886-07:00Comments on The Religion Virus: The Atheist Agenda: Make Christians Defend THEIR ClaimsCraig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-88386608843838831542010-11-26T14:21:28.449-08:002010-11-26T14:21:28.449-08:00A chair would be a collection of carbon atoms on a...A chair would be a collection of carbon atoms on another planet, because it is contingent. 2+2=4 would still be true on another planet. Even if nobody is around to express it, even if nobody is around to count, even if nobody is around to invent squiggly lines, even if nobody is around to invent numerical systems, "2+2=4" is a proposition, which means that it is capable of being true or false, and it would still be true on another planet. You seem to be getting the numerical expression of the underlying proposition mixed up with the proposition itself.<br /><br />The point is that propositions are divided into those that are necessary and those that are contingent, and "things that begin to exist" refers to contingent propositions, and "things that do not begin to exist" refer to necessary propositions. The proposition to which the symbols "2+2=4" refers to is a necessary proposition. It is logically absurd for it to be anything else. We invent the symbols and give them meaning, but we do not invent the underlying mathematical propositions. This is why math is a good universal language to communicate with ETs, should they exist, because it exists "out there", objectively, independently of whether anyone is aware of it or not.<br /><br />There are good objections to Kalam, but disputing basic philosophy is not one of them. In doing this you would be at odds with most philosophers, atheists included.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-88804101115638114732010-11-26T09:06:02.730-08:002010-11-26T09:06:02.730-08:00Martin – I don't see that Atheism.about.com su...Martin – I don't see that Atheism.about.com supports your argument. They're talking about formal logic only.<br /><br />I go back to my original point: There are two different types of truth: Things we all agree on about the physical world ("this tree we are touching exists"), and things that can be proven within a formal logic system. Do two parallel lines never intersect? When geometry was first proposed it seemed obvious that the answer was "no." But then non-Euclidian geometries came along. Why was Euclidian geometry invented first? Because it's the one that best models the world in which we live. But both Euclidian and spherical geometry are nothing more than abstract models that happen to be useful in making calculations about the real world.<br /><br />Atheism.about.com is only talking about formal logic.<br /><br />As René Descartes said: "Don't confuse the map and the terrain."<br /><br />It is highly probably that any sufficiently advanced civilization will reinvent the same formal mathematical systems that we employ, simply because they are useful. In formal logic we say "if A implies B, then not B implies not A". That happens to be useful in real life: "if it's raining, there must be a cloud" implies that "if there is no cloud, then it is not raining." But the formal logic is the map, not the terrain. The rain doesn't care. We <i>invented</i> it the logic because it is useful. 2+2 didn't equal 4 until we created those symbols and created the logical operators "+" and "=". If you had two apples and I had two apples, and we put them together, we would have four apples. It wasn't until we assigned the symbols "2" and "4" to these quantities, and the symbols "+" and "=" to the idea of combining and equivalence, that the idea of summation and equality even existed.<br /><br />It's a subtle but important distinction. Yes, it's true that almost any civilization will invent a formal logic system in which 2+2=4 and "A implies B" means that "not B implies not A." But to say "no philosopher ... would say that logic would not exist without humans" is missing the point. Imagine a universe with no intelligence (it's hard, because the act of imagining puts your intelligence into that universe). There would not even be a <i>concept</i> of formal logic. It wouldn't even exist.<br /><br />If I launched a chair into space and it landed on a planet of ocean-dwelling intelligent jellyfish, would it be a chair when it landed, or would it just be an unusual collection of carbon-based chemicals? It's only a chair because we find that particular arrangement of carbon-based chemicals to be useful. Without us to give it a name, there is no such thing as a chair.<br /><br />It is equally wrong to say that particular symbolic manipulations would exist even when there is no intelligent agent anywhere in the universe.<br /><br />I admit this is a fairly irrelevant topic, but I find it interesting because the idea of model-versus-reality is one of the biggest problems in my "day job," modeling chemistry in a computer. Chemists have adopted the "valence model" of chemistry and often forget that it has serious flaws. They get into all sorts of protracted arguments about things like the "true" definition of aromaticity, and forget that the concept of aromaticity is a human invention to begin with. The electrons in some molecular ring system just happen to share large, distributed orbitals, and that results in certain geometries, and we've classified molecules that exhibit these features as "aromatic." But there is no "aromaticity" in nature, just atoms and electrons and the forces between them. Much time is wasted because chemists have mistaken the map (the valence model of chemistry) for the terrain (the stuff in the test tube).Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-15667285234933319012010-11-26T07:48:28.025-08:002010-11-26T07:48:28.025-08:00Craig,
So before humans existed, 2+2 did not equa...Craig,<br /><br />So before humans existed, 2+2 did not equal 4? What did it equal? 5? 6? I'm not talking about writing it down, or the squiggles that represent it, but the actual proposition itself. Regardless of whether humans exist, or even whether the universe exists, the proposition "2+2=4" has always and will always be true.<br /><br />Necessary/contingent is not some religious thing, but a concept in philosophy. Atheism.about.com says exactly the same thing I just said: http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_contingenttruths.htm<br /><br />No philosopher I know of, atheist or theist, says that logic would not exist without humans. So you seriously think that if humans were not around then the law of identity would be false?Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-3784306658006306792010-11-25T08:56:13.490-08:002010-11-25T08:56:13.490-08:00They are things that man came up with and defined,...They are things that man came up with and defined, they have no inherent existence outside of human conception (or perhaps alien conception if they came up with the same ideas).<br /><br />Try coming up with something that has objective existence outside of the minds of a third party and you might have a point, but I'm sure we all know that you can't do it.<br /><br />This really looks like yet another example of someone who took an introductory philosophy course and now thinks they know everything.Cephushttp://bitchspot.jadedragononline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-55083084115874341302010-11-25T07:20:59.617-08:002010-11-25T07:20:59.617-08:00Mathematical and logical truths are human inventio...Mathematical and logical truths are human inventions. Before humans existed, they didn't exist. The the definition of "truth" to a mathematician is completely separate from the definition of "truth" in regular life. A mathematician defines a set of symbolic manipulations and says and equation is "true" if it can be derived from the system's axioms using the allowed symbolic manipulations. They use the word "true" because it's convenient, just as a physicist uses the word "attract" (which originally had more to do with love) to describe how planets interact via gravitation. Nobody would mistake planetary attraction for romantic attraction. Just so, we shouldn't mistake logical truth for physical truth.<br /><br />Just because an alien civilization might happen to stumble on the same set of symbolic manipulations doesn't mean they "existed." Logical systems and mathematics aren't discovered. They're invented. Without humans (or aliens) with brains, math and logic would have never come into existence.<br /><br />It's a common mistake to confuse our intellectual models of reality for reality itself. Humans have invented all sorts of mental tricks for modeling the behavior of our world. We anthropomorphize things to help us understand animals and weather, and we invent algebra, calculus and formal logic to help us understand the planets, oceans, and computers. But these are human inventions. If humans cease to exist, so will our mathematics and logic.Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-26498838990759338522010-11-25T06:33:45.724-08:002010-11-25T06:33:45.724-08:00Cephus,
Mathematical and logical truths are examp...Cephus,<br /><br />Mathematical and logical truths are examples of propositions that exist necessarily and thus did not begin to exist.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-35600437646324143372010-11-24T08:13:18.441-08:002010-11-24T08:13:18.441-08:00Martin, you can keep linking to all the websites y...Martin, you can keep linking to all the websites you want, you still can't produce a single thing that we can demonstrate actually exists that didn't, at some point, begin to exist. You are proposing something contrary to experience, therefore you need to demonstrate that your claim is actually valid.<br /><br />Let us all know when you manage to do so.Cephushttp://bitchspot.jadedragononline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-65501463175072810542010-11-23T15:59:47.436-08:002010-11-23T15:59:47.436-08:00Any number of chemical interactions can happen wit...Any number of chemical interactions can happen without an independent being causing those chemicals to come into contact with one another. <br /><br />For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, but there is absolutely no evidence to support a third party either initiating or taking pleasure (or any other sort of interest) in this conflict.Dez Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786093691926252698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-4538798874312555812010-11-23T13:51:23.181-08:002010-11-23T13:51:23.181-08:00W L Craig butchers philosophy to attempt to look l...W L Craig butchers philosophy to attempt to look like he speaks from authority. Craig is a fallacy all by himself. Many people have gone through his arguments and dissected what is wrong. The only person Craig fools are theist fools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-41250310002493912032010-11-23T10:38:00.317-08:002010-11-23T10:38:00.317-08:00"would you rather follow what others tell you..."would you rather follow what others tell you are the answers?" <br />tell me, how do you know anything about science. is it because someone told you, or you read a book that gave you answers that you have accepted. to study science, one must still have a degree of faith to believe the words of other. The big bang theory (of which i know little about) seems to be a pretty bold theory as it seems to ask more questions then answers. but then again, the person who can up with that theory was a Catholic priest.Isaacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-74108096470987796412010-11-23T10:33:18.217-08:002010-11-23T10:33:18.217-08:00"We are unaware of anything, including this m..."We are unaware of anything, including this mythical god concept, that didn't begin to exist"<br /><br />Sorry, but you're wrong. There are propositions that are contingent, and propositions that are necessary. The former would be "a rock exists." The latter would be "2+2=4." <br /><br />So mathematical and logical truths are examples of truths that did not begin to exist, but instead exist by the necessity of their own nature.<br /><br />This concept comes from the Principle of Sufficient Reason: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/<br /><br />Kalam supports its premises with much more detailed argumentation than is presented here.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-4345910236212678402010-11-23T09:30:13.411-08:002010-11-23T09:30:13.411-08:00Kalam fails for the following reasons and the thei...Kalam fails for the following reasons and the theists know it. It asserts, without reason, that there's any such thing that didn't begin to exist. In fact, in the earliest versions of the argument, the words "begins to exist" were not present. We are unaware of anything, including this mythical god concept, that didn't begin to exist, therefore inventing an ad hoc exception for this god-concept is absurd. Everything begins to exist at some point, at least everything involved with our particular universe and it's physical laws. Theists simply invent an exception for God which is not logically justifiable. If God can have an exception, why not the universe itself?<br /><br />Contingency is likewise just as absurd. As has already been pointed out, it rests on a single claim which cannot be logically justified. Purpose is irrelevant to existence. A rock exists. What's it's purpose? Asserting that something has an inherent purpose when one cannot be rationally determined is absurd. Purpose from where? Prove that source actually exists.<br /><br />These are the most ridiculous theist arguments, it's pathetic that anyone actually falls for them.Cephushttp://bitchspot.jadedragononline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-55445431773010444752010-11-23T06:51:19.393-08:002010-11-23T06:51:19.393-08:00"So your movie clip proves the existence of g..."So your movie clip proves the existence of god? "<br /><br />Are you being obtuse deliberately? I was responding to your criticism that internal knowledge can't trump external evidence, which is clearly false. Also consider the case of a man innocent of a crime but can't prove it.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-40288191640585116782010-11-23T00:59:03.899-08:002010-11-23T00:59:03.899-08:00Would you rather investigate the important questio...Would you rather investigate the important questions of life as we know it with science, reason and exploration or would you rather follow what others tell you are the answers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-83382586327491531282010-11-22T22:59:37.033-08:002010-11-22T22:59:37.033-08:00So your movie clip proves the existence of god? I ...So your movie clip proves the existence of god? I suppose movies aren't any worse than philosophy when compared to scienceSam Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431137767320819102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-16730622247882884852010-11-22T21:02:46.995-08:002010-11-22T21:02:46.995-08:00"I like the part where he says that even if h..."I like the part where he says that even if his arguments get proven wrong then he's still right because he "knows" the holy spirit is real. Seems like an unfair playing field, don't you think? "<br /><br />See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FbSPXC4btU&feature=relatedMartinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-54352168856328144502010-11-22T20:19:03.852-08:002010-11-22T20:19:03.852-08:00"Which premise of the arguments are you attac..."Which premise of the arguments are you attacking, here?"<br /><br />It would seem Martin's posts are fairly redundant here, and could be easily replaced with a single reference to Reasonable Faith, the intro to which is quite interesting. I like the part where he says that even if his arguments get proven wrong then he's still right because he "knows" the holy spirit is real. Seems like an unfair playing field, don't you think?Sam Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431137767320819102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-63457142696895281252010-11-22T20:03:25.401-08:002010-11-22T20:03:25.401-08:00"These premises you posit have been struck do..."These premises you posit have been struck down over and over and you claim they continue to stand."<br /><br />Not really. All anyone does is throw out irrelevant red herrings or attack me personally or attack the arguments as not being philosophical.<br /><br />It's pretty interesting to observe, actually...Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-88032418683697862622010-11-22T19:47:42.075-08:002010-11-22T19:47:42.075-08:00This thread is reading to me like Richard Dawkins ...This thread is reading to me like Richard Dawkins interview with Wendy Wright. She just keeps saying "but where is the evidence" to which Dawkins responds with a description of the fossil record or molecular biology and she just looks at him with a blank stare and says "but where is the evidence" again.<br /><br />These premises you posit have been struck down over and over and you claim they continue to stand. You seem to claim that no one has even responded to them. I don't understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-3714892816284741652010-11-22T18:49:06.216-08:002010-11-22T18:49:06.216-08:00didn't martin already say that he is an atheis...didn't martin already say that he is an atheist?Isaacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-9133483565644227882010-11-22T18:26:29.958-08:002010-11-22T18:26:29.958-08:00Sam,
"And Martin here is continuing the patt...Sam,<br /><br />"And Martin here is continuing the pattern - attempting to propagate his inherited religion by fear and uncertainty. "<br /><br />Which premise of the arguments are you attacking, here?Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-83014278485095444722010-11-22T17:52:09.458-08:002010-11-22T17:52:09.458-08:00These "philisophical" arguments are bori...These "philisophical" arguments are boring. They take something that is already true (us existing), and put extra conditions on how they came to be, and then assert that it's necessary to believe the conditions because we exist.<br /><br />It's a simple rebuttal - if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to ask such stupid questions. But we do exist, and trying to make assertions based on that is stupid. As Craig has pointed out, atheism is the default position - just saying "I don't know" to all these contrived arguments, and not trying to make a "proof" for a vaguely outlined deity somehow be sufficient motivation to pour your life savings into a society loosely tied to one (out of thousands) god who by definition is inconsistent not only with itself but with the theological definition of god.<br /><br />As pointed out in the religion virus (and slightly more kindly in "breaking the spell"), if you want to infer a cause for anything, the causes behind religion are worth studying, since thousands have come and gone and so patterns can be observed. And Martin here is continuing the pattern - attempting to propagate his inherited religion by fear and uncertainty.Sam Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431137767320819102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-70770942793987048892010-11-22T17:05:46.132-08:002010-11-22T17:05:46.132-08:00"Martin/Issac are using the same apologetic c..."Martin/Issac are using the same apologetic crap as William Lane Craig. It's all mental gymnastics."<br />dont put words in my mouth.<br />i just expressed a simple opinion that "i don't like" and craig had to make it into a personal attack. it seems that a good amount of craig's posts are nothing more then attacks on character, rather then a real argument. any half brained idiot can attack character. and your title "Make Christians Defend THEIR Claims", makes me assume that just like dawkins, you dont even know our arguments; did you ever talk to anyone who knows there faith, i dont mean random people on the internet or people who only go to mass on x-mas, i mean a real religious scholars. or are you going to be like dawkins and say it is a waist of time? Martin clearly shows that he understands the religious side of the argument. atheist are on the offensive all of the time, granted i only met the stupidly militant type who made all atheist look bad to me for years and this is the only intelligent argument i ever seen on the subject.Isaacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-38057296764652372682010-11-22T15:33:36.830-08:002010-11-22T15:33:36.830-08:00Craig, my purpose was to show you that smart theis...Craig, my purpose was to show you that smart theists can and do support their position. I would even go so far as to say that right now, theistic philosophy is highly innovative, and atheistic philosophy is in the doldrums. Listen to debates with William Lane Craig, who uses the arguments I've presented here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392<br /><br />I've listened to about 30 so far, and he mops the floor with his opponents almost every time. And has been doing so for decades. With the SAME five arguments! <br /><br />Ultimately, the topic you explore, religion as a virus, applies to practiced organized religion, a clear invention of humanity, but not so much to metaphysical theories about what's REALLY going on in the universe. Whether that be something or nothing.<br /><br />But it would be a mistake to infer that, because religion has a clear sociological origin, then therefore there is no design or creator. There might be, there might not, but noting that religion is silly will not answer that question...Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-50522772636866869552010-11-22T14:48:27.731-08:002010-11-22T14:48:27.731-08:00For the purposes of this blog, there is no God. A...For the purposes of this blog, there is no God. Although it is an interesting question, it's not what this blog is about. There are plenty of philosophers more qualified than me who are debating this point very nicely. If you want to debate God's existence, that's great. But it's not what I do.<br /><br />My goal is to further the idea of religion-as-memes and how a Darwinistic understanding of culture can give us new insights into why people still believe in ancient religions. In this blog I mainly discuss the sociological / cultural aspects of religion, atheism and evolution. My hope is to help spread and foster the ideas that are embodied in my book (and naturally to thereby increase sales). I stray into other areas, but I have plenty to do with my main thesis and try to keep to that.Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com