Is there a moral argument?

The old ones are the best right?

Still working my way through the usual theist arguments (funny how few of them are actually arguments for the Christian God?)

Tonight’s bit of fun is the ‘moral argument’?

I think this argument comes in various forms, but in it’s simplest it states (straw at the ready) the following:-

Strawman-theist : “Without God, there can be no Absolute Morals”

Well, since it is not me that is asserting that “Absolute morals” exist, this isn’t an argument at all for God or an argument against any position that I hold - so it is dead in the water.

It would be the theist here that is claiming that Absolute morals AND God exists – no argument has been made for either.

Also, it is all about definitions - how the theist defines “Absolute Morals” here I think I might agree there is a requirement for God as a reference point. So by definition “Absolute morals” require a god (not necessarily a Christian God). (The definition of Absolute morals is important, and I will come back to it at the end of my post.)

However since this sounds no better than if I stated “without unicorns, there can be no unicorn horns” – what is the point?

Have I proven either unicorns or their horns with such a statement?

So the argument doesn’t help the theist either way – Neither Absolute morals or God has been proven or shown likely.

Strawman-theist: ”Ah, but without God, you cannot say killing babies for fun is ‘Absolutely’ wrong”

But I never claimed I could say it was absolutely wrong, since to do so would require a law written in stone somewhere as a reference point… and I don’t believe that.

Personally, I think it is morally wrong to kill babies (with or without the fun) but I cannot prove this absolutely. (Why do I need to? We have secular law courts that are more than happy to place anyone in prison who would want to do such a deed. So why the need for absolutes?)

So if the theist wants to provide me the logical proof that shows it is logically absolutely wrong I would like to see it (after all, it is their claim).

No special pleading or appealing to my feelings though - since these are not logical proofs.

As a naturalist I think my feeling that such an act is morally wrong can be explained - biologically and socially.

Strawman-theist : ”Without God you cannot have any morals, so there must be a God”

One of the stranger claims made by a theist was that I cannot have any morals without God, basically they have removed the ‘absolute’ in their specific claim (leaving it hidden within their personal definition of morals hoping I would not notice it)

Since I have never believed in any gods at any time (Does Father Christmas count?) then if I have any idea of what is morally right or wrong (and usually the theist agrees I have some knowledge of morals) the theist is forced (I think) into saying that God created me with a sense of right and wrong.

This begs the question for the Christian why God didn’t give Adam and Eve this knowledge in the first place and stopped all this Original Sin business before it even started – though maybe our theist doesn’t believe in the Gen2 account and lets face it, most people don’t.

The main problem though is that here (and with all the other references to God as the source of morality) is that calling God as the ‘source’/reference point of Absolute morals merely raises the question, could God change His mind on what is right and wrong?

If God can change His mind, then in what sense can they be called “Absolute”?

The question that follows then would be to ask did God have any choice on deciding what is right and wrong?

If God cannot change them can it be said God has no say in them – meaning even IF absolute morals exist, God cannot be the source or cause of them.

So what was my definition of Absolute morals again?

It was that Absolute morals require a god… well, have we just shown that this is false?

Ah, maybe whatever random moral code God happened to fall upon could still be our reference point. However, if they are random, who is it that can say they are absolutely right or wrong? It is just the way they are… up is up, and down is down. This isn't morality.

And did anyone mention the Euthyphro dilemma BTW? Oh yes, I did… over 2,000 years ago the argument was a dead duck.

Oh, and if a man with a large stick told you not to do something or he would smash your head in... if you followed that order, could it be said to be a moral choice? Any Christian reading this believe in Hell by any chance?

OK, I will end here with this post being incomplete (lets call this post “Part I”)

More can and will be written on this subject – but this will do as a starter, but I feel I have created enough strawmen arguments and require some specific objections from theists.

The next time a theist throws the moral argument at me (and if I have time) I will create “Part II” of this exciting ‘must read’ series.

I suspect it will not be long…

Lee
Read More......

How (not) to talk to an atheist

Dinesh D’Souza did a lecture (somewhere in time) on how he thinks a Christian should talk to an atheist.

I found the mp3 over here if anyone wishes to go through it

I have listened to the 45 min lecture and I can confirm this is not how you speak to an atheist… well, not if you don’t want them to roll up their eyes and say “oh no – not again”

The ‘best’ thing about Dinesh is his insult humour, but when has insulting been a way to talk to anyone to ‘win them over’?

Dinesh either insults a person directly “this is what happens when you let a biologist out of a lab” or merely uses underhand weasel words and 'poising of the well' methods, such as “atheism wishes to attack religion” (I thought we only question religion, but there you go :-)

No matter – I can look past that, it’s his arguments that should be of interest.

But I didn’t hear any good ones… just the usual old hat stuff.

If I missed the new ‘killer argument’, anyone here feel free to repeat it.
(I do recall in the last minute of the lecture he wishes that Christian had such an argument… shame, I guess he ran out of time)

I did find it amusing that Dinesh accused atheists of over using the classic “God of the gaps” point - and then went on (in the very next section of his speech) to use the “God of the gaps” fallacy with the so-called “fine-tuning argument”.

“Science cannot answer this, so it must be God”

Does this man actually listen/read his own arguments?

I also like how Dinesh just dismisses the consequences of evolution to his religious belief in the Christian God, ignores it, and places all his eggs in the basket of this fine tuning argument.

No comment in this lecture whether Dinesh accepts evolution or not (though, of course I can guess). Just ignore the problem, that is the ticket.

Also, if anyone feels the desire to listen to this lecture, can they please point out where in this 45 min talk Dinesh presented any evidence or reason for his claim that Christianity is ‘true’?

Surely there must have been something, but I cannot for the life in me remember it.

I remember a lot of “I cannot explain A, therefore B” but we all know that is a logical fallacy.

Dinesh did slip in the “first cause argument” claiming that the Big Bang ‘proved’ the bible… sorry mate, only if you ignore everything after “In the beginning”. Problem though if you do that, any story that starts “Once upon a time…” would have equal predictive power.

Actually, since without time the word “beginning” makes no sense, maybe “once upon a time” makes MORE sense that the bible version. (Is my son reading religious texts now?)

Oh, one last piece of humour I can remember… Dinesh states he could understand why someone would invent the idea of Heaven, but not Hell. (This is in response to the atheist argument that theists are just “wishful thinkers”)

Then, straight after goes onto to explain why he personally requires Hell in his world view. (which was so bad people, if not punished in this life, can be punished in the next)

You could not make this stuff up.

Tip: How to talk to an atheist?

Be consistent with your arguments, do not ignore the facts, present evidence to back up your claims – do not try to shift the burden of proof.

Simple really… I didn’t need 45 mins either :-)

One last comment, Dinesh tries to claim that science is ‘faith-based’… this could be argued, but all I really need to say is that science has been proven to work in this world, in our lifetimes. “Science works bitches”

Religion? I would like to see someone try to prove their religion (and not merely ask me to disprove it)

Lee
Read More......

Why bother? What is the point?

I was asked a rather good question by SteveC on my last post, which in short asked “Why bother with all this God talk?” (My words, check out the full question via this link)

Short question, but it requires a long answer (and one I suspect that will never be complete)

But here goes.

It is a good question…I suppose the honest answer is I enjoy the discussion.

But you might as well ask “Why do people watch football? After all, they are only 22 men kicking a ball around, trying to get it into a net – what is the point?”

It’s a bit of fun for me and while I have been having these discussions I have learnt a lot more about logic, philosophy, history and science. Not only that, I have come to know some rather intelligent and friendly folk via the intertubes - so for me, it has all been worth while.

Also (and this is the bit SteveC and other Christians will find funny) I honestly believe that this is an important subject.

If the Christian is correct, it is the most fundamental question. So the Christian really should not be surprised at my interest. (I’ve also had this interest since my teens, I doubt it will be going away)

Now about the question on my ‘reason for trying to persuade others’… I’m not, I am only trying to persuade myself. (So that ends that)

However I see this type of question as flawed – it is like asking “Why does a teacher, teach?”

I nearly became a physics teacher (well, I did start the course at Uni – but I stopped, long story which I have said too many times before)

So why on Earth did I want to teach physics to children I do not know? Crazy question right?

This is what it seems I am being asked here - it is “Why would you want to teach that the arguments for the Christian God are flawed?”

Well, if I am right and they are flawed – shouldn’t people be taught this? And if I am wrong, shouldn’t I be taught this?

Simple really.

Then there was the important point made by SteveC which stated “I would just be glad I figured it out and pitty the suckers who haven't. If Christians are that gullible, then thats their problem”

A few things to be said here…

Firstly, if I said “Well, a fool and his money are soon departed – if that person who bought the faulty car are gullible, that’s their problem” – I could not think of myself as a good person.

Maybe because I was raised in the UK, but I think people should be protected from miracle cure snake-oil sellers, get-rich-quick marketers and other conmen.

No one can be an expert on every subject, know every trick in the book – so some people need a little help. To say “Tough luck suckers” just does not seem, well, moral.

Secondly, Christians vote – and their beliefs form their actions (and it has been said that sometimes they vote based on what they are told from the pulpit - crazy I know)

If their beliefs are faulty (just saying ‘if’ here) then they actions could be faulty also - if based on faulty beliefs.

So lastly (as already hinted) I do ‘pitty the suckers’ – how this Christian belief can and has screwed up many an otherwise fine person.

A good example of this can be found on Jonathan’s blog post “babies in Hell”. There an otherwise seemingly nice, polite and caring person has had their morals screwed up because of the Christian belief in Hell.

There is probably more to be said on this question – that will do for one evening.

Thanks SteveC for a great question, hope I have provided some clues to why I bother.

Lee
Read More......

Would you die for a lie?

I listened to a few more debates between theist and atheist these past weeks, in the debates the theist casually mentioned “Well, would you die for a lie?” – and seemingly thought this was irrefutable argument for his claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

In each debate the atheist ignored the comment (time is limited I suppose) and it is a stupid argument anyway – why credit it with a response when time is short?

I rather they did not ignore such a silly argument.

The ‘argument’ "would you die for a lie" (Die for Lie or D4L as I will now refer to it), as I understand it goes something like this

1. There were first hand eye witnesses who knew Jesus, saw the miracles, knew Jesus’ message, saw the crucifixion, saw the resurrection – they had first-hand experience of all the events and where killed for their preaching on Jesus.

2. They had the opportunity to ‘recant’ their belief/preaching on the resurrection which would have spared their life.

3. They chose to die for their belief in the resurrection.

Now anyone else see a few problems with this argument?


First off the bat is that I am at best only aware of stories of people who were reported to be first hand eyewitnesses, and said to have died for their belief in Jesus and the resurrection.

I have no idea if these stories are true – so I actually have very little to refute. The Christian "still has all their work ahead of them". Once again the Christian makes a claim, and the burden of proof is for them to back it up. Shall I hold my breath?

Really the argument should stop here... the Christian needs to provide good evidence for their claims first, what do they have to support their claims that the disciples really did die for their belief (which they knew to be true)?

However, let’s be charitable (since I want to put the boot into this argument and kill it as well as I can.)

Let’s grant for a moment that we can trust the historical documents and claims that we have for these “death of martyrs” to be true accounts.

This means I have to assume Jesus existed, died on the cross, got resurrected after 3 days, all this was witnessed first hand by people who later were put on trial for the crime of preaching about the resurrection of Jesus AND if they denied that Jesus was the risen Lord would NOT be executed and be free to go and that all these events were recorded without error or embellishment and past down through history complete and unchanged.

OR maybe

Assume Jesus existed, died on the cross, got resurrected after 3 days, all this was witnessed first hand by people WHO KNEW FOR CERTAIN that if their preached about Jesus being the risen Lord would be executed.

Yeah, why not – could happen right? Erm...

I am granting a LOT I feel, but I still feel the argument by the Christian is weak (even after me granting all that I have)

OK – on to the ‘attack’

The argument as stated means I cannot merely point out that there are many examples of people dying for a lie (that the Christian will agree are lies) – like the suicide bombers who fly planes into buildings. The Christian making this D4L argument would agree that these Muslims were dying for a lie BUT that they would say that the terrorist didn’t realise it was a lie (they have been brainwashed into thinking it was a true course), so it isn’t really the same thing.

I am not convinced myself of the Christian rebuttal.

My example does show that people are prepared to die for what they believe IN – but I will grant them that these suicide bombers do not “know” for certain that their beliefs are true (they just think it). Unlike our (hypothetical) first hand eyewitness folk we are discussing (and of course, the early Christian disciples were not brainwashed in anyway?)

So I feel I have only dented the D4L argument here, but not given the knockout punch.

So let me think of some simple examples where someone could “die for a lie”.

Suppose, “back in the day”, I was minding my own business in Jerusalem around AD30-ish for a moment.

Someone tells the Romans that they have seen me preaching about the “resurrected Jesus”. I know it isn’t true, I know it is a lie – but they torture me... thinking they will let me go if I confess, I confess to whatever they ask - that I have been preaching about the resurrected Jesus. The Roman’s kill me anyway, since I did confess. I knew it was a lie, and I died for it.

Similar, I might have ‘known’ that the Romans were going to kill me one way or the other so I confess that “Jesus has risen” to shorten the torturing. It is still a lie, and I’ve died for it.

Another more interesting option is if a Roman knocks on my door saying “We know someone here has been preaching Jesus is the risen lord... is it you?” I know it isn’t me, but I also know it was my son. Rather than handing my son over to the Romans, I confess it was me (a lie) and I die for it.

The above examples all seem that “dying for a lie” is all rather too easy, we probably can think of more.

Does this now prove the D4L argument is flawed?

The Christian (rightly?) can say that none of my examples fit the disciple case precisely – there is still a get-out.

I will agree for sake of argument.

In none of the above examples was I actually preaching “Jesus is the risen lord”.

OK, how about this... a preacher in AD30-ish IS preaching that “Jesus is the risen lord”, and (importantly) this preacher knows he is making it up. (Like our Muslim friends who flew a plane into a building, maybe he thinks it is true, but that is not important. Lets just say the preacher just thinks the money and hours are good for such preaching, and that he believes this ‘little lie’ will help make his followers ‘better people’ – who knows.)

Now our preacher has a small following – people will follow anything...

The Romans arrest our preacher-boy, his small following see him die at the hands of the Romans – does this mean our preacher died for a lie?

I think so - and this example is pretty close to what the Christian is claiming could not happen. Someone dying for a lie.

The key here is our preacher-friend might not have known (for certain) that he would die.

The Christian who uses the argument “who would die for a lie” has to show how my example could not possibly happen.

It at least seems likely, more likely then the miracle claims. It is more ‘historically likely’ than a miracle.

For the Christian to say my preacher-boy did not “die for a lie” would have to prove how they know that the Romans would NOT have killed our preacher friend if he denied and repented his crime. (The Christian will have to provide evidence that Romans have a habit of letting criminals off such charges against the state)

Or how our preacher knew for certain that he would be killed for his preachers (he might just have thought he could “get away with it”)

Our preacher has no more ‘died for a lie’ then a criminal in the middle ages caught stealing sheep. Rightly or wrongly – the penalty then was ‘death’ for such a crime. The preacher, like the thief, probably just thought they could get away with it. So in this example, the preacher really did “die for a lie” – even if he wasn’t very happy about it.

So that’s it... people lie, and they might not mean to die for it.

But, But, But... I hear our Christian friends cry.

Why would they preach a lie if they know they were going to die for it?

Firstly, did they truly know that they would die? (This is a strong objection that I have)

Also, as I pointed out, maybe they thought “a little white lie” was OK, it drew in the crowds. Perhaps they believed it was for the ‘greater good’? (None of these are ‘amazing claims’ on my part, more likely than the Christian claim.)

Maybe they just started to believe their own lies (suicide cult leaders could be examples of this)

Thirdly, maybe they just wanted the attention - aren’t there examples of people stepping forward claiming that they committed a crime, which at the time (or place) carried a death penalty?

Do I need to do some more research? I’m tipping it will not take much looking – some people will claim almost anything for a little attention, call it a mental illness if you like.

So Mr Christian debater type person, stop using this argument – its nonsense and insulting.

Lee
Read More......

Should I go?

I just today heard about this little thing : "The 2010 Global Atheist Convention Melbourne, Australia"

I wonder if the wife will let me go?

Lee Read More......

Pascal’s Wager (I would not bet on it.)

I’m getting bored of the usual ‘arguments’ from the theist to ‘prove’ their claims.

So, when they can’t prove their claims – threats seems to follow.

The stupidest(?) is the one we all know and love as “Pascal’s Wager”.

It’s a joke and I do not know why some theists throw it around (in its many forms)

Do I need to spell it out? Lets keep it simple, it goes something like this:

By not believing in God, the best thing I could ‘hope’ for after death is a whole lot of nothing. The worst is red hot pokers... (a threat?)

So, why not believe in God – the best that can happen is Heaven, the worst (according to the theist normally using this argument) is that God does not exist and both atheist and theist will have a whole lot of nothing.

So atheism is ‘lose-lose’ (according to these theists) and theism has a hope (dream) of an afterlife.

What nonsense... probably the result of ‘binary thinking’ (either right or wrong without any grey)

The theist here is assuming that either their belief in God is right or there is no God.

They have not considered their belief is the wrong one (funny that.) With so many different Muslims and Christians in the world, they cannot all possibly be wrong? No, wait a minute... that’s not right.

Neither has the theist considered that God, if She exists, will not reward honest reasoning and doubt, and punish blind faith – so by taking this bet they are in fact condemning themselves to red hot pokers according to my anti-Pascal bet :-)

Another assumption is that their God is stupid enough not to notice that the only ‘reason’ that someone is maintaining their belief (if we follow Pascal’s wager to it natural conclusions) is to trick God into letting them into heaven.

Isn’t that theologically insulting?

“My God is so stupid that if you pretend to believe, go through the motions and all that, He will never notice that “in your heart” you do not truly believe and let you into heaven anyway. It isn’t about what you truly believe it’s just how many crackers you eat at mass that count”

So far – Pascal’s Wager is a silly bet.

Finally(?) any God that rewards blind faith, and punishes honest reasoning and doubt is a cruel God - one that cannot be trusted to be ‘fair and just’ (Erm... not the God the Christians claim to believe in).

Also what the theist is not considering is the price they are paying for believing in their God and afterlife

Beliefs form/guide our actions... belief in God does has a price in this world – with no evidence of any reward in the next.

Until the Christian (who uses Pascal’s wager) proves to me that there isn’t a God that rewards honest reasoning and doubt (and here I am even conceding the proving God part) – I feel rather safe in my position.

At least the God I do not believe in is a ‘kind and just’ God unlike the “stupid and cruel” God of Pascal’s Wager

Lee
Read More......

God hit by $160m loss on financial markets...

God quoted as saying in the Daily Scum - “I just didn’t see it coming... this Global Financial Crisis just came at me from out of the blue - from nowhere. Sorry everyone”


We shouldn’t laugh, so I will not – this is a serious story of the Anglican Church’s Sydney dioceses losing $160 million for the year ending Dec 2008.

People will be losing their jobs, and probably houses, as the result of this muck-up.

Its crap... these things happen when people get greedy (or naïve) on the stock market I guess.



One of my favourite quotes from another article is:

“Peter Jensen confessed yesterday to being grief-stricken by the size of the diocese's $160 million financial loss and called on his faithful not be panicked or paralysed by the money crisis but to turn to God in ''active faith''.”

Yeah... turn to God, that’s the ticket – it isn’t God’s fault they lost $160 million, they just were not being active enough in their faith.

And who needs money when you have faith to fill your belly and put a roof over your head?

However, lets leave the best quote for last – we all saw this quote coming a mile away...

“He also posed the question of whether the losses were God's punishment. ''It may not be our sins at all - it may be that the Lord is simply seeking to test us.''”

What kind of test is it when ANY outcome is evidence for your preconceived beliefs?

Lee
Read More......

Heaven and Hell?

The heaven and hell question is an interesting one – and I wonder what it is the Christian truly believes.

I believe if we think about it, it causes problems (maybe even contradictions) for the Christian God as He is usually defined (Erm... Defined? Anyone seen a positive definition?).

Firstly off the bat, if God is said to be all-loving – how can He allow Hell?
(A place where people will suffer ultimate pain for the crime of what? For just not believing in God?)

If the Christian doesn’t believe in Hell, then fine (not all do) – but on what grounds can Hell be rejected and Heaven accepted?

A little backstep first: I was once shown a passage in the OT (from a Jehovah Witness who every week now knocks on my door – I bet Earthquakes come up in our next discussion.).

Anyway, the last time we spoke on the topic he stated that when we die we are just dead bodies in the ground, ‘asleep’ waiting... knowing nothing.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2

No heaven or hell mentioned here... there was another passage regarding the knowledge part, but I cannot remember it. (Feel free to quote the bible at me)

At the time, I didn’t have a reply other than “And that business with the talk of hell and the teeth and the burning means what precisely?”

I couldn’t think of a book, chapter or verse to challenge him at the time – just general comments.

Now I would try Revelation 20… next time

This chapter seems to imply that if the Dan 12:2 is true that God decides to resurrect all the once dead people sleeping as dust in the ground (who know nothing, no suffering, no knowledge, no nothing - it is really an atheist idea of death at this point)

God awakens/resurrects these people, who were just dust remember, implants back their memory, senses and feeling and stuff – for what? - so he can judge them...

God judges “every man according to their works” (not faith in Jesus?) and the ones that fail God’s test receive a “second death” when they get the pleasure of being cast into the “lake of fire” for a little bit more suffering.

Death it seems really was too good for these people according to God and the bible.

Nice God... why didn’t God just leave the dead in the ground?

Why resurrect them only to kill them in a nasty way?

As the saying goes... “God only knows” - Makes you think?

Sorry, was I arguing about Heaven and Hell – not asking if God is a nasty twisted bully boy.

Secondly (Ah yes, back on track now), why trust/believe that God would or even could create a Heaven in a first place?

The argument goes like this... the “problem of unnecessary/excessive suffering” (or to some, the “problem of evil” but I find evil confuses the Christian since they tell me that without God I have no objective reference – nonsense I know, and I will show this I hope)

I will not expand on the argument to much here, since I will assume everyone already knows it rather well.

I will accept that some suffering is required since it is the excessive suffering that I am challenging. If excessive suffering can be shown to exist, I think the Christian has a problem and reason to doubt the usual definition of the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God.

Ah, but freewill requires suffering I hear the Christian cry – it is a ‘necessary evil’ then to have all this ‘unnecessary/excessive suffering’ so we can have the joy of freewill.
(Now did we have a choice in any of this? Sorry... silly joke)

The argument from the Christian goes something like God could not create a world without suffering that also allows freewill – freewill to love God (‘Come to God’ or whatever the phrase is these days)

Questions for the Christian:

In heaven is there any excessive suffering?
In heaven will you have freewill?
Is heaven a possible world?

If there is excessive suffering in heaven, then this isn’t a heaven by any definition I know.

If there is no freewill in Heaven, could this still be called Heaven since wouldn’t we be just a robot of sorts in a Heaven without freewill?
(And freewill that the Christian states is so important and is the reason why we have excessive suffering in the first place – to lose our freewill in heaven means I will no longer be ‘me’ – right?)

If there is freewill in heaven, and there is no excessive suffering in heaven - then by the Christian thought process and belief - it is possible for God to create a world without excessive suffering and we still can have freewill.

This is what the Christian believes... isn’t it?
(Anyone please correct me if I am making a fool of myself. Never been a Christian, so I am just guessing.)

Now we come back to Earth.

If Heaven is a possible world (defined here as a place with freewill and without excessive suffering) then why does God chose for us to have excessive suffering here on Earth?

Something is wrong in the definition of God being all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving.

Ah, the Christian replies... What is ‘unnecessary/excessive suffering’, how can I, a mere mortal, know what is necessary suffering or not? Or when suffering is excessive or not. Am I a God? (And I bet – “to what standard do I measure evil” will come up as well)

My reply to this would merely be ask the Christian to read the newspaper more, watch the TV news – look into the eyes of the young child dieing due to some nasty painful cancer, tell me what is necessary about that?

How about the school that collapses because of an earthquake, trapping and slowing killing the children inside. What is necessary about that?

True, some excessive suffering is committed by mankind – but not all of it, the examples I provided are not in man’s control.

The point here would be for the Christian to say that there is no ‘unnecessary suffering’ in the world they really have to have a twisted and warped view of pain and suffering that is caused naturally – not influenced by man, but caused ultimately by God (if you believe that sort of thing)

Is that the price of faith and belief in the Christian God?

Can’t we just say that the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God just goes against everything we observe?

Passing the buck and saying “God knows” or “God has a purpose, we just do not know it” is not providing any reason why such excessive suffering seen in the world is required.

If we, as a human race, cannot see or understand the purpose of the observed excessive suffering then by definition for is no necessity for it – no purpose for it. It is not required.

Therefore, I see no reason to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God... I see no reason to believe in Heaven.

This does not rule out all versions of gods or even Hell...

An all-evil, all-powerful and all-knowing God could be possible – but then we will have the ‘problem of Good’

Lee
PS
Just thought - one last(?)objection I have heard from the Christian, it is this - God requires the amount of suffering in the world to maximise the greatest number of people that will follow/love God and get into heaven.

I cannot quite understand the logic here myself – if a dictator wanted the greatest number of followers, he could (like Hitler and Stalin) cause a lot of unnecessary suffering, they might get a lot of followers (as they did), not sure if anyone would call Hitler or Stalin all-loving? Maybe if they tried a little harder they could be like God :-)
Read More......

The transcendental argument for the existence of God

TAG it :-)

The “transcendental argument for the existence of God” (or TAG to its friends) is an argument that comes up every so often from the theist.

I’ve always planned to one day write a post on the topic – I am trying to have my thoughts to all the usual arguments for the existence of God up on my blog so I do not have to keep repeating myself (it will never happen I know)

TAG is a strange one, and for someone without training in the fine art of philosophy it will be a difficult post for me to write about.

So... until that dark day when I actually get to write about TAG – I thought I would “cut and paste” a response I gave to a theist who threw a version of the TAG argument at me on the “Premier Christian” forum just the other day. (Follow the link and you might see a response – and be able to see the original comment from our theist friend)

This will be my usual “line by line” response, so it is a long one.

I will add a summary here for those who wish to skip to the conclusion:-

TAG is bollocks...

To expand on my summary a little...

Either the laws of logic are dependent on God (which is the claim from the theist when they use TAG) which means the laws of logic can be changed by God, which in turns means they are not in fact laws. There will be no “uniform laws of logic” in this case.

However the claim from TAG is that there are “uniform laws of logic” which I am suppose to require God to explain.

Seems we have a bit of a contradiction going on :-)

Read on if you dare!!!!

Feel free to correct my woolly thinking – as I say, I’m no philosopher and so am just making it up as I go along.

+++++++++++++++++++

Hi Todd,

OK, I’ve got more time now; sorry that you feel I provided a ‘non-answer’ earlier – though how you have framed your question/demand, I am surprised you even allow me to use the English Language to rebut your claim.

It is almost laughable... almost.

Now, I’m no philosopher but I can smell a bad argument even if I cannot name the fallacy being used – and what you have done smells awful.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on philosophy can point out precisely where you are going wrong (and which dead philosopher first stated the objection) – I will just sketch around your comment the best I can and have some fun in the process.

The proof of God’s existence is that without Him, you could prove nothing

Change word, and re-state claim.

“The proof of the invisible blue unicorn is that without Him, you prove nothing”

Well, can you? I know I can’t, and deep down inside you truly know it to – you just need to open your heart to the possibility, and I feel at the moment you are closed minded on the subject, to the wonders that are offered by the invisible blue unicorn :-)

OK, your first claim is nonsense as I think I have demonstrated by analogy. It is just an empty assertion and seems to be usual circular logic. You assume God, therefore there is a God.

I will now change your use of “God” to the phrase “invisible blue unicorn” since they both make as much sense to me and it will make my response a little more colourful (and invisible)

”Try objectively proving anything without presupposing our invisible blue unicorn, THE Author of creation, space, time, energy, life, reason, rationale, logic, goodness,

Another empty assertion...

You mentioned “goodness”, so where has all the “non-goodness” come from?

Did this just ‘create’ itself? :-)

Or perhaps you do not feel there is any ‘non-goodness’ in the universe, if so – to what is the label ‘goodness’ describing if everything is ‘good’? It will be a redundant label.

And how do you distinguish ‘good’ without knowledge of ‘non-good’?

Lastly, if your God created ‘non-good’, how can this God be said to be ‘all-good’... or isn’t that the Christian claim?

I will expand further on your claim of logic later... (just trying to keep you interested in reading on)

"science, math and the uniformity of nature.”

Interesting thing here... science assumes that the laws of nature do not change, the ‘uniformity of nature’ as you put it.

However the Christian believes in miracles – these would be examples of the laws of nature being broken for a moment in space-time, and evidence for the non-uniformity of nature. Would it not?

If your assertion is true, then miracles do not happen (and the bible claims of miracles are false)

So which is it my friend?

Oh, and if miracles do not happen, then everything is natural isn’t it – no God or the supernatural?

”You can’t even argue for disbelief in the invisible blue unicorn without already taken Him for granted. Ironic, isn’t it – the invisible blue unicorn lends you the mind and reason to argue against His existence.”

Nothing here to get my teeth into...

Though it is funny that you believe that your god provided us the “mind and reason” to disbelieve in Him.

Maybe that is the ultimate test from god? To get into heaven, we have to reason that God and heaven do not existence (or at least highly unlikely – since of course, we cannot prove anything 100% according to the invisible blue unicorn)

Maybe the test from God is that we must not believe the impossible on blind faith.

Now, how do you wish to go about proving me wrong on that? How do you like THAT version Pascal’s Wager?

When you respond, please account for all of the above.

Until you prove to me it isn’t all down to the invisible blue unicorn, I think I can just ignore your claims and assertions here... however, I enjoy the sport of debate and discussion, so if you do not mind, I will continue...

However, the rules are that you can’t argue from home plate without first getting up to bat, swinging at the ball, connecting, and passing through the bases of:

How American... it just isn’t cricket old boy :-)

‘Who’ (Who is YOUR ultimate source of authority specific to facts and reason?)

The universe?

Or do you think I require a person for my authority? If so, where does that person get their ‘ultimate authority’ from? Their big brother? Laughable...

So have you shown there is an “ultimate source of authority” or a requirement for it

‘How’ (How do we know or understand YOUR source and reasoning to be valid?)

I test, re-test, and re-test again and compare these tests results to reality...

Of course, I realise this could all be a computer simulation and I might be a ‘brain in a jar’ in some mad scientist’s lab – however, I have been provided no reason to believe that, so I just go on as if I am not a ‘brain in a jar’ in some mad scientist’s lab. (As you do – we are agreed on this point)

This seems reasonable; this seems to require the fewest unknown assumptions.

I could be right, I could be wrong... I do not claim any absolute knowledge – that is for the theists to claim (but can you back it up)

‘What’ (What is YOUR standard or test by which to prove or disprove anything?)

That it works in this world? I know, crazy talk – next I will be saying that with such methods we could put a man on the moon.

But what are my ‘standards’ – my requirements?

That predictions made can be falsified.

That these predictions are shown to be (tentatively) true – repeatedly.

‘Why’ (Why do YOU trust your foundation of facts and why should we believe them?),

I trust them only in so far as they have yet been shown to be false (which you are free to try and do).

Why should you believe them? You don’t have to... you can, if you chose, believe you are that ‘brain in the jar’ and you are part of a computer simulation – and nothing else is real.

You can, if you chose, believe that the invisible blue unicorn is whispering in your ear right now... I chose not to believe that.

How about you?

‘Where’ (Where do YOU receive your philosophy of facts)

Erm... I get my philosophy from philosophy?

I also get my science from science in case you are wondering. :-)

Your use of the word ‘receive’ is interesting... it is almost as if you are saying that we are not able to think for ourselves. That I am unable to think that “A” cannot be “not-A” at the same time?

No wait, you want to claim that this fact of “A” not being “not-A” is because of the invisible blue unicorn – silly me.

Without the invisible blue unicorn it would be, of course, possible to have “A” and “not-A” being the same thing at the same time.

‘When’ (When did you commit to your ultimate source and philosophy?).

What ultimate source? What ultimate philosophy?

Look at the back of the room I am sure there is a strawman there (I am just typing this scenario into my supercomputer now so your brain that is in the jar on my shelf thinks this strawman exists) – now go and take a few punches at this strawman if makes you happy. Off you go...

By the way, when answering, bring your own bat, ball and bases. You can’t borrow mine

Are these the invisible blue bat and balls that the invisible blue unicorn provided so I can have purpose in my life?

Also, I always tell my sons that they should share – it is the nice thing to do, I guess you have not been able to work this out for yourself yet :-)

The Uniform Laws of Logic

Now we are at the meat and gravy.

I’ve asked you a question on this logic and reasoning already – not had chance to see if you have replied.

To repeat it here in a little more detail...

Could your God make “A” be “not-A” or a square-circle or Pi to be anything other that the irrational number that it is?

If your God cannot change the laws of logic, how can you claim that your God created the laws of logic (it would seem that He confined by them if He cannot change them.).

If the laws of logic cannot be anything other than what they are – why do we need to assert that a God is required for them? God would not be required if they are not dependent on God – Asserting God would provide no additional benefit.
(Sounds a bit like the Euthyphro dilemma on the topic of morals... the old ones are always the best)

In summary(?)
Either the laws of logic are dependent on God (which was your claim) which means the laws of logic can be changed, which in turns means they are not in fact laws. There can be no “uniform laws of logic”

Or, there are “uniform laws of logic” (which was also your claim) which means they are not dependent on God.

Seems we have a bit of a contradiction going on – care to explain?

(these laws don’t exist in a naturalistic material world of random matter in motion

“Random matter in motion”... how belittling your worldview is.

I hope you never lose your belief in God my friend – for your sake.

you can’t empirically taste, touch, see, hear or smell logic and reason

Same for numbers I suppose... so what is your point? I cannot figure it out :-)

so please don’t use them within your response.

Well, as you can see – I’ve only used the written form of the English Language (poorly) to rebut your assertions.
(With a little help from science that helped build our PC’s and internet connections...)

Next you will be telling me that English is “God’s own language”... why not, you have claimed everything else without reason or justification.

From now on, I am going to think of Jesus talking in a scouse accent.

Sorry, but it’s your worldview – I’m just holding you accountable to it).

Sorry, what is my worldview again?

I do not believe in your God... how could I – you have not defined Him. What little you have said either makes no sense or is just a blind assertion.

How do I know that your God isn’t in fact the invisible blue unicorn or just the universe? How to I distinguish between a non-existent God and your particular flavour of God?

Bottom-line, we must account for “on what basis?” do we hold to our intellectual reasons about facts?

And the assertion of the invisible blue unicorn provides that for you does it?

Sorry, God – my mistake, so hard to tell blind assertions apart sometimes when you do not detailed your definition of God.

That should be enough for you for one night, I look forward to your reply...

And please make it better than “You used the English Language, God invented that, without God you cannot have the English Language, or England, or anything - so you have to invent your own language and country and I cannot hear you anyway, God invented sound as well – nar nar na nar nar – not listening, not listening.”

Of course you would want to engage in a good discussion, and not playground humour (of which I have loads if you prefer that) :-)

Take care

Lee
Read More......

The Fermi Paradox (or why no one wants to play with us)

I like the Fermi Paradox – it’s a fun thing to play with, but it is only a toy – no conclusions should be made from it in my opinion.

OK, first things first – not everyone will be as sad as me and just ‘know’ what the Fermi Paradox is. So here, in brief, is the outline.

“Where are all the aliens?”

Oops, that’s the conclusion, I am supposed to start with the reasoning/logic first which is thus:

1. Space is big – Fact

2. Space is old – Fact

3. Life on Earth is perfectly natural and requires no intervention from gods – Fact (even if you don’t believe this, just assume it for this argument)

4. Intelligent life exists who want/need to explore their surroundings – Fact (Probably – we can debate if humans are intelligent I suppose)

So – given that space is big and old, IF intelligent life is “out there” in the galaxy, it should have had plenty of time to colonise the whole galaxy by now. (Trust me, do the maths and it shows it will probably only take a few millions years to colonise the whole galaxy even with the technology we have today – and this length of time is peanuts to the age of the galaxy)

Back to the conclusion – “So where are all the aliens?”

That’s the paradox, the puzzle – we do not see any of these advanced aliens colonising the galaxy and we should – if the argument outlined above is true.

What has gone wrong with our argument?

Now Jonathan and I have found a nice Christian forum with a nice Christian chap who uses this argument as evidence for the existence of God. (I guess he believes it disproves point 3 in our argument above)

I think this is ‘crazy talk’, and the ‘obvious’ answer to why no aliens have visited us is that the “Federation of planets” have decreed that the Earth should remained ‘untouched’ and ‘uninfluenced’ by outside forces until the species on our planet has shown enough intelligence to understand that there are no gods and the answer really is 42.

Simple really... prove me wrong :-)

As I said, the Fermi paradox is a nice puzzle, it can raise interesting discussions (if you are a sad Sci-Fi trekkie like me) – but to draw any firm conclusions from it is just silly in my view. (It’s a bit like the Drake equation in reverse I suppose)

I can think of many more ‘solutions’ to the Fermi Paradox – some will be just silly and can be placed under ‘conspiracy nutjob’ as I just provided.

Some will be based more on ‘common sense’ and ‘experience’ (i.e. why would a race of beings want to colonise the galaxy, it is a lot of hard word for little gain to yourself.)

ALL will be better than jumping to the conclusion that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God created the universe is the reason why we see no other aliens. (After all, why would God only create one planet with intelligent life in such a large and old universe?)

So I am curious why (at least one) Christian thinks it is evidence for God...

No idea
Read More......

Taking my eldest to church...

Well, yesterday I ‘finally’ took my eldest son to church
(Not 100% true - he’s been before when only 1, so didn’t know what was happening then – yesterday was the first time he could understand the spoken word – so to speak)

Anyhow, I thought I would share the ‘highlights’

Back story first... why the hell was I going to church?

It was my nephew’s confirmation(?) (something to do with eating from a dead rotting corpse and washing it down with the blood of a virgin for the first time I think – it’s a Catholic thing, I don’t know)

Maybe more surprisingly to some is that I am my nephew’s ‘Godfather’ - so I thought I should attend and dragged my son along for the ride...
(How many Catholics can say they have an atheist Godfather? I told my sister this when she asked me to be a Godparent all those years ago, she said it wasn’t important that I wasn’t a Catholic or living 10,000 miles away at the time – not sure if she checked this all with the priest. Maybe she only told the priest half the story, the priest didn’t seem to mind I was in another country at least)

Anyway, what did my son think of church?

Not sure, for him it was just a building with a lot of people in it I think.

He did get into the spirit of singing, and it was lamb related - at one point I could hear him sing “baa baa black sheep” – bless :-)

I couldn’t bring myself to sing... the songs are just so dull (apart from baa baa black sheep of course).

So, what did I learn from the priest?

Not much, but it is funny hearing a priest with a strong Aussie accent say “Jesus is my mate”.

It had to do with some weird story/parable/fable/nonsense about what would people say if they were surveyed with the question at the local shopping centre: “Who do you think Jesus is/was?”

I also got to hear some ‘reasoning’ about why Jesus told Peter/Satan to ‘get behind him’

Couldn’t understand it – but there you go.

I suppose lastly, the bit I found the funniest (with my dark humour) – is when the priest said he knew, due to the confirmations and christenings, that there would be several people in church who were not Catholics but he welcomed us all the same (He forgot to mention that he also believes we will be burning in Hell for all of eternity because we didn’t accept, on faith, his beliefs.) and that although we could not received the rotting corpse and the blood of a virgin – he was happy to bless us all the same. (I think he worded it differently)

Now for a stupid statement said by me in a church full of believing Catholics (my brain wasn’t in gear)... my step-mother asked if she could take my son for a blessing.

What you are not suppose to say (I find out later) is “I couldn’t give a damn”

Oops... it made my dad laugh at least.

Lee
Read More......

The finely-tuned cure to the common cold?

Here’s a thought.... I posted much of it on another blog comment, but thought I would share it here also.

If I gave a ‘special pill/drug’ to 1 million people, and 999,999 people died a horrible painful death BUT ONE got their cold cured.... would anyone think of saying that my ‘special pill’ was finely-tunned to cure the common cold?

Or would someone notice that 999,999 people died a horrible painful death and think, maybe, just maybe, this pill was in fact 'designed' to kill people in a horrible fashion, and by blind chance this one person got their cold cured?

(Now Christians... be honest.)

Some Christian’s think (argue?) that the universe was fined tuned for life – I think that goes against all observation.

Can they explain why 99.99% of all species that have existed on Earth are now in fact extinct (any Flood references will be directed here), and how 99.999999...% of the universe is inhospitable for our kind of life?
(Answers on a postcard...)

The fine tuned argument would be closer to observation (but still flawed) if it was said the universe was finely tuned for black holes.

Yet strangely enough Christians don’t argue for that... to them, it is fine tuned for ‘us’.

If the same question could have been asked 100 million years ago, the answer would ‘obviously’ be that the universe was finely tuned for dinosaurs.

Ask the same question in 6 billion years, and the answer might be the universe was finely tuned for white dwarfs.

Ask the same question in a trillion trillion years... and it will be black holes baby all the way :-)

The assumption being made by the Christian is that ‘now’ is the end point, is somehow special, the aim/purpose of 13.7 billion years of stuff happening... but the universe doesn’t stop here.

The fine tuning argument is just flawed on so many levels it isn’t even wrong.

Lee
Read More......

One of the sickest, most vile podcast ever?

Well, it is a question – there probably are worst, I just don’t really want to find out.

I came across this podcast (Is the Old Testament Ethical?) on another blog which goes against my natural ‘good morals’ – you know, the ones that I was born and raised with that help me decide what is right and wrong.

In summary, a certain Dr Peter Williams in this show is making excuses for what is written in the Old Testament.

Trying to justify it by basically saying “well, it isn’t that bad... in fact, it is really rather nice – it could be worse you know”

I cannot find the words to describe how I feel after listening to 50 minutes of this dribble... the man cannot bring himself to say “Well, actually – those folk in the bible, if they really did that – are wrong.”

It is that simple, but no... the man has to make excuses to maintain his belief – whatever that maybe.

Why can’t these Christians, on this podcast, bring themselves to say it?

What’s worse for me is these Christian’s are defending the actions written... what would we think if instead of talking about the bible, they were holocaust defenders?

It’s sick...

Using their logic, I suppose maybe the Nazi prison guard also did the same - made excuses for his actions, as he pushed the men, women and children into the gas chambers to their death... maybe using similar reasoning to himself, maybe even used some of the bible verses quoted in this podcast to ease his worry and concerns.

After all, it was not ‘really’ genocide what they were doing – the Nazis were, after all, also killing German disabled people and gypsies - and their children had to die as well otherwise they might raise up against them in the future so in ‘truth’ what Hitler was commanding must be for the ‘greater good of the great Nazi nation’.

Bullshit...
(and the genocide reference relates to one of the excuses in the podcast – it is that bad)

It was wrong for the Nazi guard, and it was wrong (if true) what was written in the Old Testament.


To summarise the summary...

“With or without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

By making excuses for these Old Testament passages these Christians are not only saying that it is OK, but it allows future generations to make similar judgements and decisions i.e. the Nazis

And to misquote and butcher another famous line or two...

“All that is necessary for ‘evil’ to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

And

“Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it”

The fact these Christians cannot see this both saddens and worries me.

Lee
PS
Just before any Christian wishes to make a statement here along the lines of “So without God where did you get your morals from – how can you say it is wrong”, let me think for a nanosecond...

1. Probably the same place as you, but I got past chapter 1
2. Certainly not from the bible
3. Lookup the Euthyphro dilemma
4. Provide positive evidence and/or reasoning for your claim of God and absolute morals actually exist before asserting claims you know nothing about.
5 Whoever said it was absolutely wrong?
666. How do you know the Bible wasn't written by the devil?…
Read More......