Arky: The Great Atheism Debate.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to Arky: The Great Atheism Debate.

  1. Anon Mahnà

    Oh, he was troubled by “the stuff religion was responsible for”. I, an atheist, despise those who mention Crusades and the Inquisition and the like as if they were bad things but a good reason to reject religion. I didn’t bother watching further since it would clearly be a succession of bad arguments, the usual clichés and examples of woeful theological ignorance from an ill-read buffoon who evidently reckons he’s smarter than Thomas Aquinas without needing to study very much.

  2. Roger

    Would be helpful to know upfront who this gentleman is and his background, Arky.

  3. Elle

    Posted this on the open thread. Meant to post it here!

    Arky! Bless. I’m taking a break from your video at the half hour mark to comment here, pour a glass of wine and make dinner.

    It’s an interesting conversation.

    Am J*wish. I attended an Anglican church today with a dear Christian friend whose husband doesn’t have long to live.

    Today’s sermon was about loving someone enough to learn their language – ‘Receptor-oriented communication’.

    I’m flexible and hungry to learn and “interpret”. Although I’m not convinced, I’ll listen to the scientific approach/ideology.

    Cheers.

  4. Death Giraffe

    Would be helpful to know upfront who this gentleman is and his background, Arky.

    ..
    Chris is a Biology and Chemistry teacher.
    I gave him the chance to see the questions and research I had to do before the debate, but he refused, wanting to present his own arguments and respond in real time.
    I think he did a tremendous job and was far more fluent at times than I.
    Thanks Chris.

  5. Death Giraffe

    Thanks Elle.
    I had a real blast doing this interview.

  6. Roger

    Chris is a Biology and Chemistry teacher.

    Thanks, Arky.

    Good to give the topic a fair run – 1.5 hours!

    I’ll watch it in snatches and offer some comments if I can.

  7. Delta

    I found the little that I could bear to watch rather tedious and the speakers far from eloquent.

    For a discussion about God, for starters I’d recommend Jordan Peterson who rationally concludes and behaves as if God exists.

    Much more interesting!

  8. Delta A

    (Not to be confused with Delta above.)

    Arky, I found this heavy going, mainly because your guest lacked the verve and conviction required to keep one’s attention for all that time.

    TBH, he was boring and lacking credibility.

    Dr Peppard, otoh, I could watch all day.

  9. P

    Congratulations for tackling this project. Kudos to you.

    So far I’m up to 26mins. It is just not grabbing me at this point of time. I did a bit of fast forwarding and a few things caught my attention, so I’ll return at a later time or date.

    I think I knew at five years of age when I won at Sunday School, which I’d commenced that year, a comic type book (in a foolscap size) of Joseph and His Coat of Many Colours, that this was something extraordinary, something above the normal. Even though it was seventy three years ago I remember that feeling to this day.

    At 13/14yrs of age I viewed at the local church a film from the Moody Institute of Science in which the structure of a snowflake among other factors convinced me of what my heart had felt for some time. Totally committing to living what I believed was gradual and took longer than just my believing in God.
    It climaxed probably during my four years training as a nurse and living with 300 other nurses in a Nurses Home where this debate came up often. I felt inadequate to those debates. I could only say that I could never believe that there was no God, for me this was an impossibility, and always will be.

  10. Death Giraffe

    I could never believe that there was no God, for me this was an impossibility, and always will be.

    ..
    You could consider the argument.
    Then look at the probabilities covered later in the video, and know there are sound scientific arguments in favour of belief.

  11. P

    Thank you for your kind reply. As I said, I will continue at a later date.

    Personally for me science no longer comes into it. I’ve lived by faith for so long now and experienced especially during the last twelve years since my husband passed to God, things that I would never have believed had anyone else told me.

    May God bless you Arky and keep you and your family ever in his loving care on your journey in this life.

  12. Elle

    Bless you, P.

    So sorry for such a significant loss. God bless.

    I too will continue listening later – tonight, in the wee hours or tomorrow after work.

    Let’s get creatively analytical, in the name of JC!

  13. Elle

    AKA Jesus Christ. Not our loved contributor to this wonderful blog ‘JC’. 😉

  14. jupes

    Dr Peppard, otoh, I could watch all day.

    Yep. A much more interesting man.

    This Chris bloke could bore for Australia.

  15. When I like, started to, like, use like, “like” as both a parenthetic marker and a linguistic tick, then I like realised ..like…

  16. Anne

    The Luciferian reign on Earth is over.

  17. With the best and most generous Breezes at my back. Surely you can’t gouge …what an hour some ?

    Such scant disbelief that I may have at my suspension command?

    After such a spectacularly unpromising beginning?

  18. Chris M

    Prager: Leftism As Secular Religion

    Short article, very clear and well written. Atheism (more commonly now anti-theism in the west) is the religious faith of the left as they scrabble about for meaning in their meaningless lives.

  19. Listening to more . Sometimes a running commentry works great. LIVE casts and the commenty are now a part of discourse and remain locked in once the performance gets archived.

    Dude, this is “as interesting” but far less illuminating than having your thumbs crushed in a vice.

    HTH

  20. Anne

    JC, do you ever wonder why rainbows are straight when they shine through the shower glass but Dome shaped outside?

  21. None

    It’s refreshing to see two mates just having a civil chat. I’ve only watched the first third so far and I keep wanting to butt in and say but but but. For example on infinity. Infinity is a finite concept and God is by definition outside of finiteness. See, I should have paid attention to philosophy class which I didn’t. Anyway I would have started the discussion as you did withAnselm in god being beyond everything we can conceive and I would have started with the Barthian question if god is out there beyond our imagination because by definition god would have to be beyond all that we could conceive-then how in our human finiteness, how the hell would we know? In fact that’s the one reason why atheists can’t say with any certainty that there is no God.

  22. .

    Infinity is a finite concept

    Um, really? It’s not even a number.

  23. .

    Oh great Prager U.

    We can have a fat old pasty quasi-academic cuck tell us how great marriage is with two failed marriages; marriage is good because men become harder workers to support their wives.

    What a stupid and shallow theory. They got older, wiser and better at their job. Marriage is not about treating *your* husband like an ATM. Maybe for people who should never get married and think the reception matters more than the vows.

  24. JC

    JC, do you ever wonder why rainbows are straight when they shine through the shower glass but Dome shaped outside?

    The thought never crossed my mind, Annie. I supposed it has to do with the way the light through the clouds and moisture. What are you thinking?

  25. None

    Well dot we know you’ve never been married and are unlikely to be so run along, dear. If you want to know the meaning of cuck, look in the mirror.

  26. .

    Would you get on a passenger plane you knew had a 50% chance of blowing up?

  27. .

    “You’re a cuck because you’re not married”

    Really honey, do yourself a favour and buy a dictionary. This is so toxically dumb, you need help.

  28. Anne

    What are you thinking?

    I’m thinking, two years ago I was an atheist, the earth was a globe, the pope was a Christian and JFK Jr was killed in a plane crash.

    I was wrong.

  29. JC

    How do you know you’re not wrong now? 🙂 Wrong at least about the earth not being a sphere and JFK jr not dying as a result of a plane crash. I reluctantly give you the one about the pope, but I’m sure it’s for different reasons.

  30. Anne

    Well, I’m not absolutely certain that JFK Jr is alive, just pretty sure, but the other stuff – damn lies.

    BIG LIES, that have deceived the whole world! (which is flat)

  31. Ellen of Tasmania

    In 1985 the University of California at Irvine hosted a public debate between philosopher Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein on the topic “Does God Exist?”

    Warning: Goes for over 2 hours, but definitely not boring – unless you just don’t care.

  32. Ellen of Tasmania

    “The brutish man is blinkered and cannot see that he is standing under a cataract of glories. That’s just “the world,” he thinks. Just the way things are—atoms crashing around, and science has shown us how that imbecile natural selection can just pop out one exquisite engineering design after another. Nothing to be thankful about. No one to be thankful to. Nothing to mark as remarkable.

    I recently saw an astoundingly beautiful, intricately-designed pattern—and it was a microscopic photograph of a beetle’s foot. Consider, think, reflect, if you would not be a brutish man, how butterflies can just know the way to Mexico, how an owl’s feathers just sweep together seamlessly, how insects use their antennae for taste, smell, and touch, and dragonflies use them as speedometers, and how an octopus has three hearts. Keep in mind that, according to the secular evolutionist, the genes that code for sight are blind, the genes that code for hearing are deaf, and the genes that code for speech are dumb. Not only can they not do what they are coding for, they don’t even know what they are. They don’t know anything. The most amazing library you can imagine is totally and completely ignorant.”

    (Douglas Wilson)

  33. Louis Hissink

    Atheism – the pagan Romans called the Judaeans atheists for their mono theological position. Clearly the Romans didn’t appreciate theological totalitarianism.

    Interesting how the passage of time changed the meanings of words, especially words with flexible meanings depending on the context. Makes clear communication difficult.

  34. Roger

    Atheism – the pagan Romans called the Judaeans atheists for their mono theological position. Clearly the Romans didn’t appreciate theological totalitarianism.

    Judaism was a licit religion in the empire. It was the early Christians who were called atheists, especially during the Decian persecution which required everyone – with the exception of J3ws – to offer sacrifice to the gods for the well being of the emperor.

  35. Tel

    Keep in mind that, according to the secular evolutionist, the genes that code for sight are blind, the genes that code for hearing are deaf, and the genes that code for speech are dumb. Not only can they not do what they are coding for, they don’t even know what they are. They don’t know anything. The most amazing library you can imagine is totally and completely ignorant.

    Is the recipe for poison itself poisonous? Should it be?

    Does a map leading to gold necessarily need to be made of gold?

  36. Helen

    I am sorry Arky, you will have to fail me. 92 minutes of Chris in a tracksuit top is just too much. I tried, but it was a chore for me, and I went and rearranged my bra drawer instead.

    You asked so nicely for me to subscribe and I did go to do so, but you need a Google account and I am anti google. I am afraid I am not very much help, but I am supportive, in an etherical sort of way.

    OTH I was most interested in your hair. Are you getting a little bald spot on the side of you head or was it just a bit close with the clippers?

    Full marks for giving it a go, though. I love your Model A videos – some real talent coming through there, in editing and framing. I wonder if you broke this big one up into segments and added some cartoon or other graphics in there for relief and also for those who like pictures to help understand stuff?

    It is like that Dallas Beaufort thing on Kate Legge the other day – a zillion words with no paras. I know I should read it because it will learn me something, but I just can’t force my self to do so.

  37. But a recipe and a map are leading to something or other. Teleology. That is the point.

  38. None

    Roger

    #2813304, posted on September 10, 2018 at 2:03 pm

    Yes it was Christians who were called atheist because they didn’t bow down to idols or offer sacrifices to the same.

  39. Iampeter

    So a couple of things. Firstly, religion is an approach to thinking and atheism is just a rejection of that approach but it’s not an alternative approach to thinking. The real alternative to religion is reason, so religious debates are essential reason vs mysticism, not religion vs atheism.

    Secondly, disproving religion is not a complex task and doesn’t require much effort. In fact it’s the first thing a thinking mind does. When you’re born and you start using your senses for the first time you realize that the world around you is full of things. At this point you have discovered, even if only on an implicit level, what’s called the law of identity. This law states that everything is what it is. Or A=A. This means you can’t have something that isn’t what it is, you can’t have the supernatural, you can’t have god’s or demons or heavens or hells or anything that violates this law.
    In other words the argument against religion is simply: religion isn’t real because it violates the law of identity.
    Or to put it even more succinctly: the fact that religion isn’t real is self evident.

    That’s all there is to it. There’s nothing really to debate.

    All these other arguments that are missing these fundamentals will essentially amount to nothing more than reductio ad absurdums.

  40. None

    Yes everyone. The greatest philosophers and thinkers that humanity has ever produced have debated religion For millennia that Lampeter has got it all right. *snort*

  41. .

    Peter

    That’s a pretty shithouse argument. “When I was four, I realised water flowed downhill…”

  42. Roger

    In other words the argument against religion is simply: religion isn’t real because it violates the law of identity.

    The Greeks were the first to use the law of identity, at least in philosophical literature, yet they never saw the contradiction between it and religion. In fact, Plato regarded religion as essential to the well being of the city.

  43. Death Giraffe

    Don’t stress it Helen.
    I wanted to put my arguments, my way.
    Mainly an excuse to get a handle on the probabilities (they are impossible to calculate under our current knowledge, but the numbers for even a short strand of DNA are huuuuuuge) and also to ask someone with an actual biology and chemistry background some stupid question to see if there was any big thing I was missing.
    It’s out there, people can do with it what they wish. 300+ views so far. Some even stuck it out to the end!

  44. Peter

    That’s a pretty shithouse argument.

    That is being very kind.

  45. This law states that everything is what it is. Or A=A. This means you can’t have something that isn’t what it is, you can’t have the supernatural, you can’t have god’s or demons or heavens or hells or anything that violates this law.

    You’ve simply asserted that you can’t have the ‘supernatural’ because you can’t have what isn’t what it is without explanation. For instance, where is your argument that God is not God? If you could show us how Aristotle or Plotinus or Aquinas or Clarke argued that God isn’t what He is that would be especially helpful. Otherwise, we must conclude that you really don’t know what you are talking about.

  46. The real alternative to religion is reason, so religious debates are essential reason vs mysticism, not religion vs atheism.

    Also, as Roger mentions above, we have 2500 years of argument that demonstrates the opposite of what you assert above. But, I’m open to the fact that you may be ignorant of this and I’m happy to point you to the abundant evidence to the contrary.

  47. jupes

    The difference a Christian and an atheist is that the Christian believes all gods are bullshit except one, and the atheist believes all gods are bullshit.

    There’s nothing more to it than that.

  48. The difference a Christian and an atheist

    Not at all. The difference is that the former understand that God cannot be plural. A point initially made by Aristotle.

  49. Iampeter

    For instance, where is your argument that God is not God?

    Because that’s your argument.
    My point is that any assertion of the supernatural violates the law of identity and this can be dismissed out of hand. No debating is required as there’s nothing to debate.

    On the other hand if you don’t think god is supernatural/violates A is A, then you’re not really talking about god anymore or making any religious arguments, but talking about super advanced aliens or something.

  50. Roger

    My point is that any assertion of the supernatural violates the law of identity and this can be dismissed out of hand. No debating is required as there’s nothing to debate.

    You’ve fallen into a logical fallacy, Peter – it’s called begging the question (petitio principii).

    You need to make an argument to back up your assertion, not merely state a point.

  51. Iampeter

    You’ve fallen into a logical fallacy, Peter – it’s called begging the question (petitio principii).

    You need to make an argument to back up your assertion, not merely state a point.

    I’m stating a metaphysical fact that has to be accepted before you can even begin to make any arguments about anything.
    But once you accept the law of identity you’ve accepted that there is nothing real about religion or the supernatural so no arguments on this topic are necessary.

    This is what I mean when I say that disproving religion is the “first thing a thinking mind does”.
    This is what I mean when I say “the fact that religion isn’t real is self evident”.
    I’m being literal.

  52. I’m stating a metaphysical fact that has to be accepted before you can even begin to make any arguments about anything.
    But once you accept the law of identity you’ve accepted that there is nothing real about religion or the supernatural so no arguments on this topic are necessary.

    All classical theists accept the law of identity and yet they never concluded from this that God didn’t exist so your claim to self-evidence fails immediately. You, therefore, need to make that argument that leads from the law of identity, first premise, to whatever you think the second premise is, to the conclusion you have above.

  53. DrBeauGan

    I came, I read, I buggered off.

  54. candy

    This means you can’t have something that isn’t what it is, you can’t have the supernatural, you can’t have god’s or demons or heavens or hells or anything that violates this law.

    People do, though, Iampeter. They have experiences that verify (to them) the existence of God. Because it has not happened to you, it does not mean it has not happened to others. That is the logic. Because you don’t have it, experience it, know it, as others have all around the world, does not mean God does not exist.

    That God does not exist, in the end, is simply your opinion based on your own upbringing, experiences, etc.

  55. Tel

    “When I was four, I realised water flowed downhill…”

    That puts you several IQ points ahead of whoever built the drains out the back of my house.

    We have people in this country unqualified to operate gravity.

    Back to your discussion now.

  56. Death Giraffe

    DrBeauGan
    #2813522, posted on September 10, 2018 at 7:32 pm
    I came, I read, I buggered off.

    ..
    Disappointing Beaugan.
    I went to all this trouble solely to smoke you out on atheism, and you flee.
    Flaming slacker.

  57. Tel

    But a recipe and a map are leading to something or other. Teleology. That is the point.

    Genetic codes are leading to something… survival of themselves.

    It’s tautological, because only the ones that survive are under discussion, no one starts philosophical arguments about all the mutations that died on the first day. It’s still leading to something, as good as anything else you want to lead to.

  58. Death Giraffe

    no one starts philosophical arguments about all the mutations that died on the first day

    Mutations in what?
    In order to have a genetic code you have to have genes.
    Lots of them.
    And in order for them to produce viable mutations they need a transcription mechanism.
    At astronomically improbable odds.

  59. Mitch M.

    (they are impossible to calculate under our current knowledge, but the numbers for even a short strand of DNA are huuuuuuge)

    As Andreas Wagner writes “hyper astronomical”. In any other context we would dismiss the likelihood of it ever happening but popular evolutionists typically ignore this issue or throw up the facile “given enough time”. On the other side people then reach for a God, panpsychism, or that intelligence is embedded in the universe. None of those leaps are justified because as you state our present understandings are so incomplete we should acknowledge the mystery and wait for developments. In “Arrival of the Fittest” Wagner does provide some figures and the book then goes on to argue how it became possible. I don’t accept his argument. While the general public is sold the typical popular accounts evolutionary studies don’t ignore this problem. We still have no explanation for macro evolution and what evolution we have witnessed is protein tweaks, I’m not even sure if an entirely new protein has been found in lab work though there is a semantic issue there, when does a tweaked protein become a new protein?

  60. Roger

    I’m being literal.

    No, you’re being unreasonable…by any standard.

  61. Genetic codes are leading to something… survival of themselves.

    No, no, it’s more basic then that, they perform specific functions, etc. It’s not the sheer improbability of DNA that is relevent, contra Arky, it is that matter, here DNA, exhibits teleology.

  62. Mitch M.

    DNA, exhibits teleology.

    An organism exhibits teleology. Take DNA out of the organism and it will fall apart. That highlights a common problem with the popular understanding of genetics. Genes are not selfish, are not striving for survival.

  63. None

    I think those people also built the drains in front of my house,Tel.

  64. An organism exhibits teleology. Take DNA out of the organism and it will fall apart. That highlights a common problem with the popular understanding of genetics. Genes are not selfish, are not striving for survival.

    Teleology is aboutness or directedness. DNA exhibits directedness. It performs specific functions within an organism as well as having specific properties. Please don’t imagine that teleology is about DNA ‘striving’ for survival. See the idea of physical intentionality for example.

  65. Chris M

    they need a transcription mechanism

    Indeed, amazing how these early cells and organisms divided and reproduced prior to having the means to do so.

    This part isn’t even a faith argument, it’s a scientific one. A mechanism to add DNA information – essential for Darwinian evolution – has never been observed; it simply isn’t there. Instead we see things mutating and degrading genetically = macro evolution is going in reverse.

  66. Mitch M.

    It performs specific functions within an organism as well as having specific properties.

    It is the whole organism, not the parts, that exhibit teleology. Animals exhibit intentionality, not molecules. The functions of DNA are useless and directionless except within a cell.

  67. Death Giraffe

    The functions of DNA are useless and directionless except within a cell.

    ..
    Quite
    ..
    The model seems to be some weird symbiosis between bubbles and some non- RNA precursor to RNA without any actual transcription mechanism, evolving into a cell with DNA, 50,000 base pairs and complex internal nechanisms. All this in a relatively short time on comparison to the rest of evolution.
    I don’t get it.

  68. .

    dover_beach
    #2813450, posted on September 10, 2018 at 5:43 pm

    Peter

    That’s a pretty shithouse argument.

    That is being very kind.

    I’m just that kind of guy.

  69. .

    jupes is right.

    The A = A and Anslem’s argument are equally weak, they’re just preferenced by non-believers and believers.

  70. It is the whole organism, not the parts, that exhibit teleology. Animals exhibit intentionality, not molecules. The functions of DNA are useless and directionless except within a cell.

    Not at all. Parts do exhibit teleology; they wouldn’t be parts otherwise. We know that this or that part performs this or that function and not another by what it is. The fact that DNA cannot perform this or that function outside of a cell is neither here nor there. Human beings are unable to perform their typical functions outside a certain range of environmental conditions as well. This doesn’t mean they do not exhibit teleology.

  71. jupes is right.

    No, not at all. The ‘one god further’ argument is one of the stupidest arguments around. It’s not even in the same ballpark as Anselm’s and I’m not even a great fan of the latter.

    However, I think you both might be simply suggesting that the difference between an atheist and a Christian is that the former simply rejects the inchoate reasons for belief of the ordinary Christian just as the ordinary Christian rejects those of the ordinary pagan. Which leads me to ask, when did we ever think it right to judge this or that argument but its more rudimentary articulation?

  72. jrm

    What has the law of identity got to do with whether the supernatural exists or not? A leaf is a leaf and not a rock. A rock is a rock and not a leaf. So what? Material stuff is material stuff. God is not material stuff. God is God.

  73. Iampeter

    A=A is a statement of metaphysical fact.
    This statement alone disproves religion. No argument of any kind is possible or necessary.
    That’s all I’m saying.

    That’s how easy it is to disprove religion and always has been.

    It’s one of histories greatest tragedies to see how much human lifetime has been wasted in absurd arguments about absurdity.

  74. Iampeter

    What has the law of identity got to do with whether the supernatural exists or not?

    It disproves the supernatural.

    To modify your example: a leaf is a leaf, a rock is a rock but a leaf is not a rock and suggesting it is violates the law of identity and can be dismissed out of hand.

    God is not material stuff. God is God.

    That’s like describing something as “square circle”. It’s not a thing. Or if you’re suggesting “god” is an actual thing, then it’s no longer supernatural and you are no longer making a religious argument.
    Either way, you’re either describing something that doesn’t exist or isn’t “god” in the religious sense.

  75. .

    Iampeter
    #2814246, posted on September 11, 2018 at 4:35 pm

    A=A is a statement of metaphysical fact.
    This statement alone disproves religion.

    If and only if you don’t believe. Just as bad as Anselm’s argument.

    The law of identity is also rooted in Newtonian physics. What about the quantum eraser experiment, let alone the double slit? Now, how does A = A deal with magnetism as a relativistic effect (tritely “magnetism isn’t real”)?

  76. .

    There is also credible research showing that consciousness is non-local.

    Let alone the 2D holographic projection theory of cosmology, which the evidence suggests is correct.

    How exactly is A = A good beyond debunking crap like relativism and the phoney argument that freedom is an illusion?

  77. A=A is a statement of metaphysical fact.
    This statement alone disproves religion. No argument of any kind is possible or necessary.
    That’s all I’m saying.

    A=A does not mean God does not exist. If you applied the law of identity to God it would be God=God. Nothing more. How you get from God=God to therefore God does not exist is a mystery to everyone.

    God is not material stuff. God is God.

    That’s like describing something as “square circle”. It’s not a thing.

    Is it really? Where does it say that the only ‘things’ that exist are material? Is the law of identity material? Is the number three material? Are rights material? No, no, and no, and yet they exist.

  78. If and only if you don’t believe.

    dot, no, not even then. There is no relation between the law of identity and the conclusion God does not exist.

  79. .

    Since Peter is using a mathematical identity, he kind of has to accept that numbers exist, without being physical – or he has an awful lot of mathematical proofs to work through!

  80. .

    My point is that theism or atheism cannot be proven or disproven; they are choices.

  81. My point is that theism or atheism cannot be proven or disproven

    Can that statement be proven, or is it a choice too?

  82. Iampeter

    Dot, you’re missing the point. We’re not getting into any debates, making arguments or discussing physics. We are just dealing with the very entry-level concepts of metaphysics, the self-evident meta physical facts that have to be accepted before you can move onto all those higher order concepts.
    The thing is, once you accept these facts you’ve already disproved religion and so no argument on the topic is necessary.
    Basically, religion is such simple nonsense that acceptance of basic facts of reality disproves it.

    A=A does not mean God does not exist.

    That’s exactly what it means.

    If you applied the law of identity to God it would be God=God.

    No, because “God” has to be quantifiable just like everything.
    Size, shape, age, material composition, whatever.
    Whatever “thing” = “thing” you’re trying to describe, still has to be an actual thing.
    Without that, saying “god = god” is the same as saying “square = circle”. It’s unintelligible.

    The point of the law of identity is accepting the fact that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

    There’s no getting under it or around it, just word games.

  83. .

    We are just dealing with the very entry-level concepts of metaphysics, the self-evident meta physical facts that have to be accepted before you can move onto all those higher-order concepts.
    The thing is, once you accept these facts you’ve already disproved religion and so no argument on the topic is necessary.

    This is a very bad sleight of hand.

  84. Tel

    My point is that theism or atheism cannot be proven or disproven

    That’s my general opinion as well, with the additional rider that there’s a very large number of unproven things (like purple smurfs hiding very skillfully in the back of the fridge) that we choose NOT to believe in because minimal belief is efficient and although there’s a vast array of strange possibilities out there, you could waste your life worrying about them. Cost benefit n that.

    Can that statement be proven, or is it a choice too?

    You can choose to believe anything you like, choose any standard of proof that suits yourself. If it works for you then be my guest. If for some reason you are concerned about other people’s belief then I suppose you must meet their standard of proof.

  85. Tel

    Without that, saying “god = god” is the same as saying “square = circle”. It’s unintelligible.

    Why? If there was a god, why would it be somehow impossible to be itself, whatever that might be?

    The criteria “X is X” does not restrict X in any normal language system. I guess you invented your own logic or something, tell me how that works out for you.

  86. Iampeter

    It’s not a sleight of hand dot, it’s a statement of self evident fact.

    I’m simply stating the fact that “a thing” is “a thing”. That’s it.
    Anything that violates this by being something that is not-a-thing, like god, can be dismissed out of hand.
    And if like Dover, you think god IS a thing that can be quantified well then whatever it is, it’s not god.

    This is just clear thinking at the level of basic metaphysics.
    That’s all that’s ever been needed to disprove religion. It’s the most basic of basic thinking exercises.

  87. Tom

    LOL. I just knew Iampeter had to be a militant atheist (like all militant leftists).

  88. .

    Ayn Rand was a leftie? Probably not!

  89. Iampeter

    The criteria “X is X” does not restrict X in any normal language system.

    But it IS restricted to being “X”, whatever that might be. If you could quantify God like this then whatever it is, it isn’t God.
    To suggest god you would write “X is not X” thus proving there’s no such thing to yourself.

    Like I said in my first post: the fact that God does not exist is self evident.

  90. A=A does not mean God does not exist.

    That’s exactly what it means.

    Quite incredible. Amazing how this simple fact escaped Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas, etc. even though they were brilliant logicians, with Plato the first to formulate the law and Aristotle the first to use it to formulate the second law of thought. This amply demonstrates that of course that isn’t exactly what it means and that it isn’t self-evidently so.

    No, because “God” has to be quantifiable just like everything.
    Size, shape, age, material composition, whatever.
    Whatever “thing” = “thing” you’re trying to describe, still has to be an actual thing.

    Why does ‘everything’ have to be quantifiable? Numbers are not quantifiable, neither is the law of identity. It would be true to say that everything physical must be quantifiable but you’ve given no reason for concluding that everything must be physical, and I’ve given specific examples of things that are not physical and yet exist.

    Without that, saying “god = god” is the same as saying “square = circle”. It’s unintelligible.

    Question-begging. As above, you are simply assuming that everything that exists must be physical/ material, noting that God is defined as immaterial, and concluding God cannot exist. However, you have nowhere shown the first premise to be true.

    The point of the law of identity is accepting the fact that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

    No, the point of the law of identity is simply that God=God, alternatively, that God≠gods.

  91. Tel

    How exactly is A = A good beyond debunking crap like relativism and the phoney argument that freedom is an illusion?

    It doesn’t even debunk relativism, because you rapidly run into problems with anything you want to look closely at. Let’s suppose I know a person, maybe myself, can I say “I am myself?” no, not in any consistent way I cannot guarantee this. Firstly I know I am not the person I was an hour ago, I have aged, my memory has changed, cells have died, metabolism happens. So I can only be myself (EXACTLY myself) in an infinitesimal instant of time, but then I’m something else, which I also just call “myself” out of laziness because I can’t be bothered making up names for every separate moment of my life. But secondly there’s “myself” as other people know me, which is not identical to myself as I know. Those people use approximations to describe me, and we are all are stuck with approximations… that’s the fundamental challenge of cognition, to understand a world that is astounding orders of magnitude more complex than you can ever possibly understand, but also to throw away what you decide isn’t particularly important when achieving that understanding.

    The concept “X is X” only applies within an abstract world, not within anything real.

    Now it gets worse, suppose I describe, “A distance of 1 meter” as an abstract concept. Where is this concept? Is it a thing? If distance is not a material thing, then how can we achieve even the most basic start to physics? If distance is a material thing then show me. You can wave a ruler of course and claim it represents 1 meter, but that’s merely an approximation, the ruler might bend slightly or change size with temperature, or the marks wouldn’t be precisely thin, because any mark on a ruler must have finite width. Every measurement is relative to something else. If you want the best you measure relative to a Cesium atom following a defined procedure, but it’s still a relative measurement trying to approximate an abstract idea. Maybe good enough to build a shed, but not good enough to build a perfect sphere for example.

  92. Iampeter

    Quite incredible. Amazing how this simple fact escaped Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas, etc

    Not all that incredible. They were discovering all these concepts for the first time. This involves a lot of trial and error. I couldn’t do what they did but I have the benefit of millennia of learning on top of their ideas.
    We can excuse the ancients who made the first strides down the path of reason their contradictions and mistakes, but what we can’t excuse is these same mistakes from grown men in the 21st century.

    Why does ‘everything’ have to be quantifiable?

    Because everything is something or it doesn’t exist.

    Question-begging. As above, you are simply assuming that everything that exists must be physical/ material, noting that God is defined as immaterial

    There’s no question begging because I’m not making any arguments or assumptions.
    I’m stating the self evident, metaphysical fact that a thing is a thing.
    I’m then concluding that since God is not a thing, he does not exist.

    What I’m also pointing out is the circular arguments you have to engage in by trying to suggest the existence of something that doesn’t exist.
    In other words, you’re the only one begging the question.

  93. None

    If God is quantifiable then he cannot exist by definition. But the definition of God is that he is not quantifiable and far beyond anything a human can conceive. I stand by my statement about people like Iampeter cannot make any statement that there is no God because they are incapable as finite human beings to pronounce on an entity which is beyond finiteness and infinity. This is why I have always found agnosticism a much more intellectually honest and defensible position instead of the utterly delusional hubris and irrationalism of atheism.

  94. None

    Did I say irrationalism? Irrationality. Meh. Atheism.is total absurdity anyway. Well done to agnostics for not being such idiots.

  95. Let’s suppose I know a person, maybe myself, can I say “I am myself?” no, not in any consistent way I cannot guarantee this. Firstly I know I am not the person I was an hour ago, I have aged, my memory has changed, cells have died, metabolism happens. So I can only be myself (EXACTLY myself) in an infinitesimal instant of time,

    You’ve fallen for the same error as Heraclitus. You couldn’t ‘age’ if you were not the same organism you were a day ago, or a year ago , or at conception. The fact that you as an organism are subject to all manner of change doesn’t mean you are not the same thing over time.

  96. None

    Not all that incredible. They were discovering all these concepts for the first time.

    No one tell Iamppeter that these things were being discussed centuries before Plato even. Shhh.

  97. Not all that incredible. They were discovering all these concepts for the first time. This involves a lot of trial and error. I couldn’t do what they did but I have the benefit of millennia of learning on top of their ideas.

    So you admit that your claim is not self-evident, good.

    Because everything is something or it doesn’t exist.

    Sure, but something may be immaterial like numbers. So we must conclude that everything need not be physical, and therefore, your argument, such as it is, fails.

    There’s no question begging because I’m not making any arguments or assumptions.
    I’m stating the self evident, metaphysical fact that a thing is a thing.
    I’m then concluding that since God is not a thing, he does not exist.

    But you are begging the question. You just admitted above that Plato and Aristotle failed to notice what was self-evident which, when we apply the law of identity, entails the conclusion that what you assert is self-evident is not self-evident. Therefore, you really need to do more than just assume that everything that exists is physical.

  98. Death Giraffe

    Because everything is something…

    ..
    Everything is shit.

  99. Iampeter

    Sure, but something may be immaterial like numbers. So we must conclude that everything need not be physical, and therefore, your argument, such as it is, fails.

    I’m not saying everything has to be physical I’m just saying that everything is something or it doesn’t exist.

    But you are begging the question. You just admitted above that Plato and Aristotle failed to notice what was self-evident which

    Which is not what begging the question is, nor do Plato and Aristotle missing something change anything.
    Also “Plato sez…” isn’t an argument so this is all just evasion of the basic fact I’m stating and you’re evading.

    Basically all I’m doing in this thread is explaining the basic thinking steps required to conclude that god doesn’t exist.
    These are the steps:
    Step 1 – Accept the Law of Identity
    Step 2 – Therefore God does not exist as that would violate this law
    The End

    So in other words, stating that god does not exist is a simple statement of fact that requires no supporting arguments and cannot be argued against. It’s self evident.

    How would an argument against it even go?
    “But Plato sez…” – is not an argument
    “But something that doesn’t exist has to exist” – is an example of begging the question/circular reasoning you think I’m engaging in.
    etc

    There is no argument against it. You either accept the facts of reality and dismiss the ideas of religion which try to contradict these facts, explicitly like I do OR you accept it implicitly like you and other “religious people” in the West generally do. But you’re still accepting it. Everything else is just word games.

  100. None

    There a lot of people walking around with long hair and unkept beards. Therefore barbers do not exist.

  101. None

    “you and other “religious people” in the West generally do.”
    Oh joy. Now we’re going to get a westerner’s assertion that no one in the east believes in God especially given all the world’s major religions started in the east, or else we’re going to get a westerner’s wacko conception of pseudo Eastern mysticism. Next up I am Peter is going to demonstrate how to cook a rice grain in your navel.

  102. None

    Why does libertarianism attract men who have the maturity of a prepubescent gnat?

  103. Tel

    None #2814468,

    Everyone starts out young, those nutjobs running after Ocasio-Cortez aren’t exactly deep thinkers (and a whole lot of them are female too). What they don’t know is that Ocasio-Cortez will turn on a dime and sell them out the moment she bumps into a higher bidder, but socialism is her schtick for today. Maybe they don’t care, and just enjoy the party invites… that’s the most rational explanation.

  104. Iampeter

    Oh joy. Now we’re going to get a westerner’s assertion that no one in the east believes in God especially given all the world’s major religions started in the east, or else we’re going to get a westerner’s wacko conception of pseudo Eastern mysticism.

    I’m saying people in the West don’t really believe in God. You guys just use religion to avoid going to the effort of having to think for yourselves or take responsibility for your existence. You don’t really take any of it seriously though.
    If you did, you’d either be eating dirt and sleeping on a bed of nails or flying planes into skyscrapers.

    Rejecting reality on any serious basis will make your time in reality very short and unpleasant.

  105. Death Giraffe

    Peter.
    You originally state that the world is full of things which are all self- identical.
    For each and every one of these things you noticed they had unique particulars.
    “A = A” in mathematic notation.
    However, as we drill through reality, we realise they are all made out of the same stuff.
    It isn’t the things which are interesting.
    It is the relationships they exhibit with each other and the way the stuff they are made out of seems to organise itself. Some very weird shit is happening on a fundamental level.
    You have to be a very prosaic person not to speculate on the underlying reason for that.

  106. Tel

    I’m saying people in the West don’t really believe in God.

    I thought you were an individualist.

    People the plural cannot believe in anything, only an individual person can have a belief. It’s not even possible to perfectly articulate your personal belief to anyone else because we only have ambiguous and vague language to work with.

    People the plural can make agreements with each other, and sometimes might even stick with those agreements, but that’s consensus, which is significantly different to belief (the two do get conflated).

  107. Death Giraffe

    The alternative to an unmoved, intelligent prime mover is either that the universe bootstrapped itself into existence out of nothingness and them proceeded to direct itself in the series of mindbooglingly improbably moves that led to intelligent life.
    Or that there is an infinite regression of causes.
    Or you believe in what would essentially be God.
    These are all absurd in their own way.
    I choose God because I choose to live in a moral universe.

  108. .

    Step 1 – Accept the Law of Identity
    Step 2 – Therefore God does not exist as that would violate this law
    The End

    i.e., join your belief system (religion).

  109. Iampeter

    You originally state that the world is full of things which are all self- identical.
    For each and every one of these things you noticed they had unique particulars.
    “A = A” in mathematic notation.

    That doesn’t sound like what I’m saying.
    What I’m saying is: the first thing a thinking mind does is grasp that a thing is a thing. This is called the law of identity. Accepting this, which you do at least implicitly like an animal, disproves the supernatural and therefore disproves religion. That’s it.
    A=A is just a succinct way of saying it. But yes, it is the mathematical proof that God isn’t real.
    It’s really that simple.

    However, as we drill through reality, we realise they are all made out of the same stuff.
    It isn’t the things which are interesting.
    It is the relationships they exhibit with each other and the way the stuff they are made out of seems to organise itself. Some very weird shit is happening on a fundamental level.

    There’s nothing “weird” about it. There’s also nothing “intelligent” or “designed” or any other anthropomorphic word. All that is happening in existence, below the level of rational beings like humans, is mindless cause and effect. Just the law of identity and its corollary the law of causality endlessly at work. That’s it.

    These things are fascinating and we can learn all about these processes but nothing will ever exist in violation of or outside of them as that would violate the law of identity.

  110. Iampeter

    i.e., join your belief system (religion).

    Religion is a rejection of the law of identity which is the opposite of what I’m arguing, dot.

  111. .

    You haven’t proven anything. Saying something is self-evident does not make it so.

  112. None

    I’m saying people in the West don’t really believe in God. You guys just use religion to avoid going to the effort of having to think for yourselves or take responsibility for your existence. You don’t really take any of it seriously though.

    I can’t speak for anyone except myself Iampeter and I generally don’t bother with arrogant time wasters like you but I will come back to my original statement. A god by definition would be some entity that is beyond human conception otherwise it would not be a god. It would be just some other entity subject to the laws of the universe. If there is a god, however, one that is beyond space and time, greater than anything a human can possibly conceive, how would a human know? How would a finite human mind be able to comprehend it? A similar question also occupied Einstein who was a secular Jew. Despite all his brilliance he didn’t have your arrogance to claim there is no god but rather he recognised the inability of a human to speak on such matters. So anyway humour us or rather delude yourself.

  113. None

    I

    ’m saying people in the West don’t really believe in God. You guys just use religion to avoid going to the effort of having to think for yourselves or take responsibility for your existence. You don’t really take any of it seriously though.

    I can’t speak for anyone except myself Iampeter and I generally don’t bother with arrogant time wasters like you but I will come back to my original statement. A god by definition would be some entity that is beyond human conception otherwise it would not be a god. It would be just some other entity subject to the laws of the universe. If there is a god, however, one that is beyond space and time, greater than anything a human can possibly conceive, how would a human know? How would a finite human mind be able to comprehend it? A similar question also occupied Einstein who was a secular J*w. Despite all his brilliance he didn’t have your arrogance to claim there is no god but rather he recognised the inability of a human to speak on such matters. So anyway humour us or rather delude yourself.

  114. Iampeter

    You originally state that the world is full of things which are all self- identical.
    For each and every one of these things you noticed they had unique particulars.
    “A = A” in mathematic notation.

    On second read through it does sound like you’re getting it but you somehow remain unconvinced.
    It’s like you’re saying back to me “Peter what you’re saying is factual, but…”

    There is no “but”.

    The alternative to an unmoved, intelligent prime mover is either that the universe bootstrapped itself into existence out of nothingness and them proceeded to direct itself in the series of mindbooglingly improbably moves that led to intelligent life.

    That’s not how to think about it. The universe has always existed. You know this because it is unintelligible and (you guessed it) a violation of the law of identity to say that something existed before existence. Intelligent life occurred on earth as a consequence of cause and effect. The universe didn’t “direct itself” because its not a rational being, it simply is, it includes everything and everything in it functions according to the laws of reality (identity and causality).

    I choose God because I choose to live in a moral universe.

    Not to derail the thread entirely but when I’m feeling generous I grant that most people turn to religion for the positive reason of looking for morality, as opposed to normal times when I think people turn to religion because thinking is hard.

    And secondly, lets not get started on the topic of morality since we’re not even in agreement that a square is not a circle, but suffice it to say, when you learn what morality actually is you learn that it is about embracing reason and that requires rejecting religion.

    Saying “I am moral because I believe in God” is as contradictory as everything else that is being said in this thread.

  115. Iampeter

    A god by definition would be some entity that is beyond human conception otherwise it would not be a god. It would be just some other entity subject to the laws of the universe.

    Yes, you’re the only person in this thread giving an honest, religious definition of what God is.
    What I’m saying is that what you are describing violates the law of reality and therefore does not exist.

    If there is a god, however, one that is beyond space and time, greater than anything a human can possibly conceive, how would a human know?

    You know that there is nothing like this because it violates the law of identity.

    etc

    etc

  116. Death Giraffe

    Saying I want to live in a moral universe with moral consequences isn’t the same as me claiming to be moral.

  117. Chris M

    I’m saying people in the West don’t really believe in God….If you did, you’d either be eating dirt and sleeping on a bed of nails or flying planes into skyscrapers

    These are the actions of pagans, animists and God haters. Bizarre how you could jump to the opposite conclusion.

  118. None

    No IamPeter it’s because you’re mind can’t conceive of anything outside the material world of which you are part. If that is the case then you are unable to make any statement one way or another about the existence of God.

  119. None

    Death Giraffe

    #2814624, posted on September 11, 2018 at 10:18 pm

    correct however saying you want to live in a moral Universe suggest that you think the world is not as it should be ( a moral (or even teleological?) Argument which according to iampeter is not allowed because everything just is. Of course we know he doesn’t live in accordance with what he claims he believes.

  120. I’m not saying everything has to be physical I’m just saying that everything is something or it doesn’t exist.

    So where do either Plotinus, Aquinas or Clarke, for example, define God as nothing? As having no properties, or characteristics, rather than as First Cause, simple, immaterial, timeless, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and the like? Because everything to the right of ‘rather’ is something.

    Which is not what begging the question is, nor do Plato and Aristotle missing something change anything.
    Also “Plato sez…” isn’t an argument so this is all just evasion of the basic fact I’m stating and you’re evading.

    No, no, you are confused. Firstly, I never made an argument in the form ‘Plato sez’. Secondly, you keep on saying that the conclusion ‘God does not exist’ self-evidently follows from the law of identity. However, when I reminded you that this was not self-evident to either Plato or Aristotle, you thought you could avoid this obvious counterpoint by saying that these thinkers were not sufficiently developed in their thinking, but that is precisely what self-evidence doesn’t require. If such a conclusion is not obvious, then it could not be self-evident. Thirdly, I’ll address your question-begging below.

    Basically all I’m doing in this thread is explaining the basic thinking steps required to conclude that god doesn’t exist.
    These are the steps:
    Step 1 – Accept the Law of Identity
    Step 2 – Therefore God does not exist as that would violate this law
    The End

    So in other words, stating that god does not exist is a simple statement of fact that requires no supporting arguments and cannot be argued against. It’s self evident.

    Classic question-begging. As I’ve said ad nauseam, there is nothing in your first premise (step 1) that arrives at your conclusion (step 2). You are simply hiding a premise (step 1a) from view because you do not want anyone to interrogate it.

  121. A god by definition would be some entity that is beyond human conception otherwise it would not be a god. It would be just some other entity subject to the laws of the universe.

    You need to be a little more circumspect. God is not beyond human conception, but we cannot fully conceive God. That is why Iampeter is mistaken about the law of identity. We can conceive some or more of the characteristics of the being we call God, whether it involves simplicity, immateriality, timelessness, and the like, through a series of logical arguments. This fact alone means that God is not in conflict with the law of identity.

  122. BTW, there is also a difference between imagining and conceiving. I can’t imagine infinity, but I can conceive it.

  123. PB

    As much as as I don’t believe in God, I do get pissed with supposed atheists whose issue isn’t with God but with the Churches who purport to represent God.

  124. Iampeter

    So where do either Plotinus, Aquinas or Clarke, for example, define God as nothing?

    The issue is that the concept of god is undefinable or cannot be fully explained and this violates the law of identity and so can be dismissed.

    No, no, you are confused. Firstly, I never made an argument in the form ‘Plato sez’.

    You keep doing it. You even do it later in this paragraph.

    However, when I reminded you that this was not self-evident to either Plato or Aristotle, you thought you could avoid this obvious counterpoint by saying that these thinkers were not sufficiently developed in their thinking

    This is one of your “Plato sez…” non arguments. This is also not an “obvious counterpoint” its completely irrelevant to the self evident fact that god doesn’t exist. You keep bringing it up because you’re appealing to authority.

    As I’ve said ad nauseam, there is nothing in your first premise (step 1) that arrives at your conclusion (step 2).

    OK, we’ve seen this in other threads where you’re confused about the idea of what “question begging” is. Question begging is a circular argument fallacy. An example of this is suggesting something that doesn’t exist, exists. This is what you and others in this thread are doing and what I am pointing out you are doing.

    In my case, I’m not making an argument of any kind. I’m stating a meta-physical fact. This is different to normal facts like 1+1=2, for example, because I don’t even have to prove it since it is self evident. Basically I am saying 1=1. This is not an argument, circular or otherwise and so can never qualify for the “begging the question” fallacy. It cannot be argued against. It requires no supporting arguments. It disproves god and any other supernatural assertions.

    That’s it.

  125. Iampeter

    As much as as I don’t believe in God, I do get pissed with supposed atheists whose issue isn’t with God but with the Churches who purport to represent God.

    I agree that a lot of atheists today are just terrible and don’t know what they’re talking about. Most of them are pretty bad in fact, but I wouldn’t separate the ideals of religion from its consequences as seen by its most crazy practitioners. This is a get out of jail card religious people use to evade the actual issue.
    The actual issue is one of METHOD not outcome.
    Religion is a method of thinking. It is the method that rejects reason and reality. If you reject reason and reality seriously enough what do you think will happen? Capitalism, rights protecting government, peace and prosperity? No. What you get is the Dark Ages, slaughter, endless pogroms, collapse of human infrastructure and total ignorance and ruin.

    So you can think up the most fluffy and lovely religion you can imagine and if you take it seriously you will kill people. Rejecting reason and reality even for what you think is a noble intent, can only end in disaster.

    As I like to say, if you reject reality then you’re stay in it will be both short and unpleasant.

  126. The issue is that the concept of god is undefinable or cannot be fully explained and this violates the law of identity and so can be dismissed.

    But God is not undefinable. Again, if you read Aquinas or Clarke, for example, they give detailed definitions of God, that enable one to distinguish God from any other being, which is all the law of identity requires.

    You keep doing it. You even do it later in this paragraph.

    No I haven’t, as I’ll show below.

    This is one of your “Plato sez…” non arguments. This is also not an “obvious counterpoint” its completely irrelevant to the self evident fact that god doesn’t exist. You keep bringing it up because you’re appealing to authority.

    The point of the reference to Plato is to refute your claim that the law of identity self-evidently refutes the existence of God. If the law of identity self-evidently did Plato must have recognised this, as would have Aristotle and every other proponent of the law of identity. That this was and remains manifestly not the case shows your claim re self-evidence to be preposterous.

    OK, we’ve seen this in other threads where you’re confused about the idea of what “question begging” is. Question begging is a circular argument fallacy. An example of this is suggesting something that doesn’t exist, exists.

    More straightforwardly, question-begging is assuming what is in question. As in, concluding that God does not exist because you’ve assumed that God is undefinable when that has been contested, successfully. Now, given that I’ve correctly identified how you’ve begged the question maybe you could identify where I have because your attempt above fails miserably.

    In my case, I’m not making an argument of any kind. I’m stating a meta-physical fact. This is different to normal facts like 1+1=2, for example, because I don’t even have to prove it since it is self evident.

    No, you are making an argument because the law of identity without the inclusion of a second premise does not disprove the existence of God. Merely repeating that your claim is self-evident even though it is manifestly not self-evident to anyone else (and thus conclusively not self-evident) is classic question-begging.

  127. Death Giraffe

    Religion is a method of thinking.

    ..
    So is atheism.
    A method of thinking when applied on a large scale that inevitably ends in mass murder.
    If you don’t think your atheism is contaiminating your thought processes you aren’t paying careful attention to your thoughts.

  128. Iampeter

    But God is not undefinable.

    Then it’s not God. Either something exists which means its not supernatural or something is supernatural in which case it doesn’t exist. This is what I mean. To try and believe in things like God you are stuck in this circular argument because you’re trying to violate the law of identity which can’t be done.

    The point of the reference to Plato is to refute your claim that the law of identity self-evidently refutes the existence of God. If the law of identity self-evidently did Plato must have recognised this, as would have Aristotle and every other proponent of the law of identity.

    Whether anyone recognizes it or not 1 will still be 1.

    No, you are making an argument because the law of identity without the inclusion of a second premise does not disprove the existence of God. Merely repeating that your claim is self-evident even though it is manifestly not self-evident to anyone else (and thus conclusively not self-evident) is classic question-begging.

    Stating 1=1 and that 1=2 is impossible is not an argument and is obviously self evident to everyone.
    The reason you are arguing against it is because you are desperate to evade the conclusions you have to draw from this as it shatters your world view.
    I’m pretty patient with this because I get where you and the others are coming from having suffered all the same confusions myself. I get it.
    Ultimately though, facts don’t care about your feelings.
    When faced with facts the moral person accepts them the immoral person evades them.

    It’s a great irony that people turn to religion for morality yet in order to do so they have to be quintessentially immoral.

  129. Iampeter

    So is atheism.
    A method of thinking when applied on a large scale that inevitably ends in mass murder.
    If you don’t think your atheism is contaiminating your thought processes you aren’t paying careful attention to your thoughts.

    Two things.
    Firstly, as I said in my very first post, atheism is not a method of thinking, it is just a rejection of the religious method. It’s not an alternative. An alternative to religious thinking is rational thinking. Reason.

    And reason didn’t give us communism and fascism or slaughter anyone. Christianity did.
    Two thousand years of teaching people that you should obey commands from on high. Why? Because they are commands from on high.
    Teaching you to give up everything you own and give it to more others.
    Teaching that the ideal society is one where all things are in common and each takes according to his needs.
    Teaching “brother love”.
    And teaching that an innocent man should be tortured and murdered for the sins of others and what did you think was going to happen?

    Join the dots.

    So quite aside from the worst conflicts in Europe before the 20th century being directly caused by Christians, the very worst conflicts and ideologies in Europe that gave us the World Wars were a direct product of horrible Christian teachings.
    As someone once said to me, “Communists are people who take the teachings of Christ more seriously than Christians do”.

  130. But God is not undefinable.

    Then it’s not God. Either something exists which means its not supernatural or something is supernatural in which case it doesn’t exist. This is what I mean. To try and believe in things like God you are stuck in this circular argument because you’re trying to violate the law of identity which can’t be done.

    This then is your unexamined and hidden premise which hinges on the idea of natural. If natural means simply ‘something definable’ then God is perfectly natural because He is to a great extent specifiable as a being that must have attributes such as simplicity, immateriality, timelessness, all-goodness, and the like, to be God. But if natural means simply physical, then you are in a quandary as there non-physical entities that are also definable, like universals, like numbers, like propositions, and so on.

    You really need to clarify this because you continually assert without proof that God must be undefinable because He is supernatural, while ignoring the exhaustive treatment people like Aquinas and Clarke have given of God and His attributes which successfully rebuts your claim re God. This leaves you with the mere assertion that since God is ‘supernatural’, whatever that means, and He must also be, contrary to the evidence, undefinable. So if your assertion re undefinability rests ultimately on the claim that He is supernatural you really need to explain what you mean by supernatural.

    Whether anyone recognizes it or not 1 will still be 1.

    No, people self-evidently recognize 1=1, but what is not self-evident is that the law of identity=God does not exist. If the later were self-evidently the case Plato, Aristotle, and every other proponent of the law of identity would have self-evidently realized that, but they didn’t, so your claim is obviously wrong.

    Stating 1=1 and that 1=2 is impossible is not an argument and is obviously self evident to everyone.
    The reason you are arguing against it is because you are desperate to evade the conclusions you have to draw from this as it shatters your world view.
    I’m pretty patient with this because I get where you and the others are coming from having suffered all the same confusions myself. I get it.
    Ultimately though, facts don’t care about your feelings.
    When faced with facts the moral person accepts them the immoral person evades them.

    Not at all, the reason I’m arguing against it is that I’ve never come across this denial before. I’ve even looked in Martin’s Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and it isn’t there. Why would he leave out of his treatment of theism such a purportedly obvious disproof? All that you could conclude from this absence is that the disproof is, on its face, nonsensical and certainly not self-evident, such that even people like Martin (or dot) who are atheists/ agnostics cannot see how the law of identity ‘self-evidently’ denies the existence of God. So I’m inclined to conclude, especially given your remarks above, that you don’t really care if what you say is true or not, and when faced with the fact of the obvious lack of any self-evidence that the law of identity entails the impossibility of God, you would simply retreat into psychologizing your interlocutor.

  131. atheism is not a method of thinking, it is just a rejection of the religious method. It’s not an alternative. An alternative to religious thinking is rational thinking. Reason.

    If atheism rejects the ‘religious method’ it has to do so on certain grounds/ criteria/ and the like, so it depends upon a method of thinking.

  132. Iampeter

    You really need to clarify this because you continually assert without proof that God must be undefinable because He is supernatural

    That’s pretty clear. Not sure what else needs to be clarified about that. Either god is natural in which case it isn’t god or its supernatural in which case it doesn’t exist. Either way, you’ve falsified religion.

    Not at all, the reason I’m arguing against it is that I’ve never come across this denial before.

    Yes. This is called evasion. And group think too.
    If you weren’t evading and playing dumb you would’ve said “because I disagree with you Peter” not brought up what others have or haven’t said or whether this is a common or rare type of argument.
    None of that is relevant in the slightest to the validity or not of what I’m saying. You’re evading.

  133. That’s pretty clear. Not sure what else needs to be clarified about that. Either god is natural in which case it isn’t god or its supernatural in which case it doesn’t exist. Either way, you’ve falsified religion.

    Um, you need to clarify what you mean by natural. At the moment, all that is clear is that you are afraid to actually put your cards on the table and that you prefer to make unsubstantiated assertions.

    Yes. This is called evasion. And group think too.

    Not at all. It simply demonstrates that what you asserted was self-evident is simply wrong.

    If you weren’t evading and playing dumb you would’ve said “because I disagree with you Peter” not brought up what others have or haven’t said or whether this is a common or rare type of argument.
    None of that is relevant in the slightest to the validity or not of what I’m saying. You’re evading.

    Quite the contrary, I’ve been charitable and patient. I’ve at various points said that I disagree with you on this or that point, repeatedly, and I’ve also pointed out that what you repeatedly assert is ‘self-evident’ is not self-evident even to people who are themselves atheists or themselves proponets of the law of identity. And now you’re pretending that I’m the one evading. For insance, did you provide an elaboration of what you meant by natural when asked? No, you didn’t. You just repeated your assertions.

  134. Iampeter

    If we just cut through it, it seems you’re biggest issue is how do I make the leap from 1=1 to therefore religion is falsified.
    I do that because the idea of religion or anything supernatural is trying to suggest that 1=2.
    This is false and self evidently so.
    That’s it.
    There’s nothing more to it than that.

  135. So your argument is basically rubbish. What you assert is not self-evident to anyone outside gullible Objectivists, sorry Objectivists. And when you are challenged you simply double-down. This is plain to everyone that may read this thread.

  136. .

    …this is the worst argument ever. So many people I respect wasting their time arguing over their beliefs and trying to cajole others into conceding they are facts.

    What you need to do is talk non stop for 25+ pages of comments on monetary economics 😉

  137. dot, to say that X is not self-evident, in this instance, is obviously a statement of fact. If people who are proponents of the law of identity never realized that it entails as a matter of self-evidence the non-existence of God then the claim of self-evidence is defeated. That is not a matter of opinion.

  138. dot, I’ve actually found this argument Iampeter has been making elsewhere and I’m going to reply to it on my own blog. It is made a little more clearly by this other fellow but it is easily rebutted too.

  139. Iampeter

    You can’t rebut the self evident fact that 1=1 and that suggesting otherwise is wrong and that this applies to everything, thus disproving religious and any other supernatural assertions.

    That’s the whole tragic point. Religion is so simplistic that it is self-evidently wrong.

    As Mark Twain put it “Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”

    But I do agree there are people who are probably better than me at explaining this stuff. I recommend reading them and learning if you’re interested in not being a disintegrated zombie like most people today.

  140. You can’t rebut the self evident fact that 1=1 and that suggesting otherwise is wrong and that this applies to everything, thus disproving religious and any other supernatural assertions.

    I don’t need to rebut the claim 1=1, but it is very easy to rebut the claim that the law of identity, which is simply the claim that A is A and not B, does not conflict with the idea of God: God is God and not the universe, or an idol, or a book, or a horse, or the fool, Iampeter. See how easy that was. But not so easy that the fool, Iampeter, would recognize it.

  141. Iampeter

    Yea but Dover that’s because you’ve still not getting it.
    The proposition for god, religion and the supernatural is the attempt to say 1=not-1 or god=not-god.
    That’s why it’s a self evidently false proposition and always has been.

    If god actually equals god then what you’re describing is not supernatural and not god, in the religious sense.
    You might be describing a very advanced alien being that we can’t understand, but that’s not religion anymore.

    So like I said, you’re either describing the supernatural which violates the law of identity and can be dismissed or you’re describing something that is part of the natural world and therefore not religious.

    Either way, you’ve refuted religion and the supernatural.

  142. .

    This argument presupposes stuff about the physical world.

    A = A is a good shit test for some dumb ideas in political philosophy.

    However, it’s wrong on a certain level. A = A. Okay, explain frame dragging. Explain the quantum eraser experiment. Explain how photons have zero mass yet can have momentum.

    You cannot apply it to everything. Like how having a law degree won’t help you design a CPU chip.

  143. Yea but Dover that’s because you’ve still not getting it.
    The proposition for god, religion and the supernatural is the attempt to say 1=not-1 or god=not-god.
    That’s why it’s a self evidently false proposition and always has been.

    Not at all. If I describe an entity, A, that must be simple, timeless, immaterial, and the like, I’m describing something that cannot be entity, B, complex, in time, material, and the like. Therefore, there is nothing about this entity, A, that violates the law of identity.

    If god actually equals god then what you’re describing is not supernatural and not god, in the religious sense.
    You might be describing a very advanced alien being that we can’t understand, but that’s not religion anymore.

    No, a very advanced alien being cannot be God; that is, cannot have any of the attributes of simplicity, eternity, immateriality, and the like, that God must have.

    So like I said, you’re either describing the supernatural which violates the law of identity and can be dismissed or you’re describing something that is part of the natural world and therefore not religious.

    You have as yet not shown how entity A, God, violates the law of identity. At some point, you are going to have to stop stamping your fists wildly on the table and tell me how exactly entity A, as described above, violates the law of identity.

  144. Iampeter

    Not at all. If I describe an entity, A, that must be simple, timeless, immaterial, and the like, I’m describing something that cannot be entity, B, complex, in time, material, and the like. Therefore, there is nothing about this entity, A, that violates the law of identity.

    Yes but if you’re describing something as indescribable (timeless, immaterial) then you’re doing the same thing as trying to suggest A=not-A and thus violating the law of identity.

  145. Yes but if you’re describing something as indescribable (timeless, immaterial) then you’re doing the same thing as trying to suggest A=not-A and thus violating the law of identity.

    Not at all. Entity A has just these attributes, timelessness, immateriality, simplicity, omnipotence, and the like ( they together constitute a description of A) and so can be distinguished from any other entity, B, C, D, and so on, that doesn’t have these attributes. That is all the law of identity requires. The law of identity itself shares some of the above attributes. It is timeless and immaterial, so the individual attributes themselves cannot be the problem either.

  146. .

    Yes but if you’re describing something as indescribable (timeless, immaterial) then you’re doing the same thing as trying to suggest A=not-A and thus violating the law of identity.

    Nope, this is just an epistemological party trick.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.