Atheism
Offline Atheists are people who assert that there is no God. They may say that atoms or their component parts in space makeup the sum total of all reality. Whatever the analysis, these people assert that finite physical reality is all there is-that there is nothing else. There are several divisions in this group. One historically prominent group is the Logical Positivists. By an analysis of language, they conclude that theology is not so much false as it is plain nonsense. To them, speaking of God is like saying that the typewriter is the bluish-green sound of the square root of minus one. Theology is not good enough even to be false; it is simple nonsense. Other devotees of scientism are not Logical Positivists. Their theories are called naturalism or humanism, and they would call theology bigoted falsehood. Various political liberals are atheists, and often their socialistic creed attacks theology as a reactionary hindrance to social advancement.
Pantheism and Agnosticism
It is instructive to distinguish between two forms of atheism, for the second form, pantheism, has the appearance of believing in God very much. It indeed asserts the existence of God, and the theory can be called theology. These people do not want to be known as atheists or as irreligious. But they define God as all that exists. Spinoza used the phrase Deus sive Natura: God, that is to say, Nature. Some may use the term Pure Being, or theologian Paul Tillich's phrase, The Ground of All Being. Thus God is the universe itself. He is not its Creator. Since they say that God is the All, these people are called Pantheists.
Logically there is no difference between Atheism and Pantheism. To deny that there is a God and to apply the name God to everything are conceptually identical. For example, it is as though I should assert the existence of a grumpstein and try to prove it by pointing to giraffes, stars, mountain ranges, and books: together they form a grumpstein, I would say, and therefore a grumpstein exists. The pantheists point to giraffes, stars, and so on, and say, therefore God exists. Those who deny God-atheists-and those who say God is everything-pantheists-are asserting that nothing beyond the physical universe is real. In Christian language, and in common languages around the world, God is as different from the universe as a star is from a giraffe and more so.
There is actually another variety of atheism, though the adherents themselves might strongly object to being called atheists. Technically they are not atheists, though they might as well be. These are the agnostics. They do not assert that there is a God, nor do they assert that there is no God; they simply say that they do not know. They claim ignorance. Ignorance, however, is not a theory one can argue. Ignorance is an individual state of mind. An ignorant person is not required to prove by learned arguments that he is ignorant. He just does not know. Such a person needs to be taught.
Probably most persons in the United States are atheists of a sort. If one should ask them, they would probably say that they believe in God. But they might as well not believe in God for all the good it does them. Unless someone mentions God to them, they never think of him; they never pray to him; he does not enter into their daily plans and calculations. Their lives, their minds, their thinking are essentially no different from the lives of atheists and agnostics. They are "practicing atheists."
The Atheist's Argument
The reader of this may expect to find a straightforward refutation of atheism. But he may be disappointed, for the situation is somewhat complicated. In the first place, one might accuse the atheist of never having proved that the physical universe is the only reality and that there are no supernatural beings. This would be satisfactory, if the term atheism means the argued denial of a Deity. But atheists, like agnostics, shift the burden of proof and say the theist is under obligation to demonstrate the truth of his view; but the atheist considers himself under no such obligation. Atheists usually wobble back and forward. Yet, Ernest Nagel, who may be called a naturalist in philosophy, seems to argue: "the occurrence of events [he means each and every event without exception]...is contingent on the organization of spatio-temporally located bodies.... That this is so is one of the best-tested conclusions of experience.... There is no place for an immaterial spirit directing the course of events, no place for the survival of personality after the corruption of the body which exhibits it."
This is an atheistic, not an agnostic, statement. He argues that science has proved the nonexistence of God, but the argument is invalid. No scientist has ever produced any evidence that man's intellect ceases to function at death. Since his methods have not discovered any spirit, Nagel assumes there can be none. He refuses to question his methods. Atheism is not a conclusion developed by his methods; rather it is the assumption on which his methods are based.
The agnostic, however, is not so dogmatic. He shifts the burden and demands theists prove that an omnipotent spirit has created and now controls the universe. This is quite a challenge, and it is one that the Christian is duty bound to face. No Christian with intellectual ability can excuse himself by claiming theology is useless hairsplitting. Peter has warned him otherwise. The "practicing atheists" are really agnostics, and we must preach the Gospel to them-and that God omnipotent reigns is part of the Gospel. But they answer, "How do you know that there is any God at all?" A Christian who knows no theology is ill equipped to answer this question. How is it possible to know God? Is he just a trance, a hunch, an ecstatic experience? Is he so transcendent that we can neither know him nor talk about him? Is he not so transcendent? Note that the Christian apologete, i.e., the Christian evangelist, must have a decently clear conception of God before he can satisfy his inquisitors. He must be knowledgeable in theology.
The Wrong Reply
Now, the answer to the agnostic's very pertinent question is rather complex, and the reader must not expect anything simple. Furthermore, the answer given here will appear unsatisfactory and disappointing to some very honest Christians. For these reasons the present reply to agnosticism will begin with an explanation of how not to answer the question. If this seems a cumbersome and roundabout way of going at it, and the impatient non-theologian wants immediate results, it must be pointed out that the initial choice between two roads determines the destination. Choose the wrong road and one ends up lost and confused. Remember Bunyan's Christian and how he looked down two roads, trying to see which one was straight. Then there came along a swarthy pilgrim in a white robe who pointed out to him, with great confidence, which road Christian should take. It ended in near disaster. Therefore we shall begin by pointing out the wrong road.
Now, I do not wish to say that those who recommend the wrong road in the present matter are flattering deceivers whose white robes are hypocritical disguises. On the contrary, a large number of respectable and honest authors, from Aristotle to Charles Hodge and Robert Sproul, insist that the best and indeed the only way to prove the existence of God is to study the growth of a plant, the path of a planet, the motion of a marble. They support this seemingly secular method by quoting Psalm 19:1- "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork." Therefore we should study astronomy to refute the atheist and to instruct the agnostic. Paul says that God's omnipotence can be deduced from the way a little boy shoots a marble-a thing that has been made. Some stalwart Romanists boast that Paul foresaw and placed his stamp of approval on Thomas' Aristotelian argument.
There are two difficulties with this enthusiastic recommendation. The first is not conclusive, but those who approve of the argument must pay attention to it. The difficulty is its difficulty: It is a very hard method. The second difficulty is its virtual uselessness.
The first difficulty-inconclusive evidence and a hard method to prove-can be best addressed with a few examples. Suppose we can get a microscope and examine the internal phloem of the Lykopersikon esculentum. Botany is even worse than theology in its use of long and technical words. We get a clear picture of the internal structure of a plant, but we cannot discover God by a detailed, microscopic look into a tomato. If we carefully observe the motion of the planets, we will see that the squares of their periodic times are proportional to their mean distances from the Sun. If we succeeded in getting this information, we could conclude that God is a great mathematician and that salvation depends on understanding mathematics. Essentially, this is what the ancient Greek philosophical school of the Pythagoreans said. They believed that a happy life after death was the reward for studying arithmetic and geometry.
People hold a somewhat similar view today who think that all the problems of this world can be solved by science. But unlike the Pythagoreans, contemporaries do not believe in a life after death, nor do they think the laws of astronomy can prove there is a God. To change their minds by deducing the existence of God from the laws of science would be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible. If by some other method we first know there is a God, the study of astronomy might show that he is a mathematician. But we would have to know God first.
However, the mere fact that an argument is difficult and complex does not prove that it is a fallacy. Geometry and calculus may drive students to despair, but the theorems are usually regarded as valid deductions. Contrariwise, when one examines the argument as Thomas actually wrote it, serious flaws appear. In another work, I have detailed some of Thomas' fallacies. One of them is a case of circularity, in which he uses as a premise the conclusion he wished to prove. Another is the case of a term that has one meaning in the premises and a different meaning in the conclusion. No syllogism can be valid if the conclusion contains an idea not already given in the premises.
The conclusion therefore is: The so-called "cosmological argument" is not only extremely difficult-since it would require a great amount of science, mathematics, and philosophy to prove it-but it is inconclusive and irremediably fallacious. This is no way to answer the atheists.
The second difficulty is that even if such an argument were valid, it would be useless. This objection applies more to modern authors than to Aristotle. Aristotle's notion of god was quite clear: the Unmoved Mover, thought thinking thought; and this metaphysical mind has a definite role in the explanation of natural phenomena. But the god of contemporary empiricists seems to have no role at all; mainly because the meaning they attach to the word God is utterly vague.
As examples of these arguments, one can mention Yale Philosophy Professor John E. Smith's Experience of God; Frederick Sontag's How Philosophy Shapes Theology; a few years earlier Geddes MacGregor of Bryn Mawr published Introduction to Religious Philosophy. There are many such books; it is not my intention to discuss any of these individually. My point is: When they try to support a belief in god, their arguments are no better and often worse than those of Aristotle; and if some plausibility is found in them, the reason is that their notion of what god is is so vague and ambiguous that the reader imposes his own definite ideas. In their context, the arguments are virtually meaningless. Furthermore, the vague god of these views is useless. Nothing can be deduced from his existence. No moral norms follow a definition of god; no religious practices are contained in a description of god.
One can have a certain academic respect for an atheist who flatly denies God and life after death. He says clearly what he means, and he uses the term God in its common English meaning. One can have almost as much respect for the pantheist, even though he does not use the term God in its ordinary meaning. At least Baruch Spinoza and others identify god explicitly with the universe. But what can our reaction be to the view of Professor H. N. Wieman? He insisted on the existence of god, but for him god is not even all the universe-he, or it, is only some part of the universe. Namely, god is a complex of interactions in society on which we depend and to whose essential structure we must conform if maximum value is to be realized in human experience. So? How does this definition of god stack up against the Shorter Catechism? Therefore, Christians should be more concerned about what kind of God exists rather than about the existence of God.
The Meaninglessness of Existence
At first it may seem strange that knowledge of what God is more important than knowledge that God is. His essence or nature being more important than his existence may seem unusual. Existentialists insist that existence precedes essence. Nevertheless, competent Christians disagree for two reasons. First, we have seen that pantheists identify god with the universe. What is god? -the universe. The mere fact that they use the name god for the universe and thus assert that god "exists" is of no help to Christianity.
The second reason for not being much interested in the existence of God is somewhat similar to the first. The idea existence is an idea without content. Stars exist-but this tells us nothing about the stars; mathematics exists-but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist. The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. A word, to mean something, must also not mean something. For example, if I say that some cats are black, the sentence has meaning only because some cats are white. If the adjective were attached to every possible subject-so all cats were black, all stars were black, and all politicians were black, as well as all the numbers in arithmetic, and God too-then the word black would have no meaning. It would not distinguish anything from something else. Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information. That is why the Catechism asks, What is God? Not, Does God exist?
Now, most of the contemporary authors are extremely vague as to what sort of God they are talking about; and because the term is so vague, the concept is useless. Can these authors use their god to support a belief in life after death? No ethical norms can be deduced from their god. Most pointedly, their god does not speak to man. He is no better than "the silence of eternity" without even being "interpreted by love." Atheism is more realistic, more honest. If we are to combat the latter, we need a different method.
The Proper Reply
The explanation of a second method must begin with a more direct confrontation with atheism. If the existence of God cannot be deduced by cosmology, have we dodged the burden of proof and left the battlefield in the possession of our enemies? No; there is indeed a theistic answer. Superficially, it is not difficult to understand; but, unfortunately, a full appreciation of its force requires some philosophic expertise. A knowledge of geometry is of great help, but it is seldom taught in the public high schools. One cannot realistically expect Christians to have read and to have understood Spinoza; and Protestant churches usually anathematize plain, ordinary Aristotelian logic.
In geometry there are axioms and theorems. One of the early theorems is, "An exterior angle of a triangle is greater than either opposite interior angle." A later one is the famous Pythagorean theorem: the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle equals the square of its hypotenuse. How theological all this sounds! These two theorems and all others are deduced logically from a certain set of axioms. But the axioms are never deduced. They are assumed without proof.
There is a definite reason why not everything can be deduced. If one tried to prove the axioms of geometry, one must refer back to prior propositions. If these too must be deduced, there must be previous propositions, and so on back ad infinitum. From which it follows: If everything must be demonstrated, nothing can be demonstrated, for there would be no starting point. If you cannot start, then you surely cannot finish.
Every system of theology or philosophy must have a starting point. Logical Positivists started with the unproved assumption that a sentence can have no meaning unless it can be tested by sensation. To speak without referring to something that can be touched, seen, smelled, and especially measured, is to speak nonsense. But they never deduce this principle. It is their non-demonstrable axiom. Worse, it is self-contradictory, for it has not been seen, smelled, or measured; therefore it is self-condemned as nonsense.
If the axioms of other secularists are not nonsense, they are nonetheless axioms. Every system must start somewhere, and it cannot have started before it starts. A naturalist might amend the Logical Positivist's principle and make it say that all knowledge is derived from sensation. This is not nonsense, but it is still an empirically unverifiable axiom. If it is not self-contradictory, it is at least without empirical justification. Other arguments against empiricism need not be given here: The point is that no system can deduce its axioms.
The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianity's being based on a non-demonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so can Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be, God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.
- Gordon Clark
- Login to post comments
Really, that was all I needed. I didn't actually need to paste in the article links.
So you admit to posting links to articles that are pretty much irrelevant? hmmm...
Actually, you did need to because your original post was nothing but one mere assertion after another. I'm hoping those links provide some substance.
Half of your response was wasteful, like the little squirt above. It was like listening to an annoying NBA announcer telling us the obvious - "hey folks, he's dribbling the ball." "hey folks, he's posting from TrinityFoundation. Hey folks, the article is not addressed to atheists. Hey folks....." blah, blah, blah.
Nah Wave, i think i've been pretty calm so for considering that the majority of replies have been a waste of time.
Thankfully, BGH offered some substance with a link.
He is conflating presuppositionalism with axiomatics, which means he understands formal logic to the same degree that a five year old does.
if you say so.
So, you assert that my argument is wasteful and irrelevant...
then you refuse to answer my challenge
You obviously do not understand my challenge and have never been educated in formal logic.
You refuse to consider my argument, or answer it...
and announce unswayed by it!
Ladies and Gentlemen, a theist...
Could you please start acting your age and construct a formal, proper response and stop being so intellectually lazy?
Have you even read my whole response?? You realize that Clark the idiot does not actually make an argument until the last paragraph, maybe you should just skip to the part with the picture.
Note: If your age is between 0-4, I apologize in advance for saying you should act your age. You already are. Honestly, if arguing with you is going to be this tiresome henceforth, I feel the following would be a much better use of my time:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Kingneb,
Did you read the linked essay from Todangst? Did you see how 'god' is incoherent in many ways, especially the "omnimax" god of christian mythology?
what part don't you understand?
"I have read your response. I am now reading the articles you linked to."
Here, let's try it again:
"I have read your response. I am now reading the articles you linked to."
See, uniike the "tl;dr" folks, i like to read things through.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
very well then, my apologies.
I was a little suspicious at first because I had never met anyone who did. You understand my initial skepticism. The most oft-recieved response I get is tldr
Continue.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
BGH,
I have read through it once. I am printing it out today, along with those other links, to read through again and mark up.
I have a number of questions regarding Tod's understanding of the "omni"s and persona. I noticed that he goes right into qouting some guy, which immediately throws up flags for me because that assumes the person he is quoting is correctly presenting God.
I have my own beefs with many Christians on what constitutes a "person".
But I will read it again before commenting. I like to read things two or three times, especially a printed out copy, so i can make notes, etc. Helps me keep train of thought.
thank you sir.
As long as you're actually reading the articles and not just scanning them while rehearsing your presuppositions of the writers.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I know this post was not in response to me, but by all means, take your time and read the information as thoroughly as possible. Hopefully a few things will be cleared up and we can continue the discussion.
This is a slight strawman, minimizing our position to an assertion. I don't know very many freethinkers that haven't carefully considered things before taking this position. As though we chose this path just to be part of the "cool" kids that much of the world misunderstands and dislikes.
A more careful wording would be that atheists have considered the stories and evidence for various relgions' claims of a god and have rejected them for many reasons.
We'd never get anywhere if the concept of "burden of proof" was on the negatory claim. You could walk into a court, declare the window on your house is broken, therefore your neighbor did it because he cannot prove that he did not.
Also, it turns out that not accepting these wild claims without proof IS consistant with what we see in the real world. "Answered prayer" having no greater effect than random chance is consistant with no god, having never seen booming voices from the sky or talking snakes is consistant with no god, a universe that seems "tuned" to create destructive black holes and not life seems more consistant with no god (or a really bizarre one that LOOOOVES some black holes!).. on and on...
While it may be impossible to completely prove a negative claim, our natural world is consistant with our position.
- or - you could walk into a courtroom and claim the courtroom doesn't exist.
Sure thing.
It's based on the last few paragraphs of the article you posted.
It was about how everyone depends on grounding axioms, and as seeing as the axioms themselves are what do the justifying, they themselves cannot be justified.
So he claims that axioms are arbitrary and if secularists shouldn't have to defend their axioms, grounding assumptions, then why should Christians have to justify an axiomatic belief in God?
I countered by pointing out that the secularist 'assumptions' are so basic that everyone relies on them - Christians included.
The second one, which you were talking about, is where I said that axioms are statements about method rather than truth.
However, I think that I was probably wrong as:
a) Some statements on method need justifying by other 'axioms'. When I got to distinguishing between Christian methods of 'believe the Bible' and secularist methods I fell back on my first one about the secularist assumptions are ones that Christians hold too, so they can't dispute, while the Christian one is disputable.
b) It might be that some truths are axiomatic.
Take Descartes "I am, I exist" - to deny this would be a contradiction so in that respect it is axiomatic.
If think that something is an axiom if you contradict yourself in denying it.
That's why God cannot be an axiom while the secularist ones can/
Strafio,
Thank you for the interaction and calm response. It is appreciated.
You said that the Christians use secularist assumptions, which is in reference to the law of contradiction, as one example, right?
If so, why would you call the law of contradiction a "secularist" assumption?
It almost sounds as though you are using the same TAG argument that presups use, but from a different worldview.
What justification do you have for saying that the laws of logic are "secular"?
Thank you.
Incorrect; a mere assertion would be "kingneb once had some logical concepts explained to him, thought he understood them, and then went on to misuse them in debate." It's called the law of non-contradiction: contradictory things (P ^ ~P) cannot exist. Please go look it up; any of the first few google hits should suffice.
Can some theist back me up on this so kingneb doesn't think all us puppy-teriyaki-enjoying atheists are all just being mean together? Alternately, kingneb, you can attempt to show a valid logical construction which allows a contradiction to exist.
As an aside, I am confused by the mental paths someone may have had to take to understand fallacies of equivocation, ad hominem, ad baculums, etc., and not know the law of non-contradiction.
As to "no substance", well, I'll let your assertion that a complete refutation of your position is insubstantial speak for itself. Anyone else thinking about the Black Knight here? "Flesh wound."
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Secular, as I understand it, is a way of looking at the world where religion is just unnecessary. So anything that doesn't require religion can be called secular. So the laws of logic would be secular in that you don't need religion for them, wheras belief in the divinity of Jesus would not be secular as it requires religion.
Calling the law of non-contradiction an 'assumption' was merely using the language of the 'opponent' I was arguing against, i.e. the pre-supps. I don't see the law of non-contradiction as an assumption, but I think that you should try to argue with people in their own language where possible.
THeist to the rescue ...
This is precisely why I asked for your definition of god. You are attempting to use the tools of logic but refusing to start with a sound assumption. You seem to be starting with God exists. But that is so broad that it could be the god of evangelical Christians or the flying spaghetti monster. If you are talking about the Christian god, then when described as omniscient, omnipotent and omni benevolent, such a concept of god quickly crashes and burns under the scrutiny of logic. A key piece of this logic is the Law of Contradiction. In the language of logic, things that are self contradictory don't exist. Period. Sp to use the language of logic in a discussiona bout god you must first provide a logically consistent definition of god.
Or so it seems to me.
My Artwork
Sorry, Did I miss some sense here?
Shikko,
I know what the law of contradiction is.
I called it a "mere assertion" because all you did was assert that the "entity is defined in a contradictory way".
That is ALL you did - you never made any case. I wasn't questioning the law of contradiction.
wow, you're making this too easy.
"You seem to be starting with God exists. But that is so broad that it could be the god of evangelical Christians or the flying spaghetti monster."
NO, i don't start with that. Try again.
Strafio,
You defined "secular" as "a way of looking at the world where religion is just unnecessary."
You've called the laws of logic "secular" assumptions.
I then asked why you consider them secular assumptions and your response was that logic doesn't "need religion for them".
It seems like you're begging the question.
Your condescending attitude has breached the limits of my patience.
Have fun. I'm out.
My Artwork
Could you let us know what logical arguments require the supernatural? I suppose we're having trouble seeing why, for example, highlighting a logical fallacy of any sort would rely on religion.
No, it is not. This is one of those "If X has to have a creator then EVERYTHING has to have a creator" arguements.
Show me a puddlemancer.
"If X has to have a creator then EVERYTHING has to have a creator" arguements.
That's not what i said.
stuntgibbon,
in my worldview, God is logic. That laws of logic are "God thinking".
But back to my question: what justification is there for saying that the laws of logic are secular?
That is what you meant, or atleast what your statement said for you regardless of what you meant to say.
Are you trying to say that our existance is evidence of a God?
Have fun. I'm out.
Don't let the wave hit you on the way out.
I was operating on the assumption that when you said:
you meant it. Is this not the case?
So unless you would like to modify support for your definition to say that when the prophets of the bible describe the Christian god as an omnimax being, they are not speaking literally or that it doesn't matter because it wasn't literally god speaking, you have a problem.
I didn't go into the contradictory nature of an omnimax being because it's already been done; saying I've "merely asserted" this fact is like saying I've "merely asserted" that the sum of degrees making up a trialgle in Euclidean space always equals 180. I thought rehashing it would be a waste of time. However, if you need to see it done, my version of it is as follows:
Definition 1. omnimax: having the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence.
Premise: The Christian god is an omnimax being.
Omniscience precludes omnipotence in the following way: an entity who knows everything cannot change their mind in light of new evidence (nothing unknown can become known to such a being), nor experience surprise, nor can an omnimax being learn. Therefore by the definition of omnimax, the qualities of an omnimax being are contradictory and self-refuting.
Since by definition the Christian god is omnimax, but as a result of its omnimax quality cannot learn or change its mind, we have reached a contradiction: it is by definition omnipotent and omniscient but as a consequence of omniscience it lacks some abilities, which violates its omnipotence.
Since assuming that the premise is true leads to a contradiction, and since contradictory things cannot exist, the premise must be false.
Questions or corrections, anyone?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Ok, so you worship logic? We're getting a lot of new presuppers recently. Is CARM having a sweepstakes or something?
So from your worldview we have either 1.) no reason to trust the laws of logic to remain unchanged. If god thinks differently then we can expect a change in the laws of logic. Or 2.) god can not think differently and he is thus bound by the laws of logic (i.e. it is his nature which places logic as a natural existence above god). In this case there is a nature that is prior to your god and no longer can be said to require your god.
So, we either can't trust logic or don't need god, which is it?
In my secular worldview the laws of logic are simply brute facts of the nature of existence. They require no explanation aside from that they are simply the way nature is. We can examine this 'way nature is' using the only means available to us, the data processors of our brains, and we can extract principles that work well for our specific type of data processor in making reasonable inferences.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
To expand more upon the omnimax issue...
An omnibenevolent and omnipotent being would be able to stop 'evil' at will. In fact, because of the infinite love and infinite power, such 'evil' would be stomped out as soon as it formed. The problem is, we live in a world filled with terrible things.
Blood diamonds.
War.
Famine.
Disease.
Carrot top.
Murder.
Theft.
Adultery.
All of these are terribly bad things. In fact, most of them are sins (evil) according to most religions. The fact that these things exist is proof enough that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god does not exist.
To explain even further:
If the being is all loving and all powerful then he wouldn't have to give us a list of things we shouldn't do. There would be no devil. There would be no war. There wouldn't be anything bad in the world. Not even Carot Top.
Kingneb
The nonsene of your most recent posts demostrate why you posted an article from Gordon Clark. Both of you are infatuated with two ridiculous positions called presuppositionialism and Transcendantal Argument For the Existence of God.
The first one is the "presupposing" of a given position or set of as your starting point upon which you base all prior truths. The reason for this is that it is impossible for one to base all knowledge on proofs, since that would lead to an infinite regress of mathematical truths upon which we know knowledge.
It is for this reason that you and Clark have repeatedely confused presupposing (the base assumptions, which are held without any proof) with axiomatics and tautology (logical truths which are necessary truths and can be defended by retortion). Presupposition is untenable and irrational. It cannot be defended. Basing truth on axiomatics is extremely rational since we can demonstrate that axioms are necessary truths. Any attempt to invalidate an axiom is invalid in and of itself since the axiom in question will always be needed to construct a logical argument. In other words, axioms cannot be disproved (they can be defended by retortion. Their disproof would invariable invalidate itself), which means they also cannot be proved (they are beyond proof).
We can show this by rewording these into truth tables, which makes them tautologies, which makes them necessary truths. As you can see, I have given a list of these in the tables at the bottom.
Now, can you please point to one of the operators on the table and say "this is where the axiom: God has spoken in the Bible, is found?"
You won't be able to...
because it is not there.
Also, you invoked TAG, because you said the "laws of logic" are "God thinking" or "God upholds the laws of logic". This is absurd nonsense. For one, I showed here (you already have these links):
"Vitalism"/"Immaterialism" and Christian "dualism" have long since been debunked. Response?
All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt
The Matter/Information Conjecture Is a Crisis For the Existence of God
That it is absurd and impossible for God to "think". Second, the laws of logic do not need to be "upheld" because they are based on a set of necessary truths. Which means that I can expand from my tautologies and give you a table of First-order logic statements.
Which I already did. As I already explained to you, presupposition and axiom are utterly different and should not be conflated. The fact that this continues to be lost on you demonstrates that arguing this will be a very difficult process indeed. This argument was smashed aside by philosophers long before you were born.
Oh, and here is something to add to your reading list:
Doesn't Everyone Need To Start Out With an Assumption?
An easy argument to refute: Van Tillian/Calvinist presuppositionalism.
Now, please take a look at the tables
EDIT: The fucking text on the tables came out wrong. You''ll have to use your mouse to highlight them to see it properly.
(Note: For one variable, we simply have (P:T or F)
T
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It's a link to something on THIS site.
And I wrote it.
Bullshit. After you're through ignoring DG latest post, you can ignore mine. You have zero interesting in reading this, because you realize that you have zero ability to grasp it and zero ability to respond to it.
Job 11:7-9
"Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave [a] —what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea.
Previously, I've shown that references to the supernatural are necessarily incoherent:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts
http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag
It is equally true that attempts to provide an ontology for 'god' also necessarily lead to
incoherence - any attempt to define something in a wholly negative sense, devoid of a universe of discourse, leads to incoherence. Any attempt to define an entity with a set of contradictory or self exclusionary concepts leads to incoherence.
At the same time, attempts to provide secondary attributes to 'god' (i.e. 'the creator of the universe) lead to a set of attributes that are impossible to reconcile with each other, or with undeniable and undenied features of our universe.
I will provide examples of each sort of incoherence.
(Note: This entry relies on Anthony Flew's arguments from Does God Exist, 1993) Arguments used: Non cognitivism and The Problem of Evil)
Incoherence of the First Sort - The Ontological Dilemma
A specific example of this first sort of incoherence can be seen in Swinburne's preliminary definition of 'god' in his ironically entitled: The Coherence of Theism:
"'god' is a person without body who is eternal, free, able to do anything (except what can't be done, of course... and who 'decides what can't be done?) knows everything (such as what it feels like to fail?); is perfectly good (according to what standard?), is the 'proper object of human worship and obedience" (which leads to the question as to whether humans ought to worship anything or whether an intelligent creator would need or even want to be worshiped.), the creator and sustainer of the universe. (p. 1)
Later, Swinburne states that "Human persons have bodies: he, meaning 'god', does not. (p. 51). In order to more fully develop this idea, Swinburne tells us that "We learn to apply the term 'person' to various individuals around us in virtue of their possession of the characteristics which I have outlined. (p 102).
But if persons really are beings possessing bodies, rather than simply 'being a body', then as Anthony Flew notes, it would be sensible to talk of a 'whole body amputation' - i.e. we would be able to talk about persons as real entities (and not merely a hypothetical or a memory), devoid of any physical form. How can the concept of a 'person without a body' stand in as a coherent reference?
The term 'incorporeal persons' is as oxymoronic as 'immaterial substance', for it contains an internal contradiction: to be a person is to exist as something, some thing, not 'no thing'. Swinburne does have a response for this argument. Interestingly, it is identical to the same sort of argument given by the standard internet apologists:
"...no one has any business to argue, just because all the so-and-sos with which they happen themselves to have been acquainted were such-and-such, that therefore such-and-suchness must be an essential characteristic of anything which is to be properly rated a 'so-and-so' (p. 54)
For those who read this, and ask: what exactly is his complaint? His complaint is basically "just because all the persons we are acquainted with were made of matter, a person should simply not make the claim that a person, by definition, must be made of matter."
It is interesting to note that rather than attempt to give us an argument for his claim: an ontology for 'incorporeal persons', Swinburne essentially whines. He simply complains that it is not a proven that a person must be material. But this response is nothing more than an attempt to run from his epistemic duty to present a justification for holding that there can be 'incorporeal persons', because, we can even agree with Swinburne for the sake of argument, and still, his argument goes nowhere. For to characterize something as incorporeal is to say nothing at all. A negative definition, devoid of any universe of discourse, is equitable with 'nothing'. Those who propose arguments that use terms like 'incorporeal persons' have an epistemic responsibility to provide an ontology for their hypothetical terms, not a whiny complaint. They must provide a set of positive attributes for their incorporeal entity, a way of identifying said 'god', of knowing just what we are talking about (other than some completely anthropomorphic, materialistic being) or concede that their term is ontologically bankrupt. Negative theologians have made this concession for centuries, in fact, it was the negative theologian who first noted the ontological dilemma entailed in all supernatural claims (See: this link)
Incoherence of the Second Sort - Internal Contradiction
An example of the second sort of incoherence would be contradictions between the secondary characteristics attributed to the christian god (omnipotence/omniscience) and with undeniable features (even by theists) of our universe. Each of these defined characteristics, taken apart, may be coherent declarations, but when these attributes are assigned to the same entity, an internal contradiction appears.
Joseph Butler's The Analogy of Religion states: "There is no need of abstruse reasonings and distinctions, to convince an unprejudiced understanding, that there is a god who made and governs the world, and will judge it in righteousness."
No need of abstruse reasonings? Well it ought to be, in fact, it must be so, if in fact this 'judge of righteousness' requires an awareness of his existence as part of salvation. Yet, how can we reconcile the idea of a just and good creator who judges his creation for being precisely as he created to be? An omnipotent, omniscient creator (leaving aside that contradiction) must necessarily be the ultimate sufficient cause of every action and every passion of every human (indeed, even the cause of the existence of action and passion). Such a creator is therefore, necessarily, a perfectly responsible creator.
Theists may balk at this claim, and ask for a reference to justify it. I offer up the argument of a little known theologian, Thomas Aquinas. He writes, in Summa contra Gentiles: ...just as god not only gave being to things when the first began, but is also, as the conserving cause of being, the cause of their being as long as they last...; so he also not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is also always the cause of these things. Hence if this divine influence stopped every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything, is traced back to him as its cause. (III, 67)
So, if this perfectly responsible creator, which is necessarily perfectly responsible for every parameter of existence being precisely as it is, judges his own creation and finds it wanting, what can a sane person call this but a mockery of justice, a clear contradiction? And, furthermore, if the said 'judgment' (and we can no longer properly call it judgment) leads to an infinite torture of infinite intensity and infinite duration, what can we call this but the ultimate expression of evil?
The most common response here from the theist, is of course, "free will". Yet this cry is made in contradiction to the theist's own secondary attributes for his 'god', which necessarily lead to a perfectly responsible creator, ultimately responsible for the existence of every event. If said 'creator' created free will, shaped its parameters, along with every parameter of of the beings and the environments within which they operate, this creator's role as a perfectly responsible creator obviates 'free will'. A theist is forced to cry out 'paradox' and thus concede incoherence. In other words, a theist is forced into abstruse reasonings and distinctions....
Aquinas, again from Summa contra Gentiles, simply accepts the problem, in fact, he actively refutes those who deny it:
"God alone can move the will, as an agent, without doing violence to it... Some people... not understanding how god can cause a movement of our will in us without prejudicing the freedom of the will, have tried to explain... authoritative texts wrongly: that is, they would say that god 'works in us, to wish and to accomplish' means that he causes in use the power of willing, but not in such a way that he makes us will this or that. These people are, of course, opposed quite plainly by authoritative texts of Holy Writ. for it says in Isaiah (26:12) "Lord, you have worked all our work in us." Hence we received from god not only the power of willing but its employment also. (III
88-89)
Luther also recognized the same problem:
Luther, in de Servo Arbitrio:
"I did not say 'of compulsion' ... a man without the spirit of god does not do evil against his will, under pressure, as though he were taken by the scruff of his neck and dragged into it, like a thief or a footpad being dragged off against his will to punishment; but he does it spontaneously and voluntarily (II, )
However, Luther is at least compelled to respond in some fashion. His response, however, is that one ought to simply take it on faith that this somehow makes sense!
"The highest degree of faith is to believe he is just, though of His own will he makes us proper subjects for damnation and seems, (in the words of Erasmus) 'to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object of hate than for love." If I could by any means understand how this same god... can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. (II, 7).
But what of those who further press Luther on the matter? Surely, at some point, he'd give a response. After all, as Bulter, (above) notes, There is no need of abstruse reasonings and distinctions, to convince an unprejudiced understanding, that there is a god who made and governs the world, and will judge it in righteousness." So let's see the clear, concise, non abstruse response that any 'unprejudiced' mind will gladly accept:
"It is not for us to inquire into these mysteries, but to adore them. If flesh and blood take offense here and grumble, well let them grumble; they will achieve nothing: grumbling will not change god! And however many of the ungodly stumble and depart, the elect will remain" (II, 6)
So, the response amounts to this: begging the question that this 'god' exists anyway, and special pleading the problem away. I would have to say that this response is a fine example of a 'prejudiced mind'.
Had we been able to press Luther further, no doubt his response would have been the same as his 'god's':
Romans 9:18-24
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[a] Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Even the christian 'god' 'himself' is at a loss as to how to respond to the problem of evil!
Common Responses:
1) "God" is a coherent term, and I can provide an ontology: "god is the creator of the universe" or "God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc."
I have already deal with these responses above. If this is your 'counter argument" I simply invite you to actually read my post above, again, for the first time.
2) By arguing that one cannot provide a nature for the supernatural, you are conflating (not equivocating, as erroneously claimed) two different senses of the term "nature". In the first sense 'nature' indicates the material world/natural world, in the second, 'nature' refers to identity, characteristics, attributes. Once you recognize this error, your argument fails.
Response: To have a nature is to be part of nature. This is not a fallacy of 'equivocation' (actually 'conflation'
as some mistakenly believe; it's a restatement of the axiom of identity. To exist is to exist as something. We cannot refer to existence sans identity, in fact this is the very point under debate!
For this reason, it an error to believe that 'having a nature' and 'being a part of nature' can be distinct concepts in the first place. To exist is to exist as something. To have a nature (identity) is to be part of the natural world (an existent.) This is precisely why 'supernatural' is a broken concept, it violates the axiom of identity.
3) "Ok, given all that, how can you seriously claim that billions of people use an incoherent term? People clearly know what they mean when they say "god".
They do - but what they actually mean is something quite different from an entity 'beyond nature'. They actually refer to something anthropomorphic, and hence, something other than 'god':
St. Augustine wrote:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.
When a person uses the word 'god' he must mean anything other than something 'beyond nature' (or alternatively, they must employ the apophatic tradition and concede that they can only remain silent on the mystery of 'god'
seeing as we cannot make any such reference at all. The person must instead mean something natural. This real natural entity must stand in for 'god' when a person uses the word 'god'. So 'god' can become a coherent term, provided we are no longer actually attempting to refer to 'god' (!) and shift some anthropomorphic entity that stands in 'his' place.
If we consider how people use the word 'god', (both theist and atheist) we see that there are at least three main categories that cover what the term 'god' actually means in human discourse:
A statement of astonishment or wonder or pleasure: "Oh my god! Flapjacks!"
A concession of bewilderment: "We don't know. Goddidit!"
A anthropomorphic reference to a very human entity that shares the same feelings and thoughts and wants and desires as we do, that may even intervene in the lives of some people (if they pray hard enough or are good enough, despite the paradoxes contained in this belief) in order to save them from difficulties.
Interestingly, examining how a person actually uses the term 'god' provides us with a look into just why theists do believe that their 'god' is real: since these expressions of wonder, mystery and need are in fact real human needs, it makes one feel as if 'god' is something that can satisfy these needs. And as Nietzsche said, all man requires is a need for an idea to be true to make it true.
Interestingly, when we examine the situation psychologically, the theist IS being truthful in his god claims. For example, when a theist argues "God made the universe", if he uses the term 'god' to denote bewilderment, then, he is speaking truth.... as long as we understand that 'god' actually means "I don't know" to him, then here is all he is really saying all along:
"I don't know what made the universe"
Ergo, by applying this method of interpretation to 'god utterances' we can make an honest man of the theist. And we can understand why his claim feels so true to him... after all, he really doesn't have a clue. He's right.
How can a theist refute this claim?
A theist can refute this claim by simply showing how a 'god reference' is in fact a reference to something both non anthropomorphic and non 'human' - something other than an expression of wonder, delight, dismay, fear, envy, etc.
Good luck. And as always, I repeat my standing request: if you are able to answer, please remember to thank me during your Nobel prize reward acceptance speech.
See also: http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_clarification_regarding_my_position_relative_to_theological_noncognitivism
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
In other words, you don't have a fucking clue as to what logic is.
Fucking sigh, not this absolute ignorance AGAIN.
"How can you account for "the laws of logic" in a materialistic universe? What part of your brain are axioms located in? Can you actually point to some neurons and say 'these are what the axioms really are'? Also, since the axioms of math are carried around in people's heads, are there really millions of little axioms of math running around? Finally, how come you also call an axiom written on the page the axiom' and the axiom in your head 'the axiom'? After all, paper isn't a bunch of neurons, and you are a materialist after all..."
Let's take this apart, piece by piece:
How do you account for axioms/the so called 'laws of logic' in a materialistic universe.
The laws of logic? Which set of laws? For which logic? First-order logic, first-order predicate logic, second-order predicate logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic? Which one? Logic is not a monolithic entity, and there is no one set of 'laws' for all of logic. Not all logical systems even require axioms. The set of axioms for the sentential, or propositional, logic is {} - the empty set!
"The point is that there can be no axioms in this logic (the writer is referring to predicate logic), the most basic of all modern logics (there are other formulations that do have axioms, though): everything in predicate logic is definitional. And how does one argue with a definition? My point is: the answer to the question "why doesn't everyone accept the axioms of logic?" is that it can be the case that there's nothing to accept. Literally." - Gregory Lopez.
Now that we have done away with the blunders attached to that misunderstanding, let's explain the basic metaphysics requires for the creation of an a priori system. The only metaphysic required for the creation of an a priori system is the existence of sentient brains. The basic axioms of existence, identity and consciousness - the so called laws of reason, are necessary elements of reason; to reason one must first exist, and exist as something. These axioms are therefore implicitly inescapable - an explicit awareness of these axioms is another matter.
We can express this truth thusly:
To exist is to exist as something. And to be aware of this is to be conscious.
The axioms are necessary truths, given the existence of consciousness. They are defended through retortion. But they are not a part of logic, per se. Other rules, such as the other laws of classical logic, can also be gleaned a priori, all of them flow from the axiom of identity (i.e. classical logic, a system of tautologies, can be traced back to the axiom of identity). The specifics of which rules we create do not matter here; what matters is as long as we have sentient brains, we will have the basis for the creation of any a priori system.
Mavaddat, from this site, writes:
(T)o explain the human invention of logical systems as somehow the indirect work of God is to explain precisely nothing at all. It is as good of an explanation as saying "it just happened." Invoking God to explain anything is the very abdication of reason and insight. It is giving up the investigation and search for truth and filling it with some supernatural nonsense (literally). Instead, I think that people like Paul Feyerabend, Karl Popper, and Thomas Kuhn give us a good idea about how science and human knowledge progresses.
"What part of your brain are axioms (or abstractions) located in?"
The cerebral cortex, frontal lobes. http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html#anchor2587568
"Also, since the axioms of math are carried around in people's heads, are there really billions of little axioms of math running around?"
Billions of representations of the same axioms. Billions of sentient brains coming to the same, necessary, analytic, unavoidable, a priori conclusion, just as billions of different bits of falling matter all conform to the same phenomenon of nature that we can summarize in one law: the law of gravity.
If you fail to find it puzzling how 'different pieces of matter' can all conform to the same law of gravity, then you ought to re-examine your supposed puzzlement over axioms. The process is similar. Billions of sentient brains encountering the same, singular reality - the unavoidable basic metaphysics of our universe. If you are looking for a missing 'constant' for the materialistic account, it is this: the universe. You've misplaced the universe. One universe with a basic set of unavoidable, inescapable metaphysics. One universe imprinting itself onto phylogenetically similar sentient beings, who are able to draw the same abstractions from the same stimuli, based on the same rules...
Axioms, are abstractions that exist in a brain. The reason we see the 'same axiom' in different brains is because the same idea can be gleaned, analytically, a priori, by similar brains in the same exact universe. The same idea can be represented in multiple copies - the same firing of neurons in my brain as someone else's (more or less), which then become emergent phenomenon such as "abstract concepts" to our consciousnesses.
"Finally, how come you also call an axiom written on the page the axiom' and the axiom in your head 'the axiom'? After all, paper isn't a bunch of neurons, and you are a materialist after all..."
Ah, but you forget something else: Abstract entities written on a page have no meaning in and of themselves. They are interactive phenomena - a sentient brain is required to interpret them and provide them with 'meaning'. Thus, when we say that the number "eighteen" is written on a page, what materialists are really saying is that this sensory input'18' through some social convention (some rule), yields the same firing of neurons in my brain as someone else's (more or less), which then become emergent phenomenon such as "abstract concepts" to our consciousnesses.
A word written on a page and the same word spoken and traveling as a wave through the air are not 'the same matter'. However, when I read the word, and when I hear the word, my brain eventually interprets them the same way, producing similar electrochemical responses with enough fidelity that slightly different brains can reproduce the same abstraction, based on the same rules.
Of course, the mapping itself is completely arbitrary. Our written alphabet needn't be what it is, and we could choose totally different symbols to represent the same thing as the spoken word.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
tod,
i was ribbing BGH about cutting and pasting links after i got blasted by a few for cutting and pasting an article. It wasn't even directed toward you, dipstick. It was about BGH writing his own original thoughts. Just a friendly jab toward someone who apparently took no offense at it himself. Calm your ass down hyperlink nazi.
Man, i swear, you're like some freakin' 12 year wannabe bully.
Is that how you think you've beaten theists....no one gets around to answering your 20 links because you bug the hell out of them enough to where they leave before addressing them?
Grow up. I will address your article as i have already addressed your ridiculously lame excuse for validating arguments from silence.
Case closed. kingneb, has no argument. It did get to namecalling rather fast with this one though.
whatever you say one-eyed stunt.
I do have a life and typically i don't carry around atheist articles with me on dates with the wife.
What is it you wanted to achieve here? You have to understand we're a little weary of the newcomer that wants to posture up and bring us the "good" news, but doesn't come equipped for the debate that he or she starts and then starts babbling about not wanting to read links, randomy asserting things, nameslinging, etc. (generally leading the discussion nowhere)
We've had quite a few lately.
Take your own advice. I've posted learned refutations of your claims, and you've thrown a tantrum in response.
You haven't a fucking clue as to what you're talking about. If there were no valid arguments from silence, then it would follow that no one could rule out any claim even if there were no evidence for it!
You're ignorance walks hand in hand with yoru arrogance. Add in the fact that you can only toss insults in response to argument, and you clearly are little more than a troll on a way to a ban.
There are valid arguments from silence, and the fact that you don't know that just proves how incapable you are of having this discussion. You are violently ignorant of the very basics of this discussion. The fact that I have to point out to you that claims for which there is NO evidence are unsupportable is LAUGHABLE.
How to make an Argument from Silence
According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)
To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.
In addition, the historian Richard Carrier suggests two additional criteria to strengthen an argument from silence:
1) Whether or not it is common for men to create similar myths.
It is prima facie true that this is the case. History is replete not only with 'god' claims, but with claims for messiah status.
2) The claim is of an extraordinary nature, it violates what we already know of nature.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Anyone who can't grasp that a claim without evidence is likely false is simply going to have to toss insults, they are too ignorant for anything else.
If he had even a modicum of actual interest, he'd actually read what I've cited for him from two historians.
Or just try here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.[1] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.[2] When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an arguments from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning.[3]
Scholarly uses of the argument
The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ. According to Daniel Schowalter, such an argument "cannot be determinative, but it is an important consideration for people who see the virgin birth as a feature created within the early traditions about Jesus rather than a historical occurrence."[4] Saint Paul, for example, does not mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted proof of Paul's ignorance, it is incorrect, because ignorance is only one possible reason for Paul's silence; it's also possible that he did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not incorrect if it is used to prove that Paul might have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul refers to the resurrection of Jesus, he demonstrates knowing it. From the fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain that he knew of it; therefore, he might have been ignorant of it.
The argument from silence is very convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance. For example, while the editors of Yerushalmi and Bavli mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently. Louis Jacobs writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."[5]
Or here:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_Silence
Explanation
If you interpret silence as consent, you are committing the argument from Silence.
And thus learn that a fallacious argument silence occurs when you point to silence as CONSENT.
A valid argument from silence points to silence as an ABSENCE of consent or support or evidence!
Something anyone who actually knows about the fallacy would know.
Or here, from UMass:
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/outline/silence.html
Evidential Silence
"Silence" means that the thing in question (call it X) is not mentioned in the available documents. If it were mentioned, then with the usual qualifications it would be proved to exist. Since X is not mentioned, X cannot be proved to exist. A natural further inference from this evidence is that X did not exist. The basic point is that if X did not in fact exist, then the only trace which that fact could leave, in the evidence, is the silence of the evidence as to X. At the same time, any such conclusion must be provisional. If documents are later found that do mention X, then X is after all proved to exist. A single positive may overturn any number of negatives. A single sound refutes all silences.
The possibility of such a future positive can never be ruled out. But until it occurs, the non-existence of X is the best inference from the absence of X in the evidence. The strength of that inference in a given case will depend on (1) how many documents there are, or in statistical terms how large the sample is, and, in literary terms, (2) how likely the thing is to have been mentioned in documents of that type in the first place. We might explore these concepts just a little.
Or here:
http://editthis.info/logic/Informal_Fallacies#Argument_from_Silence
Argument from Silence
The Argument from Silence is the claim that since a historical personage/document does deny or rule out a claim, that this silence can be taken as consent.
A valid argument from silence, or an evidential argument of silence can be made. For those for whom this claim appears controversial, consider: if there were no valid arguments from silence, then it would follow that no one could rule out any claim for which there were no evidence!
To make a valid, or evidential argument from silence, an arguer most demonstrate that the person in question would 1) have had the opportunity to be aware of claim and, knowing of the claim, would have had the opportunity to make mention of it.
When one is able to demonstrate these issues, then one has made a valid Argument from Silence
According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)
To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.
An example of a Fallacious Argument from Silence is given by Minicus Felix, a first century Roman writer whoe wrote about early Christians, claiming that they sacrificed infants:
An example of a valid Argument from Silence
Evidential silence is a valid means of evaluting that there is no support for a claim. The fact that I have to point this out to you, again, demonstrates that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
No evidence for a claim = claim is unlikely to be true.
IF you can't figure this out, you need to be shown the door.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
stunt,
CAN A PERSON HAVE SOME FRIGGIN TIME TO READ?!?!?!
DELUDED GAVE 4 OR 5 LINKS AND THEN JUMPED ME FOR NOT RESPONDING WITHIN THE HOUR.
MY GOSH PEOPLE, I DO HAVE A LIFE YOU KNOW.
AND THEN TODANUS WHINES THAT I DON'T RESPOND AND APPARENTLY DOES TAROT CARDS OR SOMETHING AND PREDICTS I WON'T READ ANYTHING.
APARENTLY PATIENCE HAS NO PLACE IN ATHEIST VIRTUE.
FURTHERMORE TOD, I HAVE BEEN RUDE TO MORONS HERE WHO WHINE AND SIMPLY PASTE A TL:DNT OR WHINE THAT I'M PROBABLY NOT A THINKER JUST BECAUSE I CUT AND PASTED SOMEONE'S ARTICLE, AND THE LITTLE SQUIRT DOES THE PLAY BY PLAY, ADDED NOTHING MEANINGFUL WHATSOEVER TO THE CONVO.
Ask DGH if i have been respectful to him. He doesn't seem to have a problem with me and encouraged me to take my time.
Lastly, i never babbled about not wanting to read links. I explicitly said i would and now TOD the prophet predicts i won't.
talk about irrational behavior.
what, would you like me to videotape myself on youtube to prove that i have printed out four of those articles to read.
i guess i should, considered that you are empiricists...good grief...
Grow up, drop the insults, and learn impulse control, or you're on your way to a ban.
If you need time to read, then take your time and read.
The reality is that there's no way you're going read what has been given to you, if you were capable and willing, you'd have already learned what invalid and valid forms of the argument from silence are....
All you do is throw tantrums, because the truth is that you're incapable of responding to what has been written here.
You're clearly overwhelmed, and like a child, you're tossing tantrums.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I didn't know he'd get out the caps lock. A relatively calm question, to try and spur more back and forth discussion, and we get the caps lock tantrum. We've been thoroughly defeated.
OP, if you need time to read then sit down and read. Make a post saying "I'm going to read this stuff." Then, after you've finished reading them, come make a post.
This is what a rational adult would do.
OP has no interest whatsoever in doing this, as he's incapable- his impulsive tirades are the evidence, no Tarot cards required. He just wants all the evidence to stop, seeing as he has no way to sweep back the tide.
I doubt he's even thoroughly read the post that he cut and pasted here. I seriously doubt that even grasps half of what he pasted... if he was impressed by that, what hope does he have? If he can't even allow people to post learned, well thought out responses to his claims in this thread without throwing a tantrum, what hope does he have?
If he can't even work out that a lack of evidence for a claim is a valid grounds for rejecting the claim (evidential arguments from silence), then what hope does he have of actually reading and understanding what has been posted here?
Let's just set a limit on the number of troll posts he has left before a ban, and let swing the axe.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
whatever you say, todanus.
go ahead and ban me if you'd like. then you can make another ridiculous argument from silence that you beat me.
you'd love that, wouldn't you, todanus?
drop the insults
You started it. live with it, todanus.
Aw, we'll miss him. Who wants to submit to http://fstdt.com/ ?
Not a mod, but I'd say he easily has earned a ban by now. He refuses to be rational or listen to anything refuting his nonsense - just ignores it out of hand. And he has been an asshat. I definitely think he should get the "asshat" avatar, too.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Untrue. You started it. Take a look at your own posts. I merely called you on your bullshit.
By the way, why are you posting here when you just complained that you needed time to read?
And why are you reading this and preparing to post again?
You're not going to read a thing, because it wouldn't do you a bit of good anyway... you couldn't even be bothered to write your own arguments.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'