Kent Hovind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries Videos
Mods and Admins who have the ability to edit this page are asked to please do so. Please add to this page like a Wiki, and add as many videos as possible, as child pages of this page*
Kent Hovind/friends/family earned a whole section devoted to themselves here when "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries" sent numerous copyright take down notices to Youtube (9-07) claiming copyright ownership of material that we and many others believe is fair use within the boundaries of copyright law. In addition to 20+ videos that we can find that were removed from youtube due to copyright claims there were over a dozen others that we were able to count that were removed due to "terms of use violation" as opposed to a copyright violation. We are unsure how those videos were removed and are suspicious. Fair use law respects ones right to criticize, parody, satire, and commentate on material while utilizing material from the person who is being spoken about.
Kent Hovind has stated many times that "our material is not copyrighted." In September 2007, about the same time that "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries" sent DMCA take down notices, their website was changed to reflect a new copyright rule for their website. On their website in September of 2007 they in fact present their copyright on material effective as of January 2005. This new change to their website can be documented here. As you can see, they did not have the "clickable" copyright notice on any page of their site as of any other date!
Considering that every video we have seen that was banned would fit within fair use law and the "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries" have been very upfront about their non copyright, we believe that the actions of "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries" are meant to silence critics that can prove their unscientific statements... well... unscientific. We feel as if this act to silence us should be countered.
As a result of actions taken by "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries" we believe that it is our duty to ensure that humanity is ten times more familiar with the holes in the teachings of CSEM than they would be, were CSEM never to have submitted those take down notices. We believe that our right to free speech is the most important right we have, which has already been squandered too much over the years. This right affects all of us equally.
Our right to speak out about the irrationality of religion is the same right you are afforded to speak about exactly the opposite. We don't think people want to live in a world in which you are not afforded those rights, and so therefore this is an issue that transcends any argument either side will ever make for, or against any God. We are proud to be aware of at least one Christian who has offered to stand by our side if our facts are accurate. He understands the issue, as he's been there before.
Many of the videos below are available for distribution. Many of the comments sections will state if you can download the video and reupload it. Any Revver video on our account dealing with Kent Hovind can be uploaded to your account on any file service. We won't claim copyright ownership of that material later, or submit false claims, or change the wording right here on this page.. and we actually mean it!
Keywords: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind,
Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use Law, EFF.
See these applicable threads for Operation Spread Eagle:
If you only read one post about this issue make make it this one!
Open letter to Youtube from Brian Sapient. Pass this video on
Post your youtube censorship or copyright infringement stories here. (also how to do a counter notice).
Kent Hovind from Jail Phone Calls
Eric Hovind writes RRS (still hasn't written back!)
Indirect hit in "Operation Spread Eagle" sablechicken was pwned. Oh also we defended her free speech and gave her a free pass on some slander.
Eddygoombah letter to CSE
mod note: don't add multiples of the same video, add each new video as a new page, use lots of tags, attribute owners, cut and paste video description, additionally do not post fresh Eric Hovind (9-07) material as we are unsure if they could attain copyright from this point forward.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
iwbiek wrote:Jormungander
I recommend The Resurrection of Theism: Prolegomena to Christian Apology.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
Your post certainly read
Your post certainly read like you were over-generalizing. The only qualification you made was "a lot of", but even that is not accurate, AFAICS, since I have not myself actually encountered any Atheists who regard Hovind that way.
Your assumptions about how 'most atheists' come to their position is also way off the mark. It is more usually a matter of repeatedly encountering apparent inconsistencies and outright contradictions in the texts and the preaching, and failing to find satisfactory explanations.
Philosophy books are not a reliable source of truths, more like opinion pieces. Their value is a function of how well informed on other fields the writers are, as well as how clear and rational their thought processes are, which of course is, to some extent, a matter of opinion itself.
Graig's KCA is not valid, and even if it was, it would 'prove' no more that there was a 'first cause', not anything useful about the nature of such a cause.
He is an impressive-sounding intellectual light-weight.
The Bible discredits Christianity fairly comprehensively.
Atheism does not need to be established.
Theists need to establish the logical coherence of their God concept followed by an explanation of why they feel it is justified.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1 wrote:Your
This is ridiculous to argue. You're making an unsubstantiated claim and I'm making a claim about the atheists I've encountered. You're really going to argue this one?
Yes. When Aristotle laid down logic, what he really ought to have done was end it by saying, "...that is, IN MY OPINION gaiz." Come on. This is ridiculous. Scientists makes observations about the natural world. The philosophers have taught us how to appropriately use and interpret the data yielded by science.
His surname is Craig, not Graig. If you're not even getting the name right, why should I believe you've read his material?
Oh, like Dawkins?
I'm sure it does. I'm sure you've taken courses on the subject, gotten yourself deep into the area with professional scholars and raised your questions to the test and then came to the conclusion. You're probably not an internet infidel that has their skepticism reaffirmed by visiting Infidels and TalkOrigins.
Well no, if we hold to it tenaciously in spite of evidence because it satiates our desires, I agree, we don't need to establish it. We can just assume it and no matter what arguments we encounter, we can always say it's not enough, and that it doesn't prove anything.
Maybe you shouldn't dismiss the philosophers afterall. Maybe reading Craig might do some good, as this is already relatively well-established.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
If it is so ridiculous to
If it is so ridiculous to argue based on the set of atheists you have happened to encounter, then why did you do it?
Before Science, Math, and Logic, had been established as separate disciplines, they were considered part of what was called 'Philosophy'. I was mainly referring to more recent philosophy, IOW what is left after to those disciplines became established in their own right.
Even then I was not summarily dismissing all philosophical discourse. I was very much into philosophy when young. Then I grew up.
I am still prepared to listen to certain people who happen to be philosophers, based on their demonstrated insight into wider, more empirical disciplines, and their ability to skilfully integrate actual knowledge into more abstract arguments. Hume, Russell, and Dennett spring to mind, as representatives of different eras.
The fundamental characteristic of Philosophical discourse, its free-ranging speculation about just about anything, is both its strength and weakness. It allows it to stumble across genuinely useful ideas and new insights, but also allows such gems to be buried in mountains of cruft.
In any case it is true that most of Aristotle's, and Plato's, philosophy is pretty much obsolete, AFAICS.
I apologise for not picking up on a typo with Craig's name.
Your shot about Dawkins hardly needs to be taken seriously. Show me an argument from Dawkins that is as lame as the KCA. Anyone taking that seriously is not a serious thinker.
Show me some evidence against Atheism - actually that requires producing evidence for God, which is all but impossible.
If you regard Craig as a standard of philosophical reasoning, you are seriously deluded, you need to read Russell, as I have.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Adam
A large number of people credit atheists with arriving at their beliefs after a cursory examination of the god delusion. What is this about? You can't post this sort of statement here and expect us to wear it. Whether or not it is apparent to you, we wrestle with these issues, many of us on a daily basis, and have done for many, many years. It's an adhom to suggest otherwise - similar to my suggestion that you want to replace the relatively solid ground of the scientific process (yes, I agree it has knowable weaknesses) with the assumptions of personal philosophy in order to avoid hell.
If there are any knowable facts about the universe that philosophy has taught us, feel free to post them here. Craig proves undeniably the existence of a creative being existing exo-universe, the nature of which we can know, the mind of whom we can know? Give me a break. Philosophy is an exploration of the human imagination, not a template of reality. That does not mean it is valueless but you would only mistake it for the truth in relation to unknowable things if this served your purpose. You should accept that the inherent bias of our human perspective weakens human philosophy fatally when it comes to an examination of what actually exists that we do not yet understand.
As for proving anything solely by a logical process - this is news to me. The logical proofs I have read of christianity have all been flawed.
Then there's your comment that tenaciously holding to atheism 'satiates our desires'. What the hell are talking about, Adam? The atheist position is that there is no direct proof of a human-style god, personal or otherwise. Now if you have actual proof of a human god that does not involve subjective analysis of daily events, directing me to the nearest gap in our understanding, or claiming the historical method can be used to substantiate mythology, miracles and magic, then I'd be exceedingly glad to hear it.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Atheistextremist wrote:Now
To many theists, 'proof' is taken to mean 'a priori argument' rather than 'a substantial amount of supporting empirical evidence'. "Proofs are for mathematicians" isn't a sentiment that they live by. He has already whipped out the Kalam Cosmological Argument, so I'm going to guess that he isn't an empiricist.
I am a bit confused as to why theists think that they can prove their points using armchair speculation rather than empirical evidence.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
BobSpence1 wrote:If it is so
It's ridiculous to make unsubstantiated claims about "most" atheists, like you did. When I make reference to atheists, I'm at least referring to the set I've personally met and spoke with. You're making a generalisation when you say my "assumptions about how 'most atheists' come to their position is also way off the mark. It is more usually a matter of repeatedly encountering apparent inconsistencies and outright contradictions." That's an unprovable assertion about "most atheists". I'm not making an unprovable assertion. That's why I can do it.
Well that's not what I was referring to. If that's what you're referring to, then yes, I'd agree: Of course we don't need a thorough understanding of Ayn Rand's Objectivism in order to know that ATP is the energy powerhouse of a biological cell. But we do need a proper understanding of Aristotelian logic if we're to properly deduct conclusions from data.
Oh, to be young again.
Hume, Russell and Dennett are all very bright philosophers, and have all contributed a great deal to our understanding, for which I highly respect these men for. There needs to be a willingness to hear out an opposing argument, though, Bob.
Agreed. That's why popular unfounded skepticism needs to be quelled.
Most or some?
Apology is unnecessary. You didn't do anything wrong. I just don't think you're being sincere. Maybe it's because I've had a similar experience back when Rook was on the RRS (called Craig "Graig" and lied about an argument he presented, even), maybe it's not, but when people fling criticisms and then make something as basic as getting the name wrong like that, it just comes off as insincere. You'd assume the same of me, too, if I said, "Yeah, I've read Dawking's, A Brief History of Time." When Rook, or Sapient, or YellowNumberFive, or Todangst or anyone for that matter suggests I read a certain book, or watch a certain video, or listen to a certain lecture, I go out of my way to do that because I don't come to philosophy with any sort of a priori ax to grind. I just want to know truth. If atheism is what describes reality, then I want to know about it. That's all. I don't argue against points I'm unfamiliar with. Which is why maybe this bothers me so much. All the philosophers you've listed, I've read. I've read all of Russell. All of Hume. All of Dennett. All of Plato. All of Socrates. All of Aristotle. Etc, etc. (Dawkins and Harris, too, but they don't deserve to be in this list.) This isn't boasting, it's just illustrating a point I'm trying to make: I don't care about biases. I just want to know what's true. It seems that if Christianity isn't true, then I ought to have come across something by now that would show this. But I haven't. Cross-referencing, fact-checking, considering both sides, the Christian apologists (the likes of Craig, Copan, Rea, Moreland, Hackett, etc) all have produced counterarguments that seem satisfactory.
You honestly have no idea how much of my life has been eaten up Plantinga's revision of the Ontological Argument, and the arguments against it.
Slightly ad hom, but I'll gladly accept. Page 157-8 of his Delusion, he argues:
"1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."
This is a textbook example of a non sequitur. The conclusion follows from no formal rule of logic and the premises don't have anything to do at all with whether or God even exists. At most, as Craig has said, "all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe."
Define what you are calling "evidence". What is or isn't accepted as evidence, to you? Is evidence only physically produced things, or can logic count as evidence as well? I've been engaged way too many times on this subject, and to only get the response, "Philosophical arguments mean nothing. Show me proof.", not only makes me realize I am exercising in futility, but it also serves as a filter that shows immediately what type of person I'm speaking with. If the person thinks that logic serves well to prove nearly everything else (including their own case), but then arbitrarily strips me of the right to use it, then I usually just call it quits. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.
Ad hominem. Lovely. And I have read Russell. I read Russell when I was an atheist 4+ years ago and still enjoy him on occasion. He's actually one of my favorite philosophers. His Problems of Philosophy is one of my favorites, particularly his section, On Induction.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
Futility is a point that goes both ways, Adam.
Trapped in our universe and its particular reality endeavouring to establish concrete answers to universal origins that must exist outside this reality and all its knowable and unknowable characteristics is impossible.
Trouble is, the imperative of the godly is to find answers now and if concrete answers cannot be found, to putty over the impossibilities with a creature whose best description is that he is beyond our understanding.
A being which, despite being beyond our understanding, is somehow able to be known to a select few who believe hard enough. Those who don't believe can be cheerily adjudged morally or intellectually inferior.
There appears to me no doubt whatever about what you believe. But in terms of what you know, Adam, you are as utterly blinded as the rest of us.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
i for one have never read
i for one have never read any book by dawkins, hitchens, or any other "pop" atheist writer, just as i never read lucado, piper, crabb, or edwards when i was a christian. i don't like pop writers, regardless of their affiliations.
i became an atheist much as penn jillette suggests: by reading the bible. not just once, but over and over again, as a religion major and after, first in the light of fundamentalist dispensationalist exegesis (through the scofield bible), then in the light of medieval catholic mystic exegesis (mostly through eckhart and the verba seniorum), then in the light of eastern orthodox exegesis (mostly through john meyendorff and the philokalia), then in the light of talmudic and/or kabbalistic exegesis. i also had a healthy dose of writers like hans kung, teilhard de chardin, martin buber, gershom scholem, marcus borg, and n.t. wright. ironically enough, it was these jewish and christian writers, most of whom were avowedly religious in some sense, who, by not shying away from using higher biblical criticism, "rationalized" and whittled my "faith" down until it basically blew away like smoke. once you discount biblical literalism, which is not hard to do, the whole thing slowly and surely becomes a vague spirituality that one mostly holds onto for sentimental reasons, or out of fear that everything is "meaningless."
the zen and taoist writers helped a lot with that fear. honestly, now that i think about it very carefully, the book that contributed the most to my becoming an atheist, besides the bible, was the chuang tzu. it was like i could hear chuang tzu for years, always in the back of mind, laughing at me and saying, "none of it 'means' a goddamn thing, my boy, nor should you want it to. look the whole concept of 'meaning' full in the face and you will see horrors unrivalled by any other."
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
adamryan wrote:BobSpence1
Why do you assume I have not personally communicated with or read or heard what they have said?
I am making a reasonable extrapolation from reading the accounts of many people on this board and one or two others, and speaking to others. The pattern I have observed is quite common.
It would in fact be 'provable', from a survey.
I did not deny logic at any point. It has actually been slightly refined from Aristotle's time.
What makes you think I have not looked at and listened to opposing arguments? There are no coherent or valid arguments for God. I don't waste my time going past the first or second logical error or unsupported assumption.
"Quelled?" => 'Suppress or silence'?
You prick.
Most of us don't even demand that of popular fallacies for God...
I'll go with most, especially for Plato.
You also take the Ontological argument seriously as well? Wow... The dumbest argument of the lot.
Reading it as a formal logical argument, you could have a point, but 'design' was really the only one of the traditional arguments which really pointed to a sentient creator, which is why there was and continues to be such hostility in many religious groups to Darwin's ideas.
Logic alone can never be evidence itself. Logic can only show that some conclusion is not compatible with some set of assumptions. It cannot 'prove' any assumption about reality beyond the system of logic itself, it can only disprove propositions by demonstrating a contradiction.
Evidence is verifiable or repeatable demonstration of the existence of certain entities or processes or consequences. Logic is the essential tool which must be used in analysing what data is presented as evidence, but all logic can say is that IF x holds, THEN y, where x and y are assertions about the existence of entities or processes or relations between entities, etc.
I have heard and read more than enough of Craig to not waste further time on understanding exactly the nature of his particular set of delusions and errors.
I was unaware of anyone deliberately mispelling his name, I assure you it was a genuine typo. I don't even get what would make 'Graig' significant in any sense.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1 wrote:What makes
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Perhaps it's pointless plugging this in here but
During the week I read a review of Pigluicci's Nonsense on Stilts that encapsulates a position I think is worth relating in the context of our response to a criticism of atheism with a facts-based bent. The reviewer, Amanda Gefter, paraphrased Pigluicci's overall position, saying we ought to think of science as a Bayesian algorithm that allows the calculation of probabilities of future events based on prior knowledge.
As we gain new knowledge, Gefter writes, "we feed that back into the equation updating our priors (prior knowledge), leading to increasingly accurate predictions. In this way, little by little, science nudges us closer to understanding the way the world really is".
I have to add that Massimo Pigliuicci is a philosopher of science and his position generally follows that of other philosophers of science. It's an agreeable position to me. There are facts that can be known and this ought to form the basis for our understanding of the real world. Speculation should be recognised for what it is. Useful, instructive, capable of providing direction, but never proof of things that lack a consistent explanatory framework.
And, of course, there must be clear recognition of those things we do not know. Those things we cannot yet explain.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
BobSpence1 wrote:Why do you
The amount of people you spoke to is not enough to be considered "most atheists".
No. You only said it was, "Philosophy books are not a reliable source of truths, more like opinion pieces. Their value is a function of how well informed on other fields the writers are, as well as how clear and rational their thought processes are, which of course is, to some extent, a matter of opinion itself."
You asked me to cite you a fallacious argument given by Dawkins, I produced one for you. Now I'm asking you to give me an invalid or incoherent argument given by a Christian apologist (please keep it in the league of apologists I've listed so far- trying to pull a fast one by referencing the banana squad is disingenuous).
Christians that believe in their faith without having ever been aware of the arguments against it are, to me, just as guilty as atheists who hold tenaciously to theirs without being aware (except for maybe on the popular level) of the arguments against theirs.
This is a second time you've said the arguments were fallacious. Give me an example of a fallacious argument you think I'd accept by Craig or someone like him. You've said Craig's KCA is invalid, but you didn't say why. If you're going to make lofty claims, back them up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?
Right.
Most detractors that don't fully grasp the argument call it dumb. Dawkins even evinces his inability to grapple with the argument in his Delusion. Just be honest, have you read Plantinga's revision or not?
You wanted an example of Dawkins making a "lame" argument. I provided one.
What I meant [by "evidence" here] is logical argumentation that is sufficient to show that a conclusion is more probable than not. The arguments justify the claims. If you disregard this as sufficient, then I want to know why.
And your ax cuts both ways. You say, "Evidence is verifiable or repeatable demonstration of the existence of certain entities or processes or consequences...all logic can say is that IF x holds, THEN y, where x and y are assertions about the existence of entities or processes or relations between entities, etc." Well this must apply to atheism, too, if correct. The evidence of atheism would seem lacking on this definition. What verifiable or repeatable demonstration can be given that can justify, "Therefore, God does not exist." ? Logic seems to be the only avenue you have here. "If God exists, then A. It is not the case that A. Therefore, God does not exist." That would be a more compelling argument.
You see, this is precisely where we part ways. When you disregard someone, it is because you halfway decide the person is wrong without really understanding why they are wrong. I can't do that as easily as you can. I have to know why they are wrong. It's not enough for me to dismiss Dawkins as a pretentious baffoon- I want to know why he's a pretentious baffoon, and why his arguments are not compelling.
Again, Rook made the same mistake and it turned out he knew nothing about Craig's arguments. This isn't an isolated incident. I just immediately correlated the mistake to the ignorance. If it was a genuine typo, then it was a genuine typo. No harm, no foul.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
iwbiek wrote:socrates didn't
I didn't mean it literally. You're right, though. I should have clarified.
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
iwbiek wrote:i for one have
Very interesting. Have you heard of Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd's, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition ?
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
adamryan, you do realize
adamryan, you do realize that infinite causal regress does not necessarily require infinite time, as WLC and Aquinas assume?
The 'cause' of something 'beginning to exist' need be nothing more than an ground state of energy, sufficient to establish, via 'laws' uncovered by Quantum Theory, that it has a non-zero probability of manifesting in a particular state.
So all that needs to have simply existed, as distinct from 'beginning to exist', is such a non-zero ground-state of whatever is the 'fabric of reality'.
However you spin it, it is far more parsimonious to assume that something as close to nothingness as possible just exists, than a complex, structured but non-material entity;
All our observations and theory point to such complexity as being necessary for a 'mind', and that persistent structure requires something with the fundamental attributes of matter.
Also note that 'outside space and time' is a simple dodge, since I am not assuming, and theories of Physics in this context do not assume, 'ordinary' space-time as the context. What you ( and WLC ) seem to want to assume is that there is some realm which side-steps the logical implications of all our understanding and observation. Which of course points out the blatant dishonesty/contradiction of the basic KCA - it argues on the basis of our experience and intuition on 'cause and effect' then proceeds to try and find a way around it in a futile effort to establish that this 'first cause' can only be something that maps to their pre-conceived idea of 'God'.
And the assumption that there is such a thing as a 'disembodied mind' as other than an abstraction is a naked assertion.
Any argument which appeals explicitly to assumed established truth of the Resurrection of JC is also on very shaky ground, whatever the facts in that case - they are not remotely provable.
Just a few points I picked up in scanning posts of responses to WLC and LCA, on various sites, including RDF.
If someone includes as a key point in their argument an explicitly incorrect assumption, there is no point going further. Even if it is not strictly invalid, if it is only possible, but intrinsically unproveable, then the conclusion can be no better, unless the case can be made without it.
I have not studied in detail the arguments of flat or hollow earthers, either.
<EDITED>
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
adamryan wrote:4) Reasonable
Word of caution to anyone intending to read this book. It is a prime example of what "sophisticated apologists" consider "reasonable". Prepare to beat your forehead bloody from excessive amounts of head desking. Once you have recovered, you may proceed to chapter 2...
I was glancing over
I was glancing over adamryan's material over at the RDF site, and noticed this bit from his hero WLC:
This a non-sequiter.
It seems to ignore the fact that the set of Universes we would observe would be those suitable for life as we know it to emerge by natural processes, so would be unlikely to be dramatically different to what we see now. Of course I also know he has problems with biological evolution, which that argument assumes, another reflection on his intellectual shortcomings.
His stuff is riddled with such misconceptions.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
adamryan wrote:Very
no, but i don't see what the point in reading it would be. unlike many atheists on this site, i do think it's likely that there is a kernel of truth in the gospel accounts, and that a "historical jesus" more than likely existed in some form (then again, i think a "historical odin" was likely in some form as well), but having that belief bolstered by scholars certainly wouldn't cause me to make the illogical leap that therefore the stories of miracles and divine powers must be true, therefore the canonical gospels (and only those) must be inspired, therefore the rest of the bible as it was canonized somewhere or another--at the synod of hippo, or by jerome, or at the council of trent--must also be inspired.
in my personal opinion, the historicity of jesus is irrelevant when it comes to making theistic claims.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
BobSpence1 wrote:adamryan,
His argument is that anything which begins to exist has a cause- not any event. Quantum mechanics play little in this.
"Close to nothingness" is meaningless statement. You've read the RDF thread, evidently. You should know better. Either a thing is something, or it does not exist. There is no in-between. If it exists, it is something. You cannot be close to nothing, it is metaphysically impossible.
And your assumption is mistaken. Unlike Dawkins (who you no doubt are referencing here), some theologians have argued that God is ultimately simple. He exists as an unembodied mind. His properties are what Dawkins gets tripped up on. And to use Occam's Razor, it is actually the God hypothesis, not the Multiverse theory, that doesn't multiply entities beyond necessity. Rather than assuming an infinite amount of entities (universes) in order to explain our "Goldilocks Engima", the God hypothesis assumes only one.
This is just poor critical thinking on your part. Of course our theories will point to mind necessitating the "fundamental attributes of matter"- ALL OF OUR SAMPLES HAVE MATERIAL SUBJECTS. When we do cognitive studies, we're dealing with people and their brains. These are physical things. But their mind is something that doesn't seem to be physical. This is precisely where the distinction between a good scientist and a poor scientist comes into play. To study the mind, you have to know when to not commit fallacy of correlation implies causation. You need to go back and read Searle again. This is a fundamental mistake on your part and makes you look like you're not really doing any reading on the matter.
This is a poor understanding of the Craig's KCA. There's nothing I can say here except listen to his lectures and read his articles again. You're not getting it the first time.
Much like the contrary assumptions of this statement?
Provability isn't necessary for a good argument- in order to have a good argument, all you need is for logic to be valid and the premises to be more probable than their negation. Craig's historical argument does just that.
Okay, well even though you don't exactly have the greatest track record for clear, concise, syllogistic argumentation, let's hear the premise Craig uses, syllogism form, that you think is an explicitly incorrect assumption.
-adam
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
iwbiek wrote:adamryan
You should read it.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
Jormungander
There are things that cannot be empirically proven, yet we know we are rational to accept. Empirical verification is good for many things, but to merely assume that unless it can be empirically verified, it is not rational to accept, is a mistake in reason.
Here are a few examples (credit given to W.L. Craig):
1) Science and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math, so that to try prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
2) Metaphysical truths like "There are other minds other than my own." or "The external world is real.", "The past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age." are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.
3) Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies.
4) Aesthetic judgements cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the "Beautiful", like the "Good", cannot be scientifically proven.
5) Science itself cannot be scientifically justified. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions, for example in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points, A and B. That strictly cannot be proven. We merely have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.
None of these things can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as being rationally justified beliefs.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
There are things which can't
There are things which can't be proved, and they have to be left as either matters of subjective opinion, such as ethical principles, or as minimal initial assumptions, such as the prime axioms of logic and math.
"There are other minds other than my own" is NOT a truth, it is just the most parsimonious assumption - it is a reasonable assumption, almost a tautology, that keeping our initial assumptions as simple as possible keeps the models of reality we need to live by as simple and therefore as manageable as possible.
Similarly with "The external world is real". It is not a truth, or provable, just a simple working assumption. Metaphysics has nothing to do with 'truth', merely that IF X then Y - where X is/are unprovable starting assumptions.
Mathematics is about showing what are the inherent implications of given assumptions. A mathematical 'proof' is really a tautology, in that what is proved is an inherent consequence of the starting assumptions. But those starting assumptions themselves are not themselves provable.
Ethical beliefs are supportable, if not provable, by scientific studies of their psychological, social, and practical consequences.
Aesthetic judgements are inherently subjective, but the origins of why many things are judged as pleasing or not are certainly accessible to science.
The only sense in which 'truth' applies to ethical or aesthetic judgements is that it is indeed true that we do make such judgments, and often disagree among ourselves. Altho decisions which can be shown to mostly lead to consequences which cause a lot of harm and suffering are justifiably labelled as 'bad'. Harm and suffering as measured by marked signs of distress and pain displayed by the victims. Again, not provable, but very reqasonable, on the assumption that we all share certain basic reactions to various assaults on our body and senses.
Science is self-justifying, in that it continues to lead to more complete and more accurate (as judged by predictive success when applied to novel situations) of the phenomena studied. It is not self-proving, but neither is any other approach to 'knowledge', certainly not purely intuitive approaches. Science is not strictly about proof, in the logical or mathematical sense, just about the theory which most closely matches observations, without requiring more assumptions than necessary.
Just about the only starting proposition which can arguably be treated as self-evident and axiomatic is 'Cogito ergo sum' - 'I think, therefore I am'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
BobSpence1 wrote:There are
If ethical principles have no truth value, condemnation of the "atrocities" in the Bible becomes ridiculous. Why condemn that which has done no wrong?
It is not true that there are other minds than your own? What??? Really? You're a solipsist? Why are you even online arguing the point then? If there are not other minds, then you are literally exercising in futility right now.
So if it's not provable, then it is not true. That's what you're saying?
Right. And can science prove these? No. Yet they are nevertheless rationally accepted "assumptions" (to use your word).
This is absurd. How can you prove behaviour A is evil using science? I'd like to read this. Don't cite nonsense, give me a proof. If you're going to use the word, use it appropriately.
Aesthetic judgments ontologically, Bob. That certainly is not accessible to science. Science may have access to the aesthetic judgments we make epistemologically, but it cannot answer the ontology problem.
You're making a classic blunder here. This is a classic example of the philosopher and the scientist talking about the greenness of the grass they're sitting on. The philosopher asks why the grass is green, and the scientist pompously spouts off the biological structure of plant cells, explains how the grass' chlorophyll plays into its beautiful green color and then smugly looks at the philosopher as though he's just proven himself to be the greater intellectual of the two. To which the then philosopher replies, "Yes, very well. That is how the grass is green, agreed. Now please tell me why the grass is green."
The beautiful may cause certain brain activity that can be monitored, which may be accessible to a certain extent to the scientist, but it is pompously naive to not recognize that it would be a category mistake to assume that science can explain, eventually, why we find the beautiful to be beautiful.
So there is no right and wrong on the matter. The signs which read DAS JUDEN IST VERBOTEN are ethically neutral claims. They don't even hint at being wrong, or right. They're absent of any veridical meaning, this is what you're saying?
Right, but if we're able to get past the fact that it may bother others (our actions), we are free to do what we wish?
The point is that we can't assume science will explain/prove everything. Science is a great epistemological tool, but it is not the standard by which we measure everything, and it certainly can not justify our a priori exclusion of other areas of knowledge that may be unmeasurable by its form.
-adamryan
"There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."- Richard Dawkins
adamryan wrote:If ethical
Lol, are you serious? You seem like a pretty knowledgeable guy. I would expect you to be familiar enough with moral subjectivism to not have to ask such an obvious question.
Ethical principles have no truth value, but they are still valuable to us. I don't need some divine, supernatural source to tell me what is absolutely valuable. I have my own values, and I will act on those values simply because they are my values. I condemn the morality of the Bible because the morals of the Bible are at odds with my own morals and the vast majority of people's morals today. That is all.
Pfft, typical of the philosopher who lost touch with reality to ask such a nonsensical question.
He was not using the same definition of truth. He is saying it could be true, but it is not provable, the same with the existence of the external world.
I'll try to make it blunt. I do not believe there is any truth in ethics, only aesthetic judgments. Nothing is absolutely more "right" or "wrong" than anything else. So, absolutely, Hitler is not any worse than Mother Teresa. Actually, I shouldn't even put it that way. Saying anything is good or bad at all is meaningless except as a description of people's aesthetic preferences. Morality is nothing more than a glorified abstraction of what we like or don't like due to our instincts and environment. Saying what is right or wrong is the same as saying what kind of ice cream you like or don't like. Does that help?
I like Cold Stone Creamery Founder's Favorite Love It Size. Joseph Stalin likes a different flavor.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
adamryan
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
adamryan wrote:You're making
You make it real clear how pompous and smug you think scientists are. You don't make it clear how the 'why' behind grass's color isn't directly related to its chemical composition and the way our brains process the visual data that is collected from looking at chemicals that give off that combination of wavelengths of light. That is the 'why' explanation for this question. "Why: A request for an evidential reason." Yep, looks like the straw man asshole scientist in your example pretty neatly answered 'why.'
This is faux intellectualism. Asking rhetorical questions rather than analyzing available data isn't the sign of a deep thinker.
Let's all play a game. It's called 'spot the contrived, meaningless rhetorical question':
Customer: Why is my check engine light on?
Inexplicably Pompous and Smug Strawman Mechanic: Because your oxygen sensor is not functioning and that activates the warning light.
Customer:Yes, very well. That is how the check engine light is on, agreed. Now please tell me why the check engine light is on."
Can anyone spot the retarded rhetorical question? Would the mechanic be justified in kicking an asshole customer like that out of his shop? No one likes that brand of faux sophistication. Having your factual evidence-based explanation dismissed by a first year philosophy student does not make you think that he is your intellectual superior. It makes you wonder how someone lives their life without using an empirical method to reach conclusions.
Your example was only about greenness, not beauty. Beauty is a product of personal tastes, not an objective matter. Some people don't like the way grass looks. It is still green to them thanks to the way their brain processes the visual data collected from their eyes that detect certain wavelengths of light coming off of the grass. Having your philosopher confuse the cause of the sensation 'green' for beauty only makes him all the stupider.
I know that you meant the example to be about a straw man scientist getting shown up by a sophisticated philosopher. But your straw man scientist gave the real reason why grass appears green and your philosopher revealed his crippling intellectual weakness.
Is your position so weak that even your own straw man argues better you?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
You're an idiot. Athiesm is
You're an idiot. Athiesm is not based on faith lmao. Faith's dictionary definition is "belief that is not based on proof". Athiesm is to me is bacically the best scientific knoledge. The only diffrence is we accept that we don't know everything. We just have a diffrent mentality. For example, we don't exactly know how our galaxy holds itself together, it doesn't have enough gravity. But instead of just saying "god did it" we look for an answer based on science (systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation). What happens when you just accept that "god did it" for two thousand years you get things like the moon is a light, the earth is a circle (not sphere) sitting on pillars. I have faith in absolutely nothing. I look for proof on every single thing I have ever accepted as a fact. I realize some of these things may be wrong. But atleast I'm looking for answers. To say athiesm is a religion is either lack of knoledge of the words athiesm and religion, or just sheer idiocity. Go ask your two thousand year old fairy tale how to react.