501. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170524 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm

I feel our society is gradually deteriorating when it comes to our universal moral standards.

I don't think it's that bad... but even if so, religion is not necessarily the answer. Take a look at the societies under theocratic rule - take a look at medieval Europe for example. The situation in the US is nowehere near as bad. Of course, "social deterioration concerning morality" is very much a matter of perspective.

Proponents of monarchy in France would have (and did) say the same about the introduction of democracy. Proponents of theocracy say the same about religious freedom etc.

502. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170511 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:55 pm

:)
____________


Say, where's smellhound?
Wow, first smellhound being a nice chap and now this from Adam... I think we're under a charm-offensive :)

Of course, there's still melissa, defending god's genocides and munchhausen-by-proxy-syndrom as "love".

503. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170503 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm

annabanana,

you have a serious error in the second line of your comment... I know it wasn't intentional... but it distorts the meaning quite a bit :)

504. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170502 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Adam,

I commend you for having the courage and honesty for your apology!

505. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170496 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Brian,

sure, here you go:

This (with the "related documents" at the right side - they are essential):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html

and this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html


Should keep you busy for a while :)

506. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170494 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Well, if anyone is suffering from Munchhausen's syndrom by proxy, it's definitely the Christian God:

Omnicient, making humans so that he knew they would use their "free will" (however that is to be reconciled with omniscience) to be sinful, then placing them in a world full of tests and full of pain and agony (by far not all due to acts of free will) - just to send them himself as his son to "save them" from eternal, infinite torture which he would otherwise bestow upon them.

Please - "God doesn't want anyone to go to hell"... obviously he does, those who do not do as he says. He's a celestial dictator who tortures people for disobeying him. Only that with real dictators, the torture ends at death.

God's is a blackmailer in that regard. It's like "I don't want to have to torture you... all you have to do is obey me, love me, worship me... Or you WILL be tortured forever! Am I not merciful?"

Honestly, anyone seeing this as kind and loving has a serious ethical problem.

It's also just like Munchhausen's by proxy - your god knew how his human's would turn out, after all he is supposed to be omniscient. First he creates them so that they do terrible things to one another (rape, genocide, torture for example), and then throws them into a world where they suffer even more through tsunamis, disease, volcano-eruptions, droughts, hunger etc.

Then he comes in to "save them" from the evils he created... what an asshole.

Or he kills them... or he tortures them.
Face it - your God is worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Gengis Khan, Kim Jong Il and all the other dictators and mass-murderers combined.

507. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170478 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm

I myself haven't gone through the entire exchange of papers between Craig and Oppy... and it's hard to find exactly where Craig is wrong. As I said, he is competent - albeit his character is more than questionable, and his position wrong.

But he does provide food for thought.

508. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170468 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Nah, Brian - your point is valid (at least I think so), I just wanted to provide a justification for my position.

509. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170465 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Brian

in your case, the suppressed premise can be know to be true because its scope in that case is so narrow. You only make a statement about yourself, you have that tacit premise, and you have justification for believing it.

Many people are not even aware that this has to be a premise in the argument, and that it needs justification. Therefore, they don't include it - not because they are aware of it and think it is universally shared. Many don't even see this as something in need for independent justification.


Anyway - let's leave it at that.

510. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170463 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:47 pm

so your problem is more with following the particular tenants of any religion than with belief in God period?

I have a problem with both - see above. The main problem is accepting statements as true without proper epistemic justification, and with certain "tennents of faith" being entrenched and unquestionable... That's (at the very least the former) is what belief in God is. My problem with that? See above.

511. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170459 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:43 pm

smellhound,

you will have to excuse us - we love debating... I for one cherish it... I find an actual discussion/debate, rationally conducted to be wonderful :)

very true, but then shouldnt your argument be against using faith as an excuse to do things that we generally see as unacceptable rather than just against faith period. The vast majority of believers in any religion don't use it as an excuse to kill someone.

At whom was this directed? At what comment?

Faith itself - the acceptance of certain statements about supposed matters of fact as true without sufficient epistemic justification is itself irrational, it should be discouraged - enlightenment is of tantamount importance for the acquisition of real knowledge, for the proper justification of ethical behaviour and for the survival of our species. The above is incompatible with this.

512. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170453 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm

charity demands that we interpret such arguments as enthymatic, and usually this is easy enough. For example, we should understand 'X is pleasant, therefore X is good' as an enthymeme whose suppressed premise is 'Whatever is pleasant is good'.

As I stated, I do not subscribe to the interpretation of the author of that entry in the encyclopedia... and without this, it is a fallacy...

But that's of no real importance, methinks. Call it what you will :)

513. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170448 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm

The naturalistic fallacy (yes, it is a fallacy :) encompasses (but is not limited to) the less theoretical "is/ought"-fallacy.

George Edward Moore, Principia Ethica - talk about this specifically.

514. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170443 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:34 pm

away from the natural human thought that there is an almighty being and an after life,

Oh please, that is not a "natural human thought" - that is indoctrinated, conditioned.
What is natural, human is that our pattern and intentionality-detection mechanisms have a tendency to provide more false positives than false negatives. We tend to see intentionality and action where there is none. Astrology, Alchemy, "magic", lightning being an act of a deity, rain and wind also etc... but we can counteract this through rationality.

And by far the least deities in human history were said to be truly almighty.

Finally:

I have said this before, but you chose to ignore it. This:

it should also drive you away from morality

is bullshit.

Aside from the fact that ethical behaviour is beneficial - have you ever heard of philosophical ethics? What's at work there is rationality, not faith.

515. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170436 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

not to the point of ruling out the presence of a supernatural being

You're right - that is just made improbable by the vidence. It's logic that finally rules it out for good :)

Brian,

Just to be pedantic, it's a mistake identify a natural quality with a non-natural quality, not a fallacy. Let's start the habit of calling it the 'naturalistic-mistake'. A fallacy implies poor logical form.
There's nothing bad about the logical form of:

Snake poison is natural
What is natural is good
Therefore snake poison is good.

But it does seem a mistake ;)

No, it is a fallacy, because usually, the second part is not given explicitly as a premis, which renders the logical form of this fallacious.

Furthermore, if it is mentioned explicitly, it takes the form of

Premise: x is natural
Conclusion: x is morally good

Making this connection without introducing (and justifying) the second premise - that's the fallacy.

516. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170430 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Smellhound, - see my last post.

Natural doesn't mean "good". Diseases are natural, and we're fighting them too.

Why fight religion? The answer would be too long - let's just say that it comes down to valuing independent thought and rationality, to the rational judgement that only through rationality can mankind survive, to subversion of science, of freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, to the fact that standards of rationality apply and that we feel bound to stand up where they are violated etc

...but this is not the issue at hand, so let's not get into that for now.

517. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170423 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:20 pm

riandouglas,

;)

smellhound,

Then since morality is natural because it gives you good feelings etc., then isn't faith in an almighty being natural too since it gives people good feeling. If so, why waste time fighting it?

You are still committing the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" - identifying a natural quality with a non-natural quality.

In more everyday-terms, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" (though that is inaccurate, the above covers it better).

You cannot say "it ought to be so because it is natural" - doesn't work.

I have a gut-feeling you are ascribing this to science - that Darwinists do (or have to anyway) support some form of social darwinism. This is not the case. Science doesn't care about these things - it cannot make prescriptive statements of any kind. Science provides ever-improving models of what is; It cannot say anything about what ought to be or not ought to be.

518. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170416 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm

All of you who point out the role of emotion in moral judgements are right (though it's not just emotion - conceptual thinking does enter into it)... but I think smellhound is asking a different question, namely that of prescriptive justification (ethical justification), not that of the fuctional explanation of why we do that and how.

Both can be answered.

519. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170412 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:11 pm

See, I do things too because I judge them to be the right thing to do. But that judgement doesn't require intrinsic, metaphysically objective moral values. Nothing of the sort. Any ethical theory provides a theory of moral justification. Utilitarianism, Contractualism, Prima Facie deontology, Kantian ethics... all of them. And many of them don't require metaphysically objective values in order to give an account of moral justification.

You might want to study philosophical ethics and metaethics - Philosophers have thought about morality for half a millenium before your religion even got started :)

Anyway - You can be an atheist and still believe in abstract entities, such as objective moral values - I don't, but one certainly can.

520. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170404 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm

The question: "Why be altruistic"? Has several aspects. The one is the question about prescriptive justification - what prescribes that? This is a question of ethics.

The other is a question of game theory.

I suggest you look into "Evolutionary Stable Strategy", "tit for tat", "tit for two tats" and "game theory" at wikipedia.

Concerning the first, I have written a lot about that recently - maybe others can direct you via my "Other comments by"...

My points were:
-Science is always only descriptive. No moral values or imperatives can be inferred from descriptive statements. Nor can any moral imperative be more or less compatible with any descriptive statement.

-Theistic ethics don't work, the ethical theory is incoherent or insufficient

and

-There are working ethical theories that do not require inherent, objective moral values and yet do provide a basis for what we would intuitively call "ethical behaviour".

521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170275 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Corylus, - yes I have... disgusting.

522. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170263 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Steve,
they don't convince me either... but try to find out exactly where the arguments fail, it's not that easy.

riandouglas,

those are dealt with on the pages I linked, too.
Unconvincing - supposed "eyewitness testimony" that wasn't real. (See also the page "Contra Craig")
But then he also said if he went back in time and found nothing of the sort he believes happened, he would still believe it...

523. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170232 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Don't underestimate William Lane Craig... he is extremely good at constructing arguments. His papers in defence of the kalam cosmological argument are really good (though ultimately, I opine, unconvincing). His "Holy Spirit Epistemology" on the other hand... let's not talk about that one.

Anyway - a competent philosopher arguinging at times brilliantly in defence of something absurdly ridiculous.

His papers on the kalam, the rebuttals and their successive rebuttals should interest especially those generally interested in Cosmology

see e.g. here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html

(including the "related documents")

More on Craig here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html

524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169874 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:50 am

You're right, epeeist... I didn't think of that. I guess I tend to forget that a partitioned and potentially malnourished mind can be incapable of processing these arguments either because of a lack of intellectual faculty (don't think that happens often, though) or because of blocking mechanisms and a lack of experience in this kind of thinking.

525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169861 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:07 am

I tend to go slightly further referring to "your god" or Yahweh when referring to the Christian deity. As you intimate using "God" gives some validity to their claims, however the use of "god" still provides the validity but looks petty.

Oh I really don't think we give one inch by using "God" or "god". I don't refer to Faust as "the fictional character 'Faust'" or say "Your Easter Bunny". I think I just don't really care because I am usually very clear that I intend the reference to be to a fictional character. Specifically the fictional character the one I am addressing judges to be real.

As for the "non-existence until proved otherwise" I am happy to agree with theists that I cannot disprove the existence of their god, I can only show the low probability.

I do not tire of stating this, but once we have a definite description on the part of the theist, and that includes 'personhood, agency, being non-spatio-temporal, immutable, perfect, creator, intervener'etc we can disprove that.

See also here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html

Especially "A Disproof of God's existence" and "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey"... and then have a look at the utterly ridiculous counter-arguments against the latter.

526. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169836 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 11:22 pm

If he exists

I think that should be a counterfactual - "If 'he' existed". And it still warrants standing in the way of those who want a theocracy based on worship of and obedience to this particular fictional figure.

527. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169832 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 11:05 pm

This is crime against humanity of the highest order.

...and now we wait for the "The standards of men are not the standards of God"-comment, the "You can't judge God, least of all by human standards"-comment...

Any standard that does not condemn such things as disgusting, immoral behaviour of the worst kind is completely incompatible with any standard that can exist in a just and stable society - no standard that I would want to have anything to do with.

And aside from that, interestingly, we can judge God's behaviour to be kind and loving by our standards - and no one objects... but not to be injust and incredibly cruel by any standard?

Does it reek of inconsistency? I think it does.

-Mike

528. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169548 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 9:16 am

Ah, someone from "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" evidentally... as I have never had access to that, I can't relate. But since I'm generally very fond of british comedy - I'm sure the loss is immense.

529. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169545 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 9:11 am

Okay, I give up... who died? Sorry, "Oxford Circus" doesn't ring a bell for me... :(

530. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169539 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 9:00 am

Yes, indeed.... but I found it strange nevertheless.

531. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169511 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 8:09 am

And right now someone is arguing that there is extremely good geological evidence for a massive global flood a la Noah. Breathtaking.

532. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169508 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 8:08 am

On a side note - if you need a good heartly laugh, take a look at what remnant wrote on the "Lying for Jesus?"thread just now... especially how he dealt with my arguments that any conception of a personal, nonphysical, interventionist deity is a category mistake and therefore cannot have a real referrent.

It's either funny, enraging or sad.. or a little bit of all three. But by now I find it almost amusing.

533. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169505 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 8:04 am

Oh, but thanks for finally addressing my points - I could have guessed however that all you would come up with would be the above "NO IT ISNT".

534. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169502 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 8:03 am

The idea that every event must have a sufficient cause is very strongly embedded in our minds - but it is by no means an a priori known truth, much less an analytical truth.

We can always ask what the causal antecedent of an event was, but it is not guaranteed that this question makes sense.

If we have a finite past, then time itself had a "beginning", but the word is inaccurate because "beginning" suggest something "in time" - the conceptual problems arise because our language is incapable of clearly expressing (but we are capable of somehoe conceptualizing) what a "beginning" of time would be.

Yet, evidentally, we have a finite past, so this must be true. The other alternative is an infinite past.

In both cases we can ask "what is causally responsible for the series as a whole?". But that doesn't mean that this is a meaningful question.

That something must have caused the beginning of time is by no means an a priori known truth.

Now, remnant. You ignorant little prat. You wouldn't recognize a sound logical argument if it slapped you in the face.

Let me make it clear to you again (for the last time):

1. Oh I see. Your limiting "personhood and agency, inextricably linked to our concept of time", limits your comprehension of things beyond that reference and therefore your understanding, based on those limitations in your finite mind and world, prevents you from comprehending an infinite God. Based on this finite limitation, you proclaim a personal God, outside the finite limits you exist in to declare Him an impossibility.

Thanks for demonstrating the limits of your finite reasoning skills in your self-defeating statement.

Every human being has finite conceptual abilities.
Any concept of personhood agency any human can conceptualize (which is the same as "any concept of personhood and agency) necessitate being subject to temporal change.

I don't limit any supposed god thereby - I have logically demonstrated beyond question that the concept of a personal, nonphysical god that any human can have cannot itself have a referent. What this means is that any human talk of such a supposed entity is meaningless, just as "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

The god that you conceptualize, as you conceptualize it (because your concepts and those of anyone else of personhood and agency require temporality) therefore cannot possibly exist.

Same goes for intention being fulfilled without a mechanism. A meaningless idea - therefore necessarily without a real referrent.

This demonstrates that nothing like what anyone conceptualizes as a personal, nonphysical, interactionist deity can exist, because the concepts are meaningless - incomprehensible in principle. Category mistakes.

You haven't advanced a single argument, only expressed your willingness to accept logical contradictions.

You should take a course in elementary logic - although it seems you would fail to get past the first two minutes.

2. Oh well there goes emotions like love and hate. There goes reason. There goes intellect. There goes consciousness, all non-physical "somethings" affecting our physical something.

And there you have one of the reasons why dualism is impossible. Those things are all functions of the brain.

You babble on about these things without the slightest idea of philosophy of mind, logic, philosophy of language, ontology, metaphysics etc.

People have studied these things for 500 years longer than your religion even exists - and most philosophers nowadays reject substance dualism on exactly these grounds (and others.)

Educate yourself before you make bold claims.


I find your lack of logic disturbing.

535. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169491 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 7:43 am

I must say that I think "either you allow all slogans or none" is not adequate.

I would say all slogans and expressions of opinion are allowed where they do not disturb the classes and where they do not promote illegal action.

I would say the t-shirt from the article, along with "atheists are morons" or "christians are idiots" should not be banned, while "kill atheists", "throw stones at christians", "white pride - extinguish the nigger" should definitely be banned.

I wouldn't want an "atheists are stupid" t-shirt banned. I wouldn't want a "soldiers are murderers" t-shirt banned - and I wouldn't want this banned either. Unless, that is, it is part of a movement in that school of pupils who physically abuse, harress and bully homosexuals and who wear these shirts (or others like it) as a "gang"-sign.

I used to wear a t-shirt of a local death-metal band to school, which said "Jesus died under my wheels" on the front and "Oh happy day, God's son is dead" on the back. No one cared. Others wore (and wear) Cradle of Filth t-shirts to school... no one cared either.

A slogan on a t-shirt, without the person wearing it actually approaching and abusing the homosexuals is just sad and deluded, and maybe a talk with the school's counsellor would be in order, but a ban?

The only things that get banned in German schools are neo-nazi signs or slogans, because they are illegal per se.

I actually felt offended by the religious education teachers in my school - and the confessionally bound religious education. Also, they mostly taught other subjects - and many of them demanded a prayer before class.

That (in non-RE classes) went too far because they are teachers in a official role and have to be neutral (even per constitution).

I have been bullied at school a lot, even beaten. (in my first four years) That went too far, but had someone "merely" worn a t-shirt with a slogan condemning something with which I identify, I would have found it sad and offensive, but not worthy of banning. Organised abuse, harressment, bullying, terrorizing - sure, ban it. It violates the right to integrity of the person of the abused.

But one guy wearing a t-shirt on a day or two?

I'm open to having my mind changed of course - but at the moment, I wouldn't say that warrants banning.

536. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169380 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Me too - I gave it to my girlfriend a few months ago... she studies biology. Hasn't really found the time to read it yet. Anyway - great book.

Hmm.. it's half past 8 in the morning here and I haven't slept yet. Always happens on weekends, and come monday my sleep/wake rhythm is totally inverted and I've got a serious problem :)

So, nighty-night then...

537. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169376 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Yes, the four F's when encountering another animal

Flee? Fight? Feed? Reproduce?

... incidentally, did you read "Kinds of Minds"?

538. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169374 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Of course I like it - sounds like straight out of Dan Dennett's wonderful "Kinds of Minds" (well, except for the mirror neuron part)

However, since mirror neurons see to it that (roughly) similar or in an idealized situation the same emotions arise in the observer as in the observed, it seems to me to be unlikely that they contribute significantly to predator evasion or prey-catching. But they might well figure in our social activities (ie other than predator-prey interaction).

:)

539. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #169368 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Piper Ann,

There is much to be said for empathy being specifically a function of mirror-neuron activity.

Mirrir neurons become active when observing certain behaviour or observing someone else (usually a being from the same species) being submitted to certain situations. They then trigger the activity of the relevant neural sub-networks that are active when the individual itself is performing that action or experiences the situation which the observed individual experiences.

Also, as I do not tire to point out - most of our emotional activity is in our consciousness inextricably linked to higher cognitive activity.
When I am feeling emotional pain, a lot of cognitive activity is associated with that - certain patterns of thinking complex thoughts, of remembering comlplex situations, an integration into a conceptual scheme. Thus the experience of emotions, including empathy of animals (even higher animals) is still hugely different from our own as being integrated into and/or inextricably linked to a conceptual and cognitive framework.

Anyway - I think the question "How did empathy evolve" is still relevant.

It does happen in evolution that a functional change in a certain organ, or even in a tiny area of an organ is selected for because it gives a small (and often cumulative) advantage for producing surviving offspring - but that this change also has epiphenomenal effects that are not really selected for, but do make a crass difference. This might have happened with some higher functions of consciousness.

With empathy however, I think the relevant specific mirror-neuron and in general limbic-system activity might very well be a requisite for employing Evolutionary Stable Strategies in animals with central nervous systems. In fact, this is probably what made certain evolutionary stable strategies even possible.

It's all very well to say that a parent (animal) behaves towards its young in a certain evolutionary stable way, and that this includes responding to certain signals for example by protecting them, giving them attention or defending them. But it might just be some sort of mirror-neuron activity and rudimentary empathy that actually motivates/triggers them into feeding the crying young, or attending to them etc.

"The Evolution of Empathy as Mirror Neuron Activity as a Constitutive Prerequisite for Employing Evolutionary Stable Strategies in animals with Central Nervous Systems"... maybe there's a paper in that. Highly hypothetical, but potentially very rewarding point of investigation methinks.

Best,
-Mike

540. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169330 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I hope you don't mind.

Not at all - but if I someday I might want to publish (or hand in as a thesis) my thoughts on philosophy of religion, I might get into trouble because people will think I just copied it off the internet :D

If you haven't dug it up already, feel free to use this as well:

We can prove that the concept of a non-physical, personal god is contradictory, because being a person means being a thinker and potentially an agent, and the concepts necessitate that any potential referent is within time because action and thought is always also a change in state of affairs - which only makes sense in spacetimetime. Our concepts of personhood and agency are inextricably linked to our concept of time.
Therefore, a "personal god outside space and time" is a conceptual impossibility - a category mistake.

Something non-physical effecting something physical is - aside from being in contradiction with the conservation of energy and momentum - another conceptual impossibility.

Furthermore, the concept of intention being fulfilled without a mechanism is incomprehensible in principle. It doesn't make sense. And just saying "well, god can" - won't do.


As for the logically contradictory notion of omnipotence... I'll have to post the link again, since the text is rather long:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page49#136661

Although I shuold mention that the discussion of omnipotence isn't complete - there are some loopholes which I need to close (and will do so when I get to it) - but it's a start.

But I stand by my discussion of omnipresence:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page59#138081

and potentially, my discussion with seeker_of_truth, starting here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page10#166472
may be of some help.

Best,
-Mike

541. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169322 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 7:10 pm

MPhil, I'm beginning to dislike reading your posts.
Almost every time you open your metaphorical mouth, I have to add another book to my list,

You wouldn't be the first :)

If there are any specific philosophical disciplines you would like to get into - epistemology, ethics and metaethics, philosophy of mind, (philosophy of science) - just PM me :)

542. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169312 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Oh, and Lil_Xunzian,

as for trying to educate people like Remnant or TheTruthID about the failure of their ethical hypothesis... forget it, I already tried:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page12#166750

That wasn't the first time, either - and I reposted that comment on this thread, as rianduoglas noted earlier (thank you)...

I also provided both Remnant and the TheTruthID with logical arguments for the impossibility of God... never got a reply.

It's really useless - they ignore everything they cannot answer, their mind doesn't allow the successful processing of information that would show them that they are wrong... pick out some statements they (wrongfully) think they can answer sufficiently and then proclaim victory.

In their case, I would really speak of a serious mental deficiency - mind you, I've encountered very intelligent and polite theists on here as well.

543. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169310 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Also good to see someone mentioning Lakatos! Most people know about Popper and potentially Kuhn, but Lakatos is somehow almost never mentioned.

If you're interested in philosophy of science, you might want to look into structuralism, ie the works of Patrick Suppes, Joseph Sneed, Wolfgang Stegmüller, Wolfgang Balzer and Carlos Ulises Moulines (my professor of philosophy of science, worked and pubslished with all of the above).

Some texts:

An Architectonic for Science - The Structuralist Program Balzer, Moulines, Sneed
(accessible via JSTOR)

The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics Joseph Sneed

For an introduction, see here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-structuralism/

544. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169307 by MPhil on April 25, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Lil_Xunzian,

ah - another philosopher... always good to meet more people with similar interests.

FYI, Heidegger wasn't a Nazi for long...he was initially open for it, but rejected many of the ideas of national socialism later on. And while Sein und Zeit is interesting, it has little to offer in terms of logically structured arguments. - At least in my opinion. I'm all for analytical philosophy. (Before and after the linguistic turn)

And if you want to point creationists trouting "christian ethics" to philosophical ethics - in most cases you can forget it. They wouldn't get past the first paragraph of Kant. Anyway - I would recommend (and have done so) the Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals), not the Kritik der praktischen Vernunft.

I always recommend Mill's Utilitarianism, Kant's Grundlegung zur Metaphysic der Sitten, Mackie's Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong (for metaethics) and for those specifically interested in an anti-realist rational ethical theory - John Rawls A Theory of Justice viewed from an ethical point of view, possibly with T.M. Scanlon's What we owe to each other - and for a totally different view, Bernard Williams' Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy - but mostly Mill, Kant and Mackie.

Best,
-Mike

545. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167444 by MPhil on April 24, 2008 at 3:51 am

Quite right.

I'll be on for another half hour, sporadically - then off to uni, then off to catch the train to get to my best friend's wedding...

546. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167438 by MPhil on April 24, 2008 at 3:41 am

I think the primary goal should be developing, discussing refining and helping to set in action "enlightenment strategy", how to go on the offensive, what strategy to employ to get the public to listen and to enlighten them ...

The fora aren't visible enough IMO.

547. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167226 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 6:23 pm

"Any thoughts?"


No, those comments of yours are pretty conclusive... you don't have any. No go and play with your poo some more, instead of flinging it at us.

548. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167208 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Any takers? By now anyone on here can call him out on that... but I'd rather have Steve do it (no, not out of sadism :)

549. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167206 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Damn - seems I was a moment too late.

Great post, Cartomancer...

-and again it shows that I'm not a non-native speaker. It always takes me some time to figure out that you can pronounce "theories" as two syllables and either "fella" as one or "educate" as two.

Just goes to show - the learning never stops :)

550. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167201 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 5:58 pm

And now we're waiting for a post along the lines:

Oh come one - that's not evolution and you know it. It's not evolution unless a bacterium splits into two frogs!