1401. Fleabytes

Comment #136763 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Dr. Benway,

indeed - in fact, the Christian with whom Steve Zara is engaged in debates makes the particularly ludicrous leap from "this shows that an immaterial mind exists" to "therefore, a triune God does exist"...

I honestly didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read what he obviously considered the "argument" for this. I didn't think it was possible to be convinced that anything like such an "argument" is valid (or sound).

EDIT: We should hold off with the comments on that debate until it is finished, I think.

1402. Fleabytes

Comment #136748 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I can begin to see Robertson's ploy. Get Dawkins involved in such a pointless discussion with those more practised at it, then if Dawkins fails to impress, this would be some kind of "victory" on home ground for the theists, sidelining the issue of the existence of that which is omnipotent in the first place.

That's why I think Dawkins shouldn't do such a thing, and why I think we to elevate a "philosopher of atheism" who knows and can counter such arguments into "horseman" status.
Sadly, Mackie is dead... he was the best. But there are still a few very good ones left.

If there are no volunteers - I could fill in :P

1403. Fleabytes

Comment #136735 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm

But doesn't Leftow realize that "as possible as the constraints of the universe allow" means that personhood and agency without substrate is impossible, that consciousness, not to speak of conscious creation of that of which one is an intrinsic part is thus impossible?

1404. Fleabytes

Comment #136716 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 3:57 pm

The problem of evil is certainly a real problem. But the Christian dogma does include the concepts I attacked - and they need to have coherent concepts in order for them to even have the possibility of being descriptive of something. This is what they claim, so it's fair to attack that.

It should bother a Christian that the dogmas of the attributes of his/her god are inconsistent.

Of course they can just state that it really means something like invincible and 'just' incredibly knowledgeable.... but most want a lot more from their God than that.

And furthermore, the problems with consciousness, agency, personhood and being perfect - and outside of space(time) is something they cannot get around with any interpretation.

1405. Fleabytes

Comment #136712 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Btw, Paula if you should happen to read this - I would really like to hear your opinion on my long post on page 50, since you have done such admirable work in the article.

1406. Fleabytes

Comment #136706 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Russell Blackford,

still, the term "all powerful" is not a strict technical term, as it uses the concept of power or ability and the concept of degrees and absolutes... none of which are limited to theology. It's not like "brane" in String Theory or "relativistic time-dilatation"... they rely on concepts accessible to and used by all. Therefore the criticisms apply... and the inconsistencies of all the definitions are untouched by your argument.

1407. Fleabytes

Comment #136701 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Brian English,

I don't know if they are lying or deluded... but I would think deluded. Well, at least they are intellectually engaging and attempting to deal with the arguments - not just the "But I'm right! I know I'm right!" kind of arguments that someone like Robertson uses.

...they're still wrong, but at least in a somewhat interesting way.

Quine,

absolutely!

1408. Fleabytes

Comment #136686 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Steve,

oh my... yes, vitalism is unfalsifiable, but he doesn't really think it is therefore viable (and apply that 'reason' to his own argument)?

I think I really will enjoy my good mood for a little while longer and read it later.

1409. Fleabytes

Comment #136683 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Thanks, Quine.

I empathise. It really is like that. However, philosophers haven't stopped debating theologians - unless you only mean face to face debates. From Bertrand Russell to John Leslie Mackie to Stegmueller, philosophers of the 20th century, early and late - have taken on theologians.

Great name btw.

1410. Fleabytes

Comment #136675 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Thanks.

Steve, I've read the PM... I'll look at Bnonn's response once I feel I can stomach a heap of steaming pseudo-intellectual bullshit.


(too graphic? Maybe I shouldn't have used 'stomach' :)

1411. Fleabytes

Comment #136661 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm

The Problem of Omnipotence - or how the Idea of an Omnipotent Creator is Doomed from the Outset



David Robertson,

yes indeed. You seem to have no thorough understanding of theology, apologetics or the history thereof, as evidenced by your remark about omnipotence.

First, isn't it astounding that it was read and is read by all who first encounter it as "being able to do everything" right until someone points out why that doesn't work? Then what is being done is an ad hoc, ex post facto reinterpretation to save the notion, with the mindset "it must be true, therefore I have to find out how I can twist the meaning so as to avoid the problem".

This is of course immense dishonesty - and a sign of despair, whatever the rationalization.


The only theological twist you seem to be aware of however is "Omnipotence doesn't mean 'being able to do anything'" as this would imply logical contradictions. Yet of course you have not provided a usable definition of "omnipotence" that leads to no contradictions either de facto or logical. Why am I not surprised?

I could of course have a little fun with you and ask you for one before I proceed, then demonstrate the problems with it - which would leave you in the predicament of either admitting that you have no useful definition (and in order not to be dishonest should abandon the notion) or to demonstrate yet another instance of ad hoc, ex post facto reinterpretation.

But I'm not malicious, so I'll just do it for you:

I suppose you would say "Well, it is most certainly the case that 'omnipotent' means that God can do anything that is not logically contradictory."

Wow, who would have thought that would be the first step, eh? The problems with this definition are 1) That the laws of logic are a constraint of god's powers - they are higher than god's powers.

What would a weasel say now? Yes, you guessed it "But God created the laws of logic, and thus restricted his own power of his own will".

Aside from the fact that a perfect being (perfectus est - lit. "it is done through", i.e. "finalized") can per definition have neither desire nor therefore will, this would mean that at one time his will and power were not thus limited, since he created these specific laws logic, and could have chosen not to constrict himself that way.

But this would require us to think that God did once have the power to do something that does not conform to these specific laws of logic, hence to do something logically contradictory. But this is the problem the definition was set out to avoid, so the theologian is back where he started - at having a belief that a logical contradiction is possible, in fact that all logical contradictions are possible.

In other terms, his beliefs still (implicitly) include:

'possible: A AND ~A'

Enter the dreaded 'ex falso quodlibet' - from a logical inconsistency (a logical contradiction) all statements, and thus all contradictions follow and the whole of the beliefs is rendered meaningless.

"BUT," the theologian might say (indeed some have) "These laws of logic are part of God's nature - and acting against one's own nature would be a conceptual impossibility - so there was no possibility of God acting outside logic".

Oh dear, this won't help either - because what this means is that God is determined by his 'nature', which include these laws of logic. According to the classical concept of 'free will' as incompatibilistic (which theologians do, in fact must assume) this means that God is subject to determination and has no free will - there is no spontaneous causation, he is not the uncaused cause any more. God's will would be predetermined and all his supposed attributes therefore meaningless.

This brings us to another fatal flaw in the concept of an eternal, perfect deity "outside" or "above" time: The concept of agency, indeed the concept of consciousness and personhood (which are all attributed to God) necessitate being subject to change, which necessitates being inside time. An act is always the purposeful bringing about of change from one state (the act not yet having been performed) to another (the act having been performed), change can only happen in time. But space and time are inextricably linked (as evidenced by Einstein's relativity theory) - space-time. So God would have to be within space-time and thus subject to all the laws therein. It would of course then be impossible for him to have created it if the concept of "God" necessitates (which it does - via being conscious, a person - an agent) being inside space-time. (Even if Einstein was wrong - being inside time would suffice for this argument - but for all we know he wasn't wrong).

"Well," the theologian might say (again, some indeed have) "then God must just 'span all of (space)time'. See what I mean by "ad hoc, ex post facto reinterpretation"?
This of course does no good here, for it would not free God of being subject to all the laws that apply in space-time, and thus making it impossible that he has created it - as I explained above.

Any one of these arguments alone is fatal to theism - but we want to concentrate on the problem of "Omnipotence". Just to have some more fun, let us for a moment forget about the fatal flaws of the concept of an eternal, supernatural creator explained above. What can the theologian do to avoid the problem of implicit belief in the possibility of logical contradiction (possible: A AND ~A) now? Nothing, if he wants to retain the notion that God is the creator of logic or does have free will. But let's leave even that aside for a moment. Let's concentrate on the inherent problems of omnipotence.

So far we have already seen that the theologian must avoid the fatal problem of „God can do logically impossible things". But he also has to make sure that God cannot interfere with free will. This is another problem, as it is obviously a constriction of the power of god. Even if God could interfere with free will but doesn't �" this would be fatal, as then the will wouldn't be free, but dependent on God's will. So the theologians' answer has been mostly „God has limited his power of his own will so that he cannot interfere with free will, therefore he is still omnipotent".

This is of course blatantly false. I could incarcerate myself and throw away the key, but then I lack an ability I had before, namely moving in the realm outside the cell. Therefore this is a subtraction of my abilities. God is in that sense, not omnipotent any more.

„BUT", the theologian might say (you can see where this is going) „God could restore his power, so he still has maximum potential and is omnipotent". This is akin to locking myself in, but keeping the key instead of throwing it away. Granted I cannot walk to the door and 'just' open it. I would have to use the key first, but I can still walk outside the cell without any problem, so I can interfere with that outside of the cell, even though I may not want to or do so. This brings us back to the problem above - free will would not be free, but dependent on God's will.

It is astounding to me that any theologian can maintain the idea that a limitation so as not to be able to interfere with free will does not detract from "omnipotence". This is surely a most blatant ad hoc, ex post facto reinterpretation. For goodness sake, I can interfere with other's will and limit it. I can influence others deliberately through rhetoric, I can perform operant conditioning - all of which purposefully reshape the "freedom" of the will of others.

I'm not omnipotent, but apparently I can do something that God cannot do. Interesting.

But let's forget about that problem for a moment and allow the theologian to declare that a restriction of the ability so as to preserve free will is compatible with the concept of „omnipotence".

The attempts of apologetics to redefine 'omnipotence' have been astounding and saddening at the same time. It truly does look desperate and dishonest.


Here is a definition used by Flint and Freddoso (in 'Maximal Power'):

A person S is omnipotent at a time t if and only if S can
at t actualize any state of affairs that is not described by counterfactuals
about the free acts of others and that is broadly logically possible
for someone to actualize, given the same hard past at t and the same
true counterfactuals about free acts of others.
(cited in William Lane Craig, „Theistic Critiques of Atheism", Cambridge Companion to Atheism)


Craig claims that this is a successful definition. No non-theologian, no one who doesn't have the agenda to rationalize, to save a concept without evidence in the face of so many problems could come up with something like this.
Aside from all the fatal problems I mentioned above, this definition suffers from another problem.

And yes, it is the old „Can God create an object too heavy for him to lift" problem. Because contrary to what most people assume, this is not a logical impossibility. In fact, people can do that easily. One can assemble molecules in a way that the object that results is too heavy for me to lift. A welder could weld metal together for that purpose.... or a glass-manufacturer could melt sand to create a glass-object too heavy for him to lift.

The fact that in such cases, we are not the creators of the molecules is of no importance, because the object assembled from them is still created by the one who forms the object: He brings it about and it wouldn't have come into existence without him.

So again - if people can actually do something, it isn't logically impossible. This is a state that is „not described by counterfactuals about the free acts of others and that is broadly logically possible for someone to actualize [...]"

Under that description, God would have to be able to do it. But then there is again something he cannot do, namely lift that object. Of course the theologian could attempt to weasel out by saying "this would be a physical action, and we all know god isn't a physical being". Nice try... but that would limit God's power even more, now wouldn't it? Suddenly, an uncountably infinite set of things becomes impossible for him: All physical actions, of which the set of all physical actions possible for all humans is just a subset.

Now that's some omnipotence, isn't it? This of course brings us again to the problem of agency outside of space-time - which is a contradictory concept (as I have shown above). Furthermore, Jesus was physical at least in some sense that he could perform physical acts such as actually walk, raise his hand and whatnot. But since Jesus is also God (the impossible concept of the trinity), the "but god isn't a physical being" defence doesn't work for yet another reason.


The history of apologetics is really a sad story, full of such attempts to desperately save a concept that is doomed from the outset. Such attempts to rationalize an incoherent ancient myth can be dealt with, as I have shown - but I'm not sure that this would be really necessary. It is blatantly obvious that all these reinterpretations are ad hoc and ex post facto. That is why the concept of God has changed so much over the centuries. We can safely assume that they will continue... but no amount of twisting the meaning of words will make a supernatural interventionist deity a possible concept, or even one reconcilable with physics, namely the causal closure of space-time.
Thus, the old claim that "you cannot prove that God does not exist" is shown to be false. We can show (as I have done) that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist, as the attributes ascribed to him are either inherently or mutually contradictory, or irreconcilable with the necessary ontological commitments of the concepts they rely upon (agency, personhood, consciousness). The same is of course true for any deity with these attributes. And since the causal closure of space-time renders an interventionist supernatural deity impossible, all we are left with is a deistic deity - and this is dispensed with by the famous Occam's Razor: It is a superfluous hypothesis without explanatory value.

1412. Fleabytes

Comment #136659 by MPhil on March 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm

As David Robertson has made a very rich comment on Prof. Dawkins' critique of omnipotence... I felt obliged to respond.

The comment I wrote became longer and longer - the final version is now slightly over 2000 words long.

I am going to post it nevertheless - if you like it, maybe we could ask Josh (and possibly Richard) if it warrants being slightly rewritten and posted as a small article of its own - since it is rather thorough.

I'd be interested to know what you think of it:

1413. Fleabytes

Comment #136348 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 11:39 pm

You could rationalize that by stating that this world was a gift from god and part of our 'evaluation' will depend on how we treated it.

- But yes, I too think this "Oh well - there's another world waiting, so it isn't that bad" is a dangerous mindset.

1414. Fleabytes

Comment #136345 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 11:10 pm

the christians WANT it all to fall into the rumbling boil.

To be fair - THOSE really are a small minority (especially if you consider Christians worldwide).
I suspect the number of Christians who think that the second coming of Jesus will be in their lifetime (which is highest in the US, but almost noone in Europe would think that) is far larger than those who really do associate this with armageddon and will wish for that.

1415. Fleabytes

Comment #136344 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 11:07 pm

In America anyway, dunno how it is in Europe...

Not as crass I would say (at least not in the Central Europe I know) but basically the same.

There needs to be more education about critical thinking and what a rational debate consists of.

That's what I've been saying for a long time.
Good schools teach you facts and a thorough comprehension of certain fields - but the basics of rational inquiry and debate... currently, only very good teachers do that in the course of teaching the curriculum.

Most people I knew in school were quire knowledgable in certain fields (at least those who made it to the 13th grade) - but didn't care about being a rationalist, ie they didn't see that rational inquiry can and should be applied whereever we make truth-claims, whereever we want to find out about something.

Mind you, debate clubs don't do much good either - they're good for learning rhethorics, but not rationality - it's like politics.

So I think "critical thinking" or "rational inquiry" should be incorporated in the curricula somehow.

1416. Fleabytes

Comment #136335 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Diacanu,

definitely... I mean, sometimes I wonder if these people would recognize a good argument if it shat them on the face. It's not like there aren't any. As I once said, Craig's philosophical apologetics have some good arguments. They're wrong - but at least interesting and intellectual.

As has been mentioned - Robertson's arguments are limited to "YES IT IS!!!" and "NO IT ISN'T!!!", as in

"The universe appears to be designed - but these facts show that this hypothesis is incorrect for all we know"

-"NO IT ISN'T!!!"

or

"Atheism isn't inherently nihilistic for the following reasons..."

-"YES IT IS!!!"

1417. Fleabytes

Comment #136331 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Nevermind... I was just thinking that the exchange of ideas on Buffy wasn't influenced by what I posted... probably better that way. I would have missed that last part about "DILFs" - which was somehow disturbing... and goodness knows I wouldn't want to have missed that :)

1418. Fleabytes

Comment #136326 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Seems I was interrupting a private coversation..
:/ - or rather :) ?

1419. Fleabytes

Comment #136324 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:21 pm

As I was mentioning "Once more with feeling"...

I was actually quite impressed that they put in meter-changes in "Give me something to sing about" (4/4 with 7/8).

And yes, I'm crazy about such stuff.

1420. Fleabytes

Comment #136322 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Anthony Head

... who has a very nice singing voice :)

1421. Fleabytes

Comment #136319 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:15 pm

And yes, Hannigan is cute - not as cute as Trachtenberg though IMHO (somehow I despise the Dawn character nevertheless).

1422. Fleabytes

Comment #136317 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:12 pm

To mention another TV series....

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone right now :)

Nah, never liked Buffy that much - too cliché and kitsch... BUT I thought the self-irony, the genre-parody elements were great.

Let's not talk about the acting - it isn't that important anyway...

And I simply loved "Once more with feeling"... actually, I can sing (and play) most songs by heart.


All in all - nice (very light) entertainment IMO - if you like it for the 'right reasons' that is :)

1423. Fleabytes

Comment #136259 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Thanks, Storeo... Downloading now for later viewing.

1424. Fleabytes

Comment #136238 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Dito, Steve.


Well said.

1425. Fleabytes

Comment #136232 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm

And while we're at it, whatthe...

As long as you haven't bought or read the works I recommended... here's something for your reading pleasure:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Intentionality

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia_of_computational_neuroscience

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness

1426. Fleabytes

Comment #136230 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm

The causal closure of spacetime (thermodynamics) means that all effects in spacetime are caused by entities in spacetime. In short (and somewhat imprecise): Only physical entities or phenomena can effect physical phenomena... So a metaphysical god could not intervene in the physical world.

This is positive and fatal evidence against interventionist gods.

1427. Fleabytes

Comment #136226 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm

2208 MPhil

I have read Daniel Dennetts Darwins Dangerous Idea in which he challenges John Lockes assertion that matter and motion can never, by themselves, result in mind. Dennett dismisses this argument by appealing to A.I. However, A.I is the creation of human intelligence therefore it is reliant for its existence on a intelligent cause.

You completely misunderstood the argument then. Just goes to show... and of course Darwin's Dangerous Idea isn't mainly about Consciousness.
The point he was making there was against dualism. And he's right.

1. Dualism is impossible
2. Dualism is insufficient - you need a material substrate to process information
3. We have very good theories of how the mind is the brain (or rather the function thereof)

Read "Consciousness Explained" or even "Kinds of Minds" and some works by the Churchlands.

Having shown that dualism is untenable and false, the argument for the evolution of minds is easy:

Consciousness and intelligence are essentially high-level processing of information with feedback. What these do is model the outside world and derive predictions from that.

An organism that can do this has a huge advantage over an organism that cannot.
In "Kinds of Minds" this gradual increasement of complexity in awareness in intelligence is explained brilliantly.

Every organism has discrimination mechanisms - most aren't conscious. A lock can discriminate the right key, a virus can discriminate a cell, bacteria can discriminate healthy from unhealthy environments - as shown by their behaviour (moving in a two-phase solution away from the slightly toxic and towards the nutritious)... none of this is conscious, or consciousness... but consciousness as we know it just different in degree, not in quality (although hugely different in degree).

Mount such discrimination mechanisms up - to higher complexity including feedback monitoring and manipulation.... repeat for millions and millions of years (evolution)... and you end up with human consciousness.

1428. Fleabytes

Comment #136199 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Steve,

it's not as technical as Churchland's works... but it's very interesting nevertheless IMO... and as it was one of the first books I read on that subject, I value it immensely.

1429. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136196 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Al,

Nothing does, thats why I was puzzled.

"Things" referred to dealing with slave trading and persecuting criminals in general.

I apologize for being oversensitive, as I said - it was unintentional.

1430. Fleabytes

Comment #136185 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm

On the subject of "how could consciousness arise in a material universe", there is a wonderful book (probably the #1 book on my nonfiction list) by Daniel Dennett, called

"Kinds of Minds"

Very much recommended.

1431. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136180 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I think I wasn't being oversensitive, as the first part of that sentence in combination with that second seemed to imply that I was ready and willing to hand over my civil rights to the government.

If that was not the intended meaning, I apologize for having misread you... it wasn't deliberate.

Before we get into this, I'd like to hear your opinion on the following:

-What are the rights of states in contrast to that of the overall government that would require a military force whose chain of command ends at the state level and not at the level above?

-Do you assume that "a well regulated militia" applies only to militia of and by the individual states?


EDIT:
Sorry, Bonzai and Cartomancer already asked that question.

1432. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136155 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm

MPhil,



No, I was giving you a hard time.

You trust your government to deal with your rights at all times. You ready to sign that power over permanently?

Also, go read the 2nd Amendment and tell me what you think.

Excuse me?

All I am handing over (willingly) in this case is the right to persecute and trial offenders... sorry, but I don't want no "might makes right", law of the jungle, which would be the alternative to handing that particular right over.

I happen to be very much for the protection of civil rights. But I don't want laws that would do no good. I am not against the right to own guns (non-automatic) with a permit (a hunting licence or a weapon-ownership license - with strong restrictions on who can own a gun, where to store then and how to handle them).

I'm sorry but I don't think it was right to insult me that way. I do not renounce all my civil rights.

(And I did read the 2nd amendmend... actually, I read quite a lot of the american constitution.)

Can we please refrain from insults? I just wanted to debate, not throw feces at each other.

1433. Fleabytes

Comment #136145 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm

AAARGG...

I am asserting that interventionist nonphysical gods CANNOT exist !

It's (for the umpteenth time) the causal closure of spacetime


....sorry about the tone, but noone seemed to be paying attention :)

1434. Fleabytes

Comment #136140 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:28 pm

whatthe...

Oh please tell me you're not a dualist! I might feel obliged to ridicule you in front of everybody.

Dualism is impossible via the causal closure of spacetime, it is philosophically absolutely out of fashion... the problems are just insurmountable.

Furthermore - we have very very good explanations for the arise of intelligence and consciousness from evolution. Read some Dennett ("Consciousness Explained") and Churchland (Paul and Patricia)!

The claim you are making is one of philosophy of mind, the field I study. You might want to learn something about the field in which you make claims, otherwise you'll look absolutely ridiculous - as you did with that assertion.

1435. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136135 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:23 pm

O please... the slave trade (assuming you mean the fact that people from eastern europe force women and girls into prostitution and smuggle them into western Europe) is being dealt with - with increasing effectiveness, through cooperation between the various international government agencies.

Furthermore... what does gun control have to do with that? Should a militia storm every brothel and erect an intelligence service to check the identities of the women there? The government deals with such things.

1436. Fleabytes

Comment #136125 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Actually, "atheism" means "without god(s)", not "no gods".

But yes, theism is disproven by the causal closure of spacetime.

1437. Fleabytes

Comment #136120 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm

I hope we atheists (at least those here in the board) can one day agree upon stating that interventionist gods are disproven (as per the evidence mentioned above).

1438. Fleabytes

Comment #136111 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 1:14 pm

whatthe...

Atheism is not clearly defined. There is a lot of evidence against gods... as I mentioned before:


Occam's Razor takes care of deistic gods.
The first law of thermodynamics (causal closure of spacetime) takes care of interventionist gods as well as dualism.
The Contradictions in the descriptions of specific deities take care of them in addition to the above.

There is more, such as that every phenomenon that theist claim is unexplainable from outside theism is actually explainable and we're already pretty far ahead in that.... furthermore, theism provides no real explanations, but merely "elan vital"-hypotheses without any explanatory power.

Also, atheism can be viewed as merely the positive assertion that there is no rational justification for believing in deities... and for that, I have already provided evidence, in fact - conclusive evidence. Or it can be seen merely as the absence of belief in deities... but I don't subscribe to that, as I said. I subscribe to "There is no rational justification for belief in deities".

1439. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136064 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm

The Borders in the European Union are open - controls are only made sporadically and following concrete evidence... Not to mention that the borders to the economically weaker eastern countries are not heavily patroled either. There is crime, there is drug smuggeling, there are all those things - And it's being dealt with...

1440. Fleabytes

Comment #135918 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:53 am

Oh and when you've done that, proceed to demonstrate that the Bible is the true account of how all this happened and the true description of that creator. While you're at it, provide a strict, independantly justified method for coherent interpretation of the Bible.

1441. Fleabytes

Comment #135913 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:51 am

Indeed, but look at my last post... the bible clearly says that you are condemned to hell unless you accept Christ as your saviour.

And again, please demonstrate the first four lemmata:

Lemma 1: The Universe was created
Lemma 2: The creator of the universe is an omnipotent, omniscient [and omnibenevolent] being
Lemma 3: This being, having created the universe continues to play a part in the development of the universe and all that is in it
Lemma 4: This being is specifically the deity of a particular sect of people living in one small section of one small planet circling around particular star out of 1011 others in one galaxy out of 1.5*1011 others.

1442. Fleabytes

Comment #135909 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:47 am

Ah, but universalism denies the "truth" of salvation through accepting Christ as your saviour (see the quotes above)


And really, this is all idle speculation -
please prove the first four lemmata provided by epeeist before we proceed to the fifth.

1443. Fleabytes

Comment #135906 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:44 am

Not necessarily. God does not exclude people.

Assuming your holy book of choice is the bible, chose one of the following:

You're

a)lying

b)ignorant

c)deluded

Proof?

"the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:12)

Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." (Matthew 23:31)

"His blood be on us, and on our children." This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. (Mathhew 27:25)

#

John

# People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

# The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

# John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the Jews persecuted Jesus and "sought to slay him." 5:16, 18

# John says that Jesus "would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." 7:1

# No one could speak openly about Jesus "for fear of the Jews." 7:13

# If you don't believe in Jesus, you will "die in your sins" (and then go to hell). 8:24

# Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil. 8:44

# Once again, "the Jews" are accused of trying to kill Jesus. 11:8

# If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell. 12:48

# Jesus is the only way to heaven. All other religions lead to hell. 14:6

# John blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. 19:7, 12, 14-15

# "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father."
If you follow Jesus' teachings, God will love you -- otherwise... well, you know. 14:21

# Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

# Now that Jesus has come, non-believers have no excuse for not believing in him. 15:22

# John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the disciples hid in locked room "for fear of the Jews." 20:19


...oh well, I'm tired of copying/pasting... just look it up yourself:

Intolerance in the Bible

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible

1444. Fleabytes

Comment #135900 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:35 am

hello,

well for starters I'm against retributive justice and against the death penalty.
Justice should be dispensed so as to minimize the harm done, protect society and give a chance for resocialization.

Also, you quoted only half of it:
"... and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"...

"fiery furnace", "lake of fire", "where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", "tormented with fire and brimstone"...

This is torture - worse than Auschwitz both in quality and quantity of torture.

And remember:

"The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God's wrath remains on him"

Not acknowledging and worshipping God (and the fact that he is his own son) is a sin, the punishment for which is the above...

1445. Fleabytes

Comment #135889 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:24 am

This page sums it up nicely - and mind you, it's a christian site:

Bible.org: What the Bible says about Hell

1446. Fleabytes

Comment #135888 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:23 am

Where I got that idea of God?... Let me think... the Bible for starters. (Matthew 13, 41-43 for example)

Then of course by looking at the katechism of the catholic and protestant church...

...oh, not to forget from hearing a lot of Christians talk about hell...

1447. Fleabytes

Comment #135887 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:20 am

A background in philosophy?

The kind of thinking you display here makes me doubt that you ever learned anything from studying it.

Where are the razor-sharp arguments?
You display sloppy thinking - wishful at best, deluded or stupid at worst

Let's hear your arguments - the premises first... I have a feeling that's where the BS starts.

Ever read Mackie, Quine, Lakatos or Churchland? (Or even more basic - Aristotle and Quine on Logic, Popper on critical rationalism, Carnap on Positivism, Lakatos on Empiricism...? Let me guess, a bit Aristotle and maybe an excerpt from Popper at best?)
No? Please do. You might learn something.

1448. Fleabytes

Comment #135877 by MPhil on February 29, 2008 at 10:11 am

hello,

Well, that is the same as knowing God. You don't have to have anything to do with him if you don't want. He doesn't stop you. You can choose.

Yea, that's right... the freedom to obey and worship or suffer eternal torture in a celestial Auschwitz. Nice chap this "god" guy..

Unfortunately, there's thermodynamics - goodbye interventionist deities...
Unfortunately, there's Occam's Razor - goodbye deistic deities...
Unfortunately, there are the numerous contradictions in the descriptions of God in the Bible - goodbye Christian god.

Are we done? Or are you gonna pull some ad hoc ex post facto "it's metaphorical!!" bullshit?

1449. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #135150 by MPhil on February 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm

That's the problem everywhere, isn't it... radical fundamentalist mentality. I think it's not necessarily dependant on religion (Islam), but more generally an outdated concept of pride and honor, which of course is reinforced by Islam.

There can be no real integration into a free, democratic society with such people. But this is also a huge problem with young people without migration background... it's a problem of the 'lower class'. In some areas and schools there isn't any problem, there is cooperation and understanding... but mostly, uneducated, low-income parents live in 'ghettos' where there is a "might makes right" mentality and a lot of violence. Furthermore, the parents and the media the children are exposed to through their parents leave them without proper education, intellectual as well as moral. Domestic violence levels are high, so are violent crimes.

But the people with migration background and inhuman, outdated conceptions of pride and honor aren't helping... these notions, this machoism is impressive to the children - who adopt it. The only way to solve conflicts they know is violence...

I really almost despair when I think of it. It's a vicious circle, it's a growing phenomenon and there's almost no escape for those who are already part of it.

1450. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #135131 by MPhil on February 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm

epeeist,

believe me - I wish there were. The current waiting list for Bayreuth-citizens is 4 years I think - and it ain't cheap either. Friends of mine go there every year - lucky bastards. Some even house a few of the international artists that sing at the Festspielhaus.

All I ever managed was to get tickets for the dress rehearsals of Sigfried and Rheingold.

But if you're willing to wait a few years, why not get your order placed now? I think it's worth it and I plan on doing so once I am reasonably sure where I'll be in 4-5 years :)

Until then, there is a wonderful DVD-set of the 1976(-1980)"Jahrhundertring" with Pierre Boulez conducting and Patrice Chéreau as director.

I'd be happy to meet you here and give you a tour of the wonderful cultural artifacts in this city, like the Hermitage (http://www.schloesser.bayern.de/englisch/palace/objects/bay_as.htm) and the margrave opera (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Opernhaus_Bayreuth_2_db.jpg - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Opernhaus_Bayreuth_1_db.jpg)

;)