The Cosmological Argument, Kalaam, and Invisible People (Composition Fallacy)

Sorry everyone, I've been rather busy recently. I received something like ten "proofs" about either some variation of the Kalaam or Cosmological Argument, and two or three that brought up the fine tuning argument, as well as a few others and some religious spam mail. I plan on targeting each of these arguments in the next few posts.

The Cosmological Argument and the more modified Kalaam version are very similar, with a few semantic differences. I will cover the Cosmological Argument first, and then add a few more things to refute Kalaam.

The Cosmological Argument

The C.A. tends to be argued as follows:

P1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
P2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
P3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
P4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
C1. Therefore, God exists.

This sort of thing is argued all the time by all sorts of people, often in the form of "Where did that come from?" Theists like to ask this question over and over again. Then, when you say that either nothing came before the Big Bang or that you don't know, they triumphantly grin and act as though they have just proven the existence of God or Allah or Zeus or whoever.

Before I even go any farther, let me point out that this is major argumentum ad ignorancium. The entire family of cosmological arguments essentially say "You don't know exactly how everything came to exist, therefore my god did it." It's ridiculous. To quote a piece of advice I gave to a few other people before, if your "proof for God" works equally well with Chuck Norris, Invisible Sock-Drawer Pixies and Invisible Pink Unicorns, its probably not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already completely agree with you.

B-b-b-breakdown

Now, piece by piece. Premise 1 is invalid because, in fact, not everything that exists has a cause. When you look at a quantum scale, matter actually can pop into existence uncaused. If any of this interests you, shoot me an e-mail and I can give you some great links for this topic, but I don't want to get too far off base in this post. The point is, premise 1 is invalid, thus the whole proof is useless.

Premises 2 and 3 are reasonably valid. Surprising, isn't it?

Can someone say special pleading? Nothing can exist without cause...oh wait except for God. You can't just say that a certain causation rule applies to everything, and then it doesn't. The point is, premise 4 is invalid, thus the whole proof is useless.

Kalaam


The Kalaam argument for God is essentially the same thing, with only a few semantic differences as follows:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The Universe began to exist.
C1. Therefore, the Universe must have a cause, God.

The change to "began to exist" in fact changes little about the overall idea of the "proof."

B-b-b-breakdown

Premise 1 is, like mentioned above, not valid. Not everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2 is actually correct, though it may at first seem like an assumption. If you're interested in the proof, comment below.

The conclusion is obviously begging the question or special pleading. Even if you were to prove that the Universe had a cause, what justification do you have for identifying it as God? I'll get more into this in a minute.

Meaningless God


Both of these proofs say absolutely nothing. Even if these proofs were valid, what do they say about this "god"? According to this proof, all they have is a god that caused the Big Bang and nothing more. No extras included. This god can't create life, write books, talk to people, etc. In that case, if it was just a cause, why call it God? Why not just call it the first cause? The god that cosmological arguments reference is a nothing god.

Major Assumptions


Stuff exists. It must have come from somewhere. Science can trace it back as far as the Big Bang though there is no certainty about how the Big Bang came about. Prevailing theories suggest that it sprung from the laws of physics inherent in reality, though it is not known. In that theory, the assumption is that the laws of physics are inherent in reality, an assumption that is at least reasonable. Since something, be it physical or more along the laws of physics, had to always exist. To proceed from there, you must make an assumption about what that was. The Big Bang theory assumes laws of physics. To make the assumption that it is God or Cthulhu is entirely unjustified, especially since it would seem even more important to ask the question "Where did God come from?" Basically, you have to assume something. What justification is there for assuming God?

Fallacy of Composition


Finally, this argument employs something called the fallacy of composition. This is when you say "Everything in Set A has properties x, y, and z. Therefore, Set A has properties x, y, and z" or more simply, when you include a set in itself. A practical example of this would be:

"Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans."

This may sound absolutely idiotic (and it is, don't worry), but people have actually used almost this identical argument to say why amino acids could not have formed on the early earth. They say that they can't form in the presence of oxygen, and oxygen is in water, so therefore the amino acids could not have formed in water as predicted. It seems absurd, but people actually make those arguments. My favorite example of the fallacy of composition, however, is as follows:

"All atoms are invisible to the naked eye. All humans are made of atoms. Therefore all humans are invisible to the naked eye."

cartoonstock.com

Sorry for the Delay

Sorry everyone, I know it's been a while since my last post, I've been busy with a few things. I plan to a make a new post soon; I have a couple "proofs" sitting in my inbox that I plan to discuss!

cartoonstock.com

My Friend Jonah's Proof for God

Jonah, in his e-mail to me, states:

If one believes in the big bang theory then they’ll agree that according to it, there is a never-ending cycle of big bangs, eventually followed by a Grand Collapsing when the universe reaches critical mass, and then another big bang.

If one believes in the Creation theory, they’ll agree that according to it, The universe was made at a point,(lets say at year 0) and will continue indefinitely.

P1. Time is infinite
You’re probably familiar with the Infinite Monkey Theorem if so, you’ll acknowledge that:
P2. If something is physically possible, given an infinite period of time it will happen.
P3. It is physically possible for there to be a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel (String theory)
C1. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be/has been a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel
C2. There will be/has been a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel
P4. God is a being that has the properties of living forever and Time Travel
C3. There will be/has been a God(that can live forever and can Time Travel)
C4. God exists.

Premise 1:
You are correct in the assertion that there has been a proposed theory of a "Big Bounce" so to speak, involving an expansion and collapsing of space. This has never been proven, however, nor is it still a prevailing theory in astrophysics. This loop could only occur in what is called a closed universe, where the energy density is greater than one. For more information on the "shape" of the universe, I would recommend Lawrence Krauss's lecture, "A Universe from Nothing." The main point is that there is no proof that this Big Bounce idea is true, therefore premise one cannot be shown to be true. Without an infinite amount of time, the Infinite Monkey Theorem fails.

Premise 3:
It is questionable whether or not time travel is in fact possible.

Conclusion 3:

Even if this argument, with all of its questionable scientific principles, were to be accepted, you have not proven a very impressive god. All this would prove is an entity which both lives forever and can travel through time, presumably at will. This could be a unicorn, a garden pixie, or a living proton. It is possible such a being exists, but how would this "God" impact our lives? There is no justification for extrapolating that such a being was in any way responsible for the creation of humans, there is no reason to worship this being, this being has none of the properties attributed to a god, and the existence or nonexistence of such a being is for the most part irrelevant in almost all circumstances. For more on this, see my post on Words and Their Baggage.

Overall, it was an interesting attempt to reconcile science with god claims. Your two major flaws, however, were a few unjustified assumptions about scientific principles and you seem to be proving a meaningless god.

timemachinego.com

How do you justify your beliefs?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
-1 Peter 3:15


I recently received an e-mail criticizing me because I could not disprove God. First, I have made it clear in a previous post that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. There are an infinite number of possible gods, and it would be absurd to request a disproof of so many unjustified claims. I challenge any and all readers to provide me with what they believe is their best proof for the existence of their God. Please be very clear in your attempt at proof, as I will copy and paste it directly in my response to your post. If you don't want your username referenced or would like me to refer to you by a certain name, please mention it in the e-mail. Please send all proof attempts to atwopiecepuzzle@gmail.com. Good luck c:

smbc-comics.com

Stages of (Dis)belief

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

-Leviticus 20:13

I'm commonly asked why I have this blog, as well as why I bother debating with theists who "will never change their mind." People seem to have the idea that the process of going from theism to atheism is simple and quick; one minute you believe, the next you don't. This is a common misunderstanding. It is entirely true that I have no chance of getting into a debate with a theist and having him leave as an atheist. That is not in any way what I can do or what I think I am able to do. Rather, people tend to fall into certain categories based upon how strongly they feel about their beliefs. If I were to say I have a specific goal when debating theists and agnostics, I would have to say that it is to move them, even just slightly, along this scale. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and over the course of about four years I went through various stages, theism without organized religion, agnosticism, and finally full atheism.

Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Strong Believers

This category of believers generally encompasses those strong believers who feel they are absolutely correct in their beliefs. They tend to believe that the Bible (or other holy book) was written directly or indirectly by God, and base their life around their god. They believe they have proof for their god, and there is almost no chance of this person ever being convinced that they are wrong. Almost everyone who falls into this category also makes the absurd statements that the Universe is 6,000 years old, or that argue that evolution does not occur (it happens, it is a fact, if you still argue the point you are simply being ignorant). This was me until about five years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on either distorted/made up facts or the fallacies of special pleading, false dichotomies (attempting to disprove scientific theories such as evolution or the Big Bang and believing that proves their theory), or variations of the argument from design/uncaused causes.

Average Believers

Most theists fall into this category. They go to church, are familiar with some Bible stories (but most have never read the whole Bible), and some accept the 6,000 year old Universe or argue against evolution. These people believe what they are told by those in the above category as well as priests and other religious figures. This strata of believers often does not ever actually think about the truth behind the claims they accept, they simply dogmatically accept these claims as they were told to by parents and other authority figures. This was me until about four years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorancium, special pleading, and anecdotal evidence.

Unaffiliated with Religion

This category is the group of theists that will say the bible was written by humans, it is not an authority, and they do not believe in any specific religion. They merely have this belief that a god exists, usually a personal god and usually one who has a heaven in store for us. I generally look down upon this group of believers as a great deal of them will acknowledge that they have no evidence or justification for their belief and yet they still believe. I have little respect for people who hold beliefs that they agree are unjustified. If you believe in a Judeo-Christian god and heaven, yet you accept that the Bible and other holy books were written by people and are likely fairy tales, where do you derive your beliefs from? Holding a belief purely and knowingly because it makes you feel better is something that I detest, despite that fact that I fell into this category until about three years ago. This group of theists almost always resorts to an appeal to emotion to justify their beliefs.

Agnostics

Agnostics tend to be one of two types. Some are pretty much atheists who are either scared of the word atheist or who are holding on to the last sliver of belief they have just for the sake of "fitting in." These people can generally be swayed to atheism somewhat easily by simply showing them that the reasons they think they have for belief make no sense. The second type is the group that simply chooses not to think about religion because of the cognitive dissonance it causes when they try to reconcile the nonsense that theism claims with the reality that is present and observably true. Again, these people can usually be persuaded to reject the absurd claims of religion as long as they you can get them to actually think about the subject. Agnostics generally use the first cause argument to justify their retained belief of a god.

Atheists


At this point, the person has fully stopped accepting god claims. They have concluded that there is inadequate evidence to support belief in a god, and will generally no longer accept claims without thinking critically about them first.

As noted above, I don't anticipate converting anyone overnight; it's not an instantaneous process. I hope by encouraging people to actually examine the truth value of their beliefs, I may at least shift some readers along the scale.

ffffound.com

National Organization for Marriage and Giant Umbrellas

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

-Deuteronomy 22:5

In this post I would simply like to post an advertisement presented by a Christian organization against same-sex marriage. First, I just want to say that I am in no way implying that all Christians would even want to be associated with this commercial. This is merely an example of one product of religion that I absolutely detest. To lighten the mood somewhat, I have followed it up with a spoof. 

NOM's TV Ad

 

Parody

After watching both videos, I highly recommend you at least pay a short visit to http://www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com/, if only to appreciate the extreme level of sarcasm present.

http://members.optusnet.com.au

Argumentation: "My God is Energy" - Words and Their Baggage

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."
-L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology


Too often I'll ask people to define their god for me, and they answer with something like, "God is energy!" or, "God is love!" What is that even supposed to mean? Unless they are referring to either the thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a physical system to do work or the Taiwanese hip-hop boy-band from 2002, I do not know what they mean by their claim. I love Taiwanese guys singing as much as the next guy, but I simply do not believe that Milk, Ady, Toro, Penny, and Joe could be responsible for all of the actions attributed to God. Words have baggage. When you say something is God, you are changing the understood definition of God. If you tell me that a coffee cup is God, I will fully admit to being a gnostic polytheist. 


Similarly, people often can be heard saying, "God lives in another dimension." This demonstrates something very clear about that person; they have never actually thought about what they were told, they simply repeated it (or they came up with it on their own and are simply stupid). Again, unless you mean something like length, width, height, or the 2005 song by the Australian band Wolfmother, this claim is meaningless to me. You would be confused if I told you that my friend Pete lived in the dimension "depth;" likewise, I can gleam no meaning from the statement that God lives in another dimension. The word dimension has baggage. Science fiction movies seem so enjoy using that phrase, and many people, theists and atheists, seem to repeat this without actually thinking about what it means. Isn't it scary how many people can claim to believe something they've never thought about?


Finally, I will discuss the words "mind" and "intelligence." To shorten the typing of all of this, let us say that intelligence is the ability to comprehend information, and a mind is the entity which has intelligence and is responsible for thoughts and feelings (this way I only have to type "mind" instead of both, seeing as they are both used in the same contexts). A mind is a product of a brain. To say that one just exists, not stemming from a brain, is quite a hefty assumption. Nowhere in the universe has a mind been demonstrably shown to exist without a brain (or, arguably, a computer, though artificial intelligence is iffy; even if artificial intelligence counted, it wouldn't change anything). 


In summation, to say that your god is energy, a mind in another dimension, or any other misuse of words and concepts, is completely fallacious. It accomplishes absolutely nothing in an argument because it does not in any way make a point, let alone justify one. If someone is unable to even tell you what their god is without using words that essentially tell you absolutely nothing, should you be inclined to accept their claim?

toothpastefordinner.com

Your Horoscope for Today

"I don't believe in astrology because I'm a Scorpio and I'm supposed to be skeptical and factual."
-Reverend Ryan (Yes, sarcasm)


Upon request, I hope to do a few future posts on topics related to astrology. As an intro, I would like to provide all of you with your daily horoscope, courtesy of self-proclaimed expert astrologist Alfred Matthew Yankovic. Now you may find it inconceivable or at the very least a bit unlikely that the relative position of the planets and the stars could have a special deep significance or meaning that exclusively applies to only you, but let me give you my assurance that these forecasts and predictions are all based on solid, scientific, documented evidence, so you would have to be some kind of moron not to realize that every single one of them is absolutely true.

Aquarius (January 20-February 18):

There's travel in your future when your tongue freezes to the back of a speeding bus. Fill that void in your pathetic life by playing Whack-A-Mole seventeen hours a day.

Pisces (February 19-March 20):

Try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola virus. You are the true Lord of the Dance, no matter what those idiots at work say.

Aries (March 21-April 19):

The look on your face will be priceless when you find that forty pound watermelon in your colon. Trade toothbrushes with an albino dwarf, then give a hickey to Meryl Streep.

Taurus (April 20-May 20):

You will never find true happiness- what you gonna do, cry about it? The stars predict tomorrow you'll wake up, do a bunch of stuff, and then go back to sleep.

Gemini (May 21-June 20):

Your birthday party will be ruined once again by your explosive flatulence. Your love life will run into trouble when your fiancé hurls a javelin through your chest.

Cancer (June 21-July 22):

The position of Jupiter says you should spend the rest of the week face down in the mud. Try not to shove a roll of duct tape up your nose while taking your driver's test.

Leo (July 23-August 22):

Now is not a good time to photocopy your butt and staple it to your boss's face, oh no. Eat a bucket of tuna-flavored pudding, then wash it down with a gallon of strawberry Quik.

Virgo (August 23-September 22):

All Virgos are extremely friendly and intelligent- except for you. Expect a big surprise today when you wind up with your head impaled upon a stick.

Libra (September 23-October 22):

A big promotion is just around the corner for someone much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine, remember that when your appendix bursts next week.

Scorpio (October 23-November 21):

Get ready for an unexpected trip when you fall screaming from an open window. Work a little bit harder on improving your low self-esteem, you stupid freak.

Sagittarius (November 22-December 21):

All your friends are laughing behind your back (kill them). Take down all those naked pictures of Ernest Borgnine you've got hanging in your den.

Capricorn (December 22-January 19):

The stars say that you're an exciting and wonderful person, but you know they're lying. If I were you, I’d lock my doors and windows and never never never never never leave my house again.

I hope that these pieces of insight can help you better plan out your actions. After all, the stars know best!

cartoonstock.com

Opinions?

Hey everyone! I've had this blog for about a month and a half by now, and I'm happy to see how popular it has gotten. I would like to ask, what do all of you think of it? What parts/posts do you like and dislike the most? What would you like to see added or removed from the blog? Any tips? Please leave comments, I'd lve to hear your feedback (:

graphjam.com

Proving A Universal Negative: An Omniscient AND Free-willed God?

 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
-(Qur'an) Sura 9:5

P1: Assume there exists an entity X which has the property of total omniscience.

P2: Total omniscience is the property by which an entity knows all things that are true, ever were true and ever will be true.

C1: If entity X believed something in the future to be true, it would necessarily be true (from P1 and P2).
P3: Assume there exists a being B.
C2: If entity X believed that being B would take some specific action, it would necessarily be true that this being would take this action (from C1 and P3).
P4: Free-will requires having the ability to choose options other than the one actually chosen.
C3: If entity X believed that being B would take some specific action, this being would have no choice but to take that action, as it must satisfy the prediction of entity X (from C2).
C4: Being B does not have the ability to make another choice, as this would contradict the necessarily true knowledge that entity X has (from C1 and C3).
C5: No being has free-will (from P4 and C4).
P6: All persons are beings.
C6: No person has free-will (from C5 and P6).
P7: God is a being.
C7: God does not have free will (from C5 and P7).
C8: If entity X exists, no beings, including God, can have free will (from P1, C5 and C7).
C9: If there exists any being B which has free-will, entity X cannot exist (contrapositive of C8).
C10: There cannot exist both a being with free-will and a being with total omniscience (from C8 and C9).

This means that even if we are to assume the existence of a god, we are left with only three possibilities for our world: a world in which there are no beings with omniscience or free-will, one in which there is an omniscient being but no free-will, or one in which one or more beings have free-will, but there are no omniscient beings.

Case 1: God is omniscient, but there is no free-will


If this is true, then God doesn't really control his own actions, nor does anyone else. There are many implications to this; for one, if God isn't truly making the decisions to do anything, does he really deserve to be worshiped? If no one has control over their actions, is is morally just to punish to reward anyone based on actions when they could not choose to do otherwise?

Case 2: There is free-will in the world


In this case, God cannot be omniscient, and therefore he can make mistakes. He could've made mistake upon mistake, because he may have the same amount of information as we do. In this case, God cannot know the future, and therefore every time he created something or did something on Earth, he very possibly screwed a lot up. In fact, perhaps the idea of "Intelligent Design" should be re-named "Unintelligent Design." If this god exists, he made it so we breathe through the same tube we eat with, giving us the ability to choke. He combined muskrats and ducks to give us the platypus, the most awkward animal ever and the only non-echidna mammal that lays eggs, and he gave humans the appendix, an organ which serves humans absolutely no purpose. Additionally, this means that what this god declares may be wrong, so the things he orders are quite possibly very wrong.

Case 3: Their is neither free-will nor and omniscient being


See above

Conclusion


There is, of course, the very real possibility that no god exists, in which case free-will seems likely. Regardless  of whether or not a god exists, however, this holds true. A universe which contains an omniscient being cannot also have beings with free-will. Next time you hear someone say that their god is omniscient, ask them if they think he can even choose his own actions!

russellsteapot.com

Proving a Universal Negative: Aristotle's Principle of Non-contradiction and Transcendence vs. Omnipresence

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city." (If a woman does not cry out loud enough for someone to hear her while she is being raped, she is to be stoned to death.)

-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

This should hopefully be a short post. A long time ago, back before disco was popular, there was this dude named Aristotle. He figured out that you can't both be something and not be that same something at the same time, meaning the properties you have can't contradict themselves. For example, you can't be a married bachelor, because the term "bachelor" requires that you not be married. You cannot be both married and not married at the same time (I'm sure there are ways around this...don't bring them up ahaha). The point is, he realized that you can't have property A and also not have property A at the same time. This was titled "Aristotle's Principle of Non-contradiction" and he gets all kinds of credit for something that should be obvious. This does actually provide an important premise in disproofs of certain gods, however. For example, God is often referred to as "transcendent" and "omnipresent," however it can be shown that these two properties are mutually exclusive. That is, a being cannot satisfy both conditions, and therefore a god that is both transcendent and omnipresent cannot exist.

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.

C1: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from P3 and P4).
C2: Therefore, it is impossible for a transcendent omnipresent God to exist (from P1, P2, and C1).

This is a mostly trivial example, not very earth-shattering, but it is a good example to illustrate the Principle of Non-contradiction. A being cannot be simultaneously everywhere in space and nowhere in space and time/outside of space and time. Whether you are a theist or an atheist, this holds true. Whether you are a theist or an atheist, next time you hear someone say their god is both omnipresent and transcendental, call them on it!

qwantz.com

Proving a Universal Negative: Is It Possible?

"And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, sayingy: [...] let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach."
-2 Nephi 14:1 (Book of Mormon)

A universal negative is a statement of the form "There exists no object or entity 'X' which satisfies condition 'Y'." It seems like a fairly simple statement to make, but as it turns out statements of this form are extremely difficult, in some cases impossible, to prove (for those of you who have read my first two blog posts, this is why gnosticism comes with the burden of proof).

Take the following example, where object 'X' is a unicorn and condition 'Y' is existence in the universe. There is no possible way to search through the universe an prove the nonexistence of unicorns, but do you believe they exists? No, you most likely do not. This is where we get into "reasonable doubt." You have never seen a unicorn, and there have never been any reliable historical sightings recorded of a unicorn sighting, and since you have never been presented with evidence of its existence, you do not accept its existence to be a true claim. It is unlikely, however, that you ever have said, "Unicorns don't exist and I can prove it!" Rather, it is more likely for you to have said, "No, I do not believe in unicorns, but if you show me one, obviously I will be convinced!"

I can't claim to be able to disprove the existence of certain things, like unicorns, but other things can be proven to not exist. According to Aristotle's law of Non-Contradiction, a statement about an object cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. For example, I can 100% positively say that there is no such thing as an invisible pink unicorn. The definition of invisible is that it cannot be seen, and pink is a color which, by definition, requires visibility. It is not possible for such an entity to exist, as its own identity contradicts itself. Another example could be a spherical cube. Cubes have eight vertices by definition, and spheres have none. No matter how long you mess around with Play-Doh and no matter how far you look in the universe, I can positively say that this entity does not and cannot exist, because its properties are such that, were it to exist, its own attributes would contradict themselves, thereby proving this object could not possibly exist.

pixdaus.com

The Ontological Argument for God's Existence

"Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

-Hosea 13:16

The common ontological argument is absolutely absurd, yet numerous Christian apologetics and evangelicals utilize this pathetic argument in an attempt at debating. It proceeds as follows:

P1: God is a perfect being
P2: Existence is an attribute of perfection
C1: Therefore, God exists

Anyone with a brain should be able to see that this in no way justifies the existence of a god. First of all, it is filled with circular logic. By saying God is a perfect being, you are defining God as a being that exists. Simply saying, "I define God as a being who exists," is not enough to prove his actual existence, as there is no guarantee that there are any beings which satisfy this definition. Additionally, see Gasking's Ontological Proof for the Non-Existence of God, following the logic of the Ontological Argument:

P1: God is the greatest being that can be possible.
P2: The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
P3: The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
P4: The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?).
P5: The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
C1: Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing (from P5).
C2: Therefore, God does not exist (from P1 and P5).

Hopefully I have been able to outline the terrible logical errors intrinsic in this argument.

karmakorn.com

Inductive Versus Deductive Logic and Cum/Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

"Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets"

-Surah 12:4

Despite the frequency with which these terms are used, a lot of people don't really understand what is what. In fact, Sherlock Holmes has the ever-well known reputation for being a master of deductive reasoning, when it was in fact inductive reasoning that he used to solve various mysteries. Similar words, but drastically different meanings.

Deductive Logic and Reasoning:


Deductive logic is when you create a series of premises which then, without doubt, lead to a conclusion. This conclusion, if the premises are true, is inherently true. This is the form of logic used in formal mathematics; axioms make up the most basic premises, and are accepted as true. When a mathematician follows a series of steps, each building off of the previous, new formulas and proofs are created. Once something is proved in math, since it is shown to be true (as it is based off of entirely true premises), it is then accepted to be true universally. . A classic example of deductive logic is as follows:

P1: Socrates is a man.
P2: All men are mortal.
C1: Socrates is mortal.

If the two premises are true, then the conclusion is undeniably true, as it logically follows from the premises. Socrates is a man, and if all men are mortal, then by definition Socrates is mortal. No assumptions are made to connect the premises to the conclusion (although, as we will see, P2 was actually based upon inductive reasoning itself).

As a side note, the mathematical form of proof by induction is, in fact, deductive logic.

Inductive Logic and Reasoning:


Inductive logic is when you draw generalized conclusions from a collection of specific observations. What does this mean? Take, for example, the case of duct tape. For many underprivileged people, the only duct tape available to them is silver. It might seem reasonable to them to assume that, since they have only ever seen silver duct tape, duct tape is only made silver. Most of us, however, know this is not the case (this is a form of the Black Swan fallacy, which I will discuss in a later post). This presents the key issue with inductive logic; you are forced to make assumptions that could very likely turn out to be untrue. Another example, in syllogism form, is the basis for one of our premises above (note also that this and argument from ignorance, which I will also be making a post about):

P1: All things that die are mortal.
P2: Every man in recorded history has died.
C1: Therefore, all men are mortal

This clearly seems like a justified conclusion, and yes, induction is important and often true, though at the same time it often leads to false conclusions, as in the below example (note the argument from analogy):

P1: Every man is an animal.
P2: Every horse is an animal.
C1: Every man is a horse.

Because of the very nature of inductive logic, it cannot provide any proof, in any situation. The most inductive logic can do is provide evidence in support of something.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation:


This is a fallacy which many people are subject to at one point or another. Whether this be with respect to lucky underwear, prayer to various gods, or shoe sizes affecting handwriting, they all are guilty of committing either the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc (at the same time as this therefore because of this) or post hoc ergo propter hoc, which translated literally means "after this therefore because of this." It bases itself on the assumption that because two things consistently occur together or because one thing often follows another, the first is the cause of the second.

As an example, there was once a teacher of students from grades 1-8 who graded a lot of writing work. What he noticed was that there seemed to be a correlation between the shoe size of the student and the neatness of his handwriting. He compiled a list of students' shoe sizes and gave them ratings based on the neatness of their handwriting, and found that the larger the shoe size, the neater the handwriting. He then concluded that big feet cause neat handwriting. He fallaciously assumed that one was the cause of the other, when most likely it was simply because, as a person gets older, their feet grow and their handwriting generally improves. This could be attributed to the cause of both, and so a correlation will inevitably exist. This is an example of inductive reasoning gone wrong. 


Another example could be the following, cited from With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel:

"More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education."

This is a post hoc explanation for the rising crime rates. A correlation is seen between college students and delinquency, and therefore one is deemed the cause of the other, without taking the rising population into account. When two thing appear to have a relationship, be careful to assume that one is not causing the other, as this often leads to false conclusions.

xkcd.com

How to Get to Heaven (According to Jesus)

"And he [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them ... wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." -2 Nephi 5:21 (Book of Mormon)


In the Bible, there are eight passages where Jesus specifically states requirements for entrance into Heaven. Below I will post each passage, as taken from the 2010 New International Version of the Bible.

1. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” -Luke 10:25-28

Summary:
-love God
-love your neighbor

2. A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” -Luke 18:18-22

Summary:
-do not commit adultery
-do not murder
-do not steal
-do not give false testimony
-honor your father and mother
-sell everything you own and  follow Jesus


3. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’
“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples." -Luke 14:26-33


Summary:
-hate your father and mother
-hate your wife and children
-hate your brothers and sisters
-hate life itself
-give up everything


4. Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. -John 6:53-54


Summary:
-eat flesh
-drink blood


5. He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. ³ And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. -John 18:2-3


Summary:
-become like little children


6. Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” -John 3:3-8


Summary:
-be "born again"


7. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." -Matt 5:17-20


Summary:
-your righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law


8. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16


Summary:
-believe in Jesus


Final List:
-love God
-love your neighbor
-do not commit adultery
-do not murder
-do not steal
-do not give false testimony
-honor you father and mother
-sell everything you own and follow Jesus
-hate your father and mother
-hate your wife and children
-hate your brothers and sisters
-hate life itself
-give up everything
-eat flesh
-drink blood
-become like little children
-be "born again"
-your righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law
-believe in Jesus


What are some of the things we end up with? Love everyone and hate everyone, be born again and become like little children, and two references to giving up all your stuff. Oh, and of course, believe in Jesus. How many people do you know who will go to heaven?

ctrlaltdel-online.com

Fallacies: Circular Logic

"God exists. I know because the Bible says so. The Bible is inerrant and true because God wrote it."
-Anonymous Theist

(For more on this subject, see my post on Circular Logic)

A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed beforehand in some manner as a premise. for example:

1. Premise A proves premise B
2. Premise B proves premise C
3. Premise C proves premise A

The argument is only true if you already accept the conclusion. The following is a joke that is a good illustration of similar circularity.

It was autumn, and the Indians on the remote reservation asked their
new Chief if the winter was going to be cold or mild.

Since he was an Indian Chief in a modern society, he had never been
taught the old secrets, and when he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell
what theweather was going to be.

Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he replied to his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect wood to be prepared. But also being a practical leader, after several days he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, "Is the coming winter going to be cold?"

"It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold indeed," the
Meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the Chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in order to be prepared.

One week later he called the National Weather Service again. "Is it going to be a very cold winter."
The Chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of wood they could find.

Two weeks later he called the National Weather Service again. "Are you
absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?"

"Absolutely," the man replied. "It looks like it's going to be one of
the coldest winters ever."

"How can you be so sure?" the Chief asked.

The weatherman replied, "The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy."

The weathermen are getting their information from the Indians and visa versa, meaning neither of them has obtained actual reliable information. This is analogous to the story of Immanuel Kant of Königsberg, Russia (Germany at the time). He lived a solitary life of extremely regular habits, like his daily, post-dinner walk. it is said that the citizens of Königsberg set their clocks according to the position of Professor Kant on this daily walk down and back the same street (this street later became know as the Philosophengang or "The Philosopher's Walk"). It is also believed to be true that the sexton of Königsberg Cathedral also confirmed the time on the church tower clock by observing when Kant took his daily walk, and Kant in turn scheduled his walk by the church tower clock! That is the perfect example of a problem caused by circularity. Both Kant and the Cathedral thought that they were obtaining new information by observing the other, when really they were confirming the time in a way such that their times would match up by definition. Just like with circular arguments, both pieces could be wrong, but since they back each other up, there is no external data being taken into account. 

PS: Sorry I disappeared for a while. I had some personal problems to take care of. God punished me for my infidelity by causing my dog to die last Friday, and among other things I've just been busy. I should be back to posting regularly, hopefully almost daily again. c: