Fictitious Ideological crap. Z's little gimmick for impossing his "understanding" upon religion.
CARM poster Zhavric indoducted what he calls "FIC" and I can't even remember that he says it's stands for. Its' a gimmick.
This is a gimmick to make his circular reasoning sound reputable. He is assuming first that science is the only form of knowledge, and secondly that there can't be a God (it's impossible) becasue the only form of knowledge doesn't sanction it. Never mind that we humans have a pathetic data base.
Here's his arugment:
Quote:
God is a work of fiction. A false claim. We know this based on the False Implied Claims (FIC) argument.
It goes like this:
1) Claims require evidence.
2) Evidence which demands the listener re-define what evidence is cannot be considered evidence.
3) Objective claims which are a) have no evidence and b) contradict existing proven claims are false.
Hold it right there. Now he put this in to spike out any otherr form of knowledge. He's here saying science is the only vaild knoweldge and to quality as scintific knowlege you have to have data. But of course I hve data I 350 studies and he choses to inore them becasue he picks and chooses when to accept science and when not to. But never mind, let's go on.
the point is God claims do have evidence, they evdience from many forms of knowledge not just one.
He also assert that knowledge has to be "objective" but that's unproved and begging the question. So his argument invalid at this point.
Quote:Z
4) Because god cannot exist AND not exist, the statement "god exists" is an objective claim.
But here hes' about to confuse objective existence of the subject wtih objective perception of the observer. Just because God's existence would have to be an objective fact doesn't mean our perception of that fact would have to (1) given scientifically, (2) be objective.
Quote:
5) The claim "god exists" has no evidence that does not demand the listener re-define what evidence is.
But that's only true because he doesn't accept real evidence. He only accepts science as evidence. he automatically takes out all the evidence for
God and says "that's not evidence because it's not in the realm that I control." only stuff taht he thinks he controls (he's deluded into thinking he knows science).
Quote:
6) The claim "god exists" contradicts existing proven claims (in spite of the best efforts of theists to shield god from scrutiny).
what those established things or or who establishes them he cannot say. If he had an established thing he would use it. But you watch he will quote no one because there are no such established "facts." he's just blowing smoke to create this gimmick.
Quote:
7) Therefor, the claim "god exists" is false.
remember now it's only "false" based upon ignoring otehr forms of knowledge, the fallacious argument that logical impossibility can be derived from empirical data or lack of it, ignoring the basis in loigc for begging the question.
in reality he's just made several fallacious assertions and presents nothing of any kind of proof. Whic is also a violtion of his own principle, so his arugment is actually self defeating.
We had a round about on this last time I kept saying "its' self contradictory so it's betting itself." he ketp saying "you haven to make a logical argument."
I say "that is a logical argument." He basically argued that it was long enough to be liogical.
friends, and spectators, that is the essence of logic. If you contradict your own argument the arguemnt loses. look it up!
that is rational that is logical. that's rational.
Quote:
It is my stance that Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) A) always existed, B) fucntions properly without any hardware of any kind and C) spontaneously causes new software and hardware to come into existence from nothing.
Obviously, these three claims are nonsense. They are quite demonstrably false because they a) have no support and b) contradict what we know to be true. It would take evidence to convince us otherwise and, to the best of anyone's knowledge, none exists. Until that time, we are quite correct in saying the above statement is false. Not unknown. Not partially true.
False.
this is not analogs to god because he chose soemthing that is a prpori not true. so there's no dispute then he's arguing from analogy he wants you to think if I can make an argument based upon this analogy that proves by analogy that Im right.
the laws of logic forbid this. It is a total fallacy in every logic book to argue from analogy. analogies simple do not prove things. they are not meant to. Analogies only expalin ideas they do not prove.
Moreover, his analogy is not analogs us he's wrong he loses. Not analogous because he chose something we nkow is wrong,but he has no knowledge at all that god is not real.
Quote:
Furthermore, invoking special sets of rules only makes the speaker sound foolish. If someone stated, "IE can function without hardware because IE, by definition, is software that runs without any hardware" we'd laugh at the speaker. Clearly, this is just the same claim reworded as a definition. It would be likewise foolish to say, "It's not appropriate to expect evidence of this special version IE because it's in a category of things that doesn't require evidence." To be sure, we need support for all things. If the speaker believes there to be a category of things that doesn't require evidence, then that claim needs to be supported first.
he's saying this because in God argumetns atheists often violate the rules of logic. So he wants Christians not to be able to say things like "that's a violatioj of the law of exclude middle." so he says special rules make you sound foolish. but of course he want to accept that scientific Method is full of rules but that's knowledge so are automatically accepted. But now, he has to prove those too.
you can't have an argument if you don't use logic. The rules of logic are set and they are accepted. If doesn't accept logic he can't use science. Robert Boyle one o the great scientists of the Britsh enlightenment (disocovered air pressure) said "science is based upon logic and reason and it will always opportae by them."
so he cannot on the one hand dismiss rules of logic and on the other turn around an try impose his own er zots understating of science.
by the way, if it makes one sound foolish to invent little rules, then what do you can the FIC gimmick? think maybe hat makes one seem foolish too hu?
Quote:
Now, imagine for a moment that you're at a party and a friend of yours shows up there. This friend, you didn't think she knew about the party. You wonder to yourself how did she find out about the party? If someone were to offer, "Well, she gained that knowledge using that form of IE that doesn't require hardware" our first reaction should be "WAIT A censored SECOND!"
in all of his analogies he keeps leaving the things hat make experince count. He doesn't dare include them. We experience things, we evaluate our experience we assume it's real we accept it as such. Its' foolish to write off experience on the grounds that it's not science. that's stupid because empricial knowledge is essentially first hand experince, that's what the word means.
RE is proved to be real. in the that one is experiencing something and his real tangible effects, the conteint of that is of the divine. ti's is lgiocal then to assume that one did experince the divine, if we clear away the clutter of alternate causes.
but those are cleared away by various means.
How could that possibly be an option?
Quote:
Sure, the party was posted online, but we can't even entertain the hardwareless IE as a possibility because it's A) completely unsupported and B) contradicts what we already know to be true.
The god hypothesis is no different.
The god hypothesis tells us a being A) always existed, B) is intelligent without any sort of brain or network and C) can make things out of nothing.
A) contradicts quite a few facts and common sense.
see now if he had any facts he would use them. he can't show you any facts that are contradicted, he just asserts it. But his analogy (he uses computer stuff to add to the gimmick it's science he talking computers!) but it's nto analogous because he leaves out all the basic reasons for belief. He creates his own straw man belief and builds the analogy around that then fallaciously argues from the analogy.
Quote:
We know that things as complex as a god don't just happen.
(1) No one ever said God "happened." God did not happen. that's not being eternal to happen, that's having a cause. God doesn't have a cause so he did not happen. So his argument is not analogous.
(2) he can't prove that God is complex.
(3) he can't show any meaning to therm "complexity" in relation to God since God transcends our understanding.
Quote:
They require an explanation and "always existed" is simply a cop-out. It also contradicts what we know about intelligence through the study of evolution (don't reply yet. Look below)
It not an explaination it's the doctrine, it's the idea of what God is, being itself. it's been around for thousands of hears. No something some stupid apologist thought of on the internet. ti's always been there since long before atheists existed, before anyone mad eany argument that needed answering.
It's nothing but pure loigc
(1) Being has to be. nothingness as a putative state of affairs is impossible
(2) since something must always exist something must be eternal.
(3) etenral things are not contingent they do not need causes.
(4) therefore what ever is eternal logically then gave rise to contingent things. logical because continent things need causes, so it's more logical to think that at least one contingent thing was created by what came before it (the eternal thing) since causes seem to always proceed their effects.
(5) Since the eternal thing more logically created the contingent things we can think of the eternal thing as the creator.
(6) ergo God has to be eternal. That's the name we use to call the eternal thing.
QED
Quote:
B) contradicts what we know to be true from evolution, neurology, biology, etc. All forms of intelligence come very late into existence. They don't just happen. (don't reply yet. Look below)
doesn't contradict anything in evolution. why would it? that's a spurious claim and note he does not give a reason. He hs not proved that intelligence has to "come late" in the eternal thing. He's comparing biological evolution to eternal non biological being itself. That's stuid1 that's just grossly stupid!
Fist of all, it's hardly a contradiction to evolution since God is not the product of evolution. secondly it has no application to evolution so it contradict it. I eman evolution can still be understood in the same way.
Quote:
C) contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Things don't just pop into reality. (don't reply yet. Look below)
stupid assumption that God is energy.
things don't just pop into reality hu? you like universes.
like universes? tell me bout the big bang! things dont' just pop into reality hu? what about the big bang?
Quote:
We are certainly open to the idea that there is evidence to the contrary on any of these points, but without evidence, it's completely inapropriate to contradict these facts. Period. No amount of special pleading can change this. Only evidence.
I'm gald you said that because I just happen to have some, it comes from non other than Hawking. Hawking the god of our religion science tells us that there must be soemthing very like God:
4)Major Physicists propose Unitive principle they call "God."
MetaList on Scinece and religion
Stephen Hawking's God
Quote:
In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.HRG, Hans Reginold Grune is a mathematician from Austira. he posts on the CARM board as HRG. He and I have been freinds and enemies (sparing partners) for years. We are always at odds with each ohter. But an interesting devleopment at the end of this thread:
Ok These guys are not talking about the God of the Bible, but the fact that they do resort to organizing principle proves my basic point. They can't just leave the laws of phyiscs unexplained, they have to resort to organizing principle that ties it all up in one neat package. But why assume that principle can't be the personal God of the Bible? The rest of this Website argues that it is. But the main point here is that it is very logical to assume an organizing principle such a mind which orgainizes and contians physical laws.But "which god" is dealt with else where. at the very least this argument gives us a Spinza-like God.
You know I don't think this Hawking guy knows anything about science. Becasue apparenly he thinks something like God is plausible and the great Zhavric tells us that it's totally impossible.
HRG and I actually on the same side!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
God is a work of fiction. A false claim. We know this based on the False Implied Claims (FIC) argument.
It goes like this:
1) Claims require evidence.
True. But claims that another claim is false and not just unproven require evidence, too.
Quote:
2) Evidence which demands the listener re-define what evidence is cannot be considered evidence.
3) Objective claims which are a) have no evidence and b) contradict existing proven claims are false.
4) Because god cannot exist AND not exist, the statement "god exists" is an objective claim.
5) The claim "god exists" has no evidence that does not demand the listener re-define what evidence is.
OK.
Quote:
6) The claim "god exists" contradicts existing proven claims (in spite of the best efforts of theists to shield god from scrutiny).
Here I beg to differ. The claim "His Supreme Indifference exists" contradicts no proven claims. It may look quite implausible to some, but it has not been proven false. In fact, it has been set up in a way (like Last Thursdayism) that it cannot be proven false.
Quote:
7) Therefor, the claim "god exists" is false.
It is my stance that Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) A) always existed, B) fucntions properly without any hardware of any kind and C) spontaneously causes new software and hardware to come into existence from nothing.
[/INDENT]Obviously, these three claims are nonsense. They are quite demonstrably false because they a) have no support and b) contradict what we know to be true. It would take evidence to convince us otherwise and, to the best of anyone's knowledge, none exists. Until that time, we are quite correct in saying the above statement is false. Not unknown. Not partially true.
False
HRG:
Please note that you are describing a physical process. While there is little reason IMHO to assume that there are processes which aren't physical, it cannot be excluded either that there are non-physical processes, e.g. those used by HSI.
I think that you confuse "highly implausible and without any significant evidence" with "disproven". I try to separate clearly in my mind what has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt from what has been 100% proven.
__________________
Regards, HRG.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. - Marcus Aurelius
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRG View Post
Zhavric:
True. But claims that another claim is false and not just unproven require evidence, too.
OK.
HRG:
Here I beg to differ. The claim "His Supreme Indifference exists" contradicts no proven claims.
Zhavric
HRG, we've already been through this. The only reason you state this is because you have written HSI a blank check... given him a complete free pass to do whatever needs to be done to create a literal universe, yet somehow magically do so without the requirement for evidence (which itself is yet another unsupported claim). To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".
Quote:HRG
Please note that you are describing a physical process. While there is little reason IMHO to assume that there are processes which aren't physical, it cannot be excluded either that there are non-physical processes, e.g. those used by HSI.
As soon as you provide some evidence as to non-physical processes being possible I'd happily agree with you. Until such time as you are able to do that, we must conclude that you are mistaken. Like most theists, you are allowing special pleadings for HSI without any explanation as to why that is the case.
Quote:Hans
I think that you confuse "highly implausible and without any significant evidence" with "disproven".
Zav
I do no such thing. You're simply falling into the same trap that theists have fallen into; you're allowing unsupported claims and ignoring what they imply and what those implications contradict.
#35
HRG
Forum Member
HRG's Avatar
Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
Divorce yourself from the idea that they need to be logically impossible to be impossible. Logically impossible just means it's paradoxical. No... all I have to do is look at the implied claims of HSI (intelligence, ability to create stuff from nothing, etc.) understand that these are scientific claims,
No, they are not scientific claims. Since a universe created by HSI looks today exactly as an uncreated universe, science cannot tell the difference.
Quote:Z
and look to science to see what's proven. Your claims for HSI contradict what's proven without given any reason / explanation / evidence for how they're even possible
Hans
The absence of the supernatural can never be proven - almost by definition. All we can say it that it is not necessary as an explanation.
Quote:Zhavric
Which is not my claim and, to be frank, a statement unworthy of your considerable debate skill and talent. If you truly think that my argument is "things that aren't proven" are false, then I submit that I have vastly overestimated your ability to comprehend my argument. Do you really think there's no difference between "things that are A) unsupported and B) contradict that which is supported are false" and "A lack of explanation for X proves that X is false" are the same thing?
HRG
But HSI does not contradict what is supported. You overestimate the proof powers of science, IMHO.
Quote:Zavhric
I must do no such thing, HRG. This above quoted sillyness is the same sort of sophomoric argument theists employ. It would be like me boldly declaring that my argument is super-logical and therefor transcends the petty regular logic that you employ... at which time you'd (correctly) protest and demand I support how something can be "super-logical" and I then do what you just did in the above quote: I tell you that it's up to you to prove that super-logic doesn't exist.
What is logical is objectively defined, so a superlogic does not exist. A similar argument is not possible for the physical universe.
HRG
As Sherlock Holmes said: "Never confuse the improbable with the impossible".
Quote:ZhavricTo be sure, you need to stop throwing away science and common sense anytime anyone shuffles together the letter d, g, and o in a different order. Seriously, the only explanation you have for your argument is "god doesn't have the rules apply to him because he's god". It's unsupported theistic drivel
this is so very halarious. He's accusing HRG of "throwing away scinece" everytime someone mentions God! HRG is one the atheist guru of CARM Atheist. He's always aruginga against theism and he's never baffled and supremely confident and knows far more about science that Zhaveric does. So idiotic that this guy immediately starts thinking of him as backing down before theism because they disagree.
HRG:
What rules ? If you want to hear that HSI is impossible within the rules we have discovered for the physical universe: Yes, he is. But science cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist; it only can demonstrate, point by point, that it seems to be unnecessary for explaining the physical universe.
Quote:Zhavric
Oh, so HSI isn't intelligent and didn't create the universe? Is that your stance? Really?
HRG:I have no evidence that HSI exists, so I cannot say anything real about this entity. All I say is that he is logically conceivable.
P.S. I call it when I think - after rational analysis - that a theist argument is invalid, and I call it similarly when I think that an atheist argument is invalid.
Pretty funny to see the immature hot head ideologue becoming irate when the mature exponent of the same position doesn't go whole hog on is zealotry. That's so often the case with young literalistic fire brand of the ideology.
__________________
No comments:
Post a Comment