Wednesday, March 17, 2010

How Stupid is this argument? Let me count the ways, I mean lines?

Photobucket
 Russell


Let's look at Rex's answer to Amputees thing, it's not only one of the stupidest things I've ever seen anyone say but it's really illustrative of things I've seen many atheists argue all over the net:


Your answer takes 48 paragraphs, and admittedly, it is one of the best answers I have seen, even though I dispute every one of your final five points. He doesn't exist consists of 13 letters, and in my opinion is the right answer. It fits all of the facts perfectly, and one can say it about 5 times in one breath. Even a five year old child can clearly understand the meaning without further explanation.

First we have the line counting thing. He seems to actually be arguing that my answer is wrong because it takes 48 paragraphs but it takes only 13 letters to say "he doesn't exist." ah, I see there can't be a God then becuase it's takes less signification to say "no" to say "yes." Wow, that's certainly an approach to logic that Anthony Flew missed. Of cousre "God is" takes only 5 letters so doesn't that beat up on He doesn't exist?" Or how about Yes he does!" that's still only 9.

He then asserts that saying God doesn't exist fits the facts "perfectly." Now of course it fits the selective little blind list of facts that atheist want o see, it certainly doesn't fit every fact in the universe because they exclude facts that argue against their position. However,I must admit Rex reaches a new height of truth finding with an argument I never considered before, that you can say it five times in a single breath. O well, you guys are still going to chruch after that crushing refutation! What a stupid wasted life belief in God has been, you actually say "he doesn't exist" fine times in one breath! wow if only I had known  this in my youth!

I've seen other atheists count the number of lines in a God argument and say something to the effect it takes X number of line to say that but I only have to say "there' s no God" or something. where are they getting fifth rate trash? This is stupid! Words do not do justice, any no number of words could ever do justice to how insidiously stupid this is. Let's take a good hard honest took at truth about thought. One of the most fundamental truths we know is that in base 10 1+1 = 2. Not only a very simple concept but also doesn't take very many breaths at all to say it four or five times. I just have this picture of Rex, tery eyed alone in his room throwing at a picture of Jesus and repeating over and over, "he does not exist, he does not exist, he doxnotexisthedoesnotexisthedoesnotexisthedoesnotexit" then counting lines or something while gasping for air.

What of the logic required to explain how we know 1 + 1 = 2? Surely that would be very simple lgic right? unfortunately that's not the case. There was a philosopher named Bertrand Russell.  He was a major philosopher a very brilliant man and he was an atheist. Before the internet he was the best known thinking atheist in the world. His book Why I am Not A Christian was obligatory. When I was an atheist back in the 1970s anyone who called himself an atheist had to go right and read that book or the be thought a fool. But Russell was also a major philosopher and was much more respected throughout of the 20th century than philosophers are today. Atheists mainly hate philosophy but before the internet they loved it. Russell was one of the best philosophers ever. He championed a linguistic philosophy known as "Logical Antonism."

Russell decided he would explore the basic logic that it took to prove 1 and 1 is 2. He wrote a whole book about it called Principia Mathematica. Now the thing is that it is a big huge tombe. It's one of hte most intellectual books ever written and only a hand full of people have ever read it. It's supposed to be extremely hard to read and its' huge. Where it winds up at the end is the step right before 1 plus 1 is 2.

Writing the book was so hard Russell said he and his college were broken, they were never able to think as well again and they just never recovered from the Herculean effort.

Wikipeida
PM is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminalphilosophy since Aristotle's Organon.[1] The Modern Library placed it 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century.[2]

 Standford Encyclopedia of Phlosophy
Principia Mathematica, the landmark work written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, and published in three volumes, in 1910, 1912 and 1913. Written as a defense of logicism (i.e., the view that mathematics is in some significant sense reducible to logic) the book was instrumental in developing and popularizing modern mathematical logic. It also served as a major impetus for research in the foundations of mathematics throughout the twentieth century. Next to Aristotle's Organon, it remains the most influential book on logic ever written.

Let's think about this. One of the simplistic and most basic truths we know, 1 + 1 = 2 requires this huge work to set up in order to base it on logic. The simple requires the complex. According to Rex's way of thinking that means 1 + 1 = 2 must be lie. Becasue according to him copmlexity means falsehood.

Now Rex wants to ground his defense of the simple in Occam razor> Like most atheists doesn't know who Occam was or what he believed (He was a priest so apparently he never counted the letter in "he does not exist."). But he is falsely quoted as saying "take the simplest solution" but that's not what he said.

Wiki
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham.

The idea of the simplest solution is an extension of he actual idea of the razor which is manifestly wrong in his philosophical basis. Be that as it may it's extremely stupid to think that it means, extension or not, literally count the lines or letters! that's just pure idiocy. That is profoundly lame! An idea does not have to contain less signifier to be simpler as an idea. It's talking about simple not simple lettering.


HelmutLeitner
The simplest explanation is probably the right explanation." has nothing to do with OccamsRazor. While a technical "try the simpler solution first" makes sense because you quickly see when something doesn't work and will try the next solution. Non-technical usage of "simple must be true" e. g. in terms of prejudices, ideologies, scapegoats and bogeymans are desastrous, because it's hard to prove them wrong. Occam was about philosophy, not technology, so it seems just plain false to interpret him that way. -- HelmutLeitner

 If you look on the net to explain Occam razor you see web after website where people just assume It's the simplest solution but there are some who know better, as quoted above. Let's remove all doubt and ask the authority, Antony Flew (when he was an atheist). Most of the sites that define it as "take the simple solution" are atheist sites because that's where the atheist BS propaganda has led, but if they had even small brains they would realize that God is the simpler solution and it has nothing to do with how many lines it takes to explain it or how how many letters in the word. It has to do wit the simplicity of the concept not the signification. As with the example from Russell the simplest concept can take a huge amount of explaining.

Antony Flew, Dictionary of Philosophy
Revised second edition New York
ST Martin's press 1979, 253

The Principle of ontological economy usually formulated as "entities are not be multiplied beyond necessity."


Photobucket
 Whitehead (not Col. Klinck)



 By the way, the college who wrote the PM with Russell was none other than Alfred North Whitehead, he has been an atheist but became a theist and in fact became a theologian and invented Process theology.

One parting shot about Rex's approach:

Even a five year old child can clearly understand the meaning without further explanation.

these are myths that are well traveled through the atheist circles on the net. The idea that if it doesn't have to be explained much then it's more true than something that does, I guess that sounds appealing to a certain kind of person. ever study math Rex? I needed a lot more explanation for trigonometry then for addition. So Trig is a lie right? How about the inverse square law? Or quantum physics you think those just might require a bit of explanation? No of course not just say "there's no cause and effect, things can pop out of nothing" and you have all you need to know about quantum theory.

These are simplistic romanticized anti-intellectual bromides for people who don't  like to think. That's really troubling becuase when I was an atheist other atheists were people who loved to think. Now it seems atheists are disdainful of real thought. When I was five years old I believed Superman was real. you don't have to clutter a child's imagination by explaining why Superman man couldn't fly or even trying to explain why he could. So does that mean Superman is real Rex? Hey my brother just reminded me there is a simple explanation as to why Superman can fly, he has super powers! So I guess he is real. That's good becuase we are going to need someone to save us from ourselves.

12 comments:

Rex said...

Okay, you got me!

I said that Occam's Razor states that the simplest answer is usually the right one. I was assuming that the part about both explanations fitting the facts perfectly, was a given. Guess not.

Okay, lets look at the facts:

My position is that there is no visible evidence of a Super Duper Mysterious Beyond Human Understanding Benevolent Loving Interested Supreme Being, because he doesn't exist.

Your position is that there is no visible evidence of a Super Duper Mysterious Beyond Human Understanding Benevolent Loving Interested Supreme Being, because he wants to keep us guessing because he loves us so much and showing himself would mess with our impression of free will blah blah blah, ad nauseum.

One is simple and easily accessible by everyone.

The other one takes a PHD in Applied Denial and Rationalization and as such, is only accessible to the most "learned" minds, with the most "training" in advanced theology, because it is waaaaay too complicated for normal, everyday humans.

Both explanations fit the lack of involvement from a Super Being perfectly.

In this case, The simplest one is true, and the other one is just made up noise.

Metacrock said...

Okay, you got me!

I said that Occam's Razor states that the simplest answer is usually the right one. I was assuming that the part about both explanations fitting the facts perfectly, was a given. Guess not.


It pays to read the original sources.

Okay, lets look at the facts:

My position is that there is no visible evidence of a Super Duper Mysterious Beyond Human Understanding Benevolent Loving Interested Supreme Being, because he doesn't exist.

right, I got that.

Your position is that there is no visible evidence of a Super Duper Mysterious Beyond Human Understanding Benevolent Loving Interested Supreme Being,

wrong. I did not say there is no evdience! why would i have 42 arguments of no evidence? All you have to do is read one to see that I have evidence. you and all other atheists redefine the term "evidence" to exclude anything that can be evidence of.

I said God is not an empirical matter. There is empirical evdience, but there is absolute proof. That's why I argue for rational warrants.

that means empirical not no proof at all. There is proof.




because he wants to keep us guessing because he loves us so much and showing himself would mess with our impression of free will blah blah blah, ad nauseum.


I said nothing about guessing and I said nothing about impressions of free will. Why is it so hard for you to just quote something accurately?

One is simple and easily accessible by everyone.


God is simple and easily accessible by everyone. All you have to do is drop you little wounded boy BS and accept that God will not co tow to your way, accept the way God wants you to come to him and hell give you far better confirmation than science ever could. That's really simple if you just past the ego part.

The other one takes a PHD in Applied Denial and Rationalization and as such, is only accessible to the most "learned" minds, with the most "training" in advanced theology, because it is waaaaay too complicated for normal, everyday humans.


since you can't even quote correctly even though the words are in front of your face I have to conclude either (1) talking to you you is a waste of time because you don't have the intelligence to understand it or (2) you are afraid to really think about it because see real logic is going to lead to an inescapable conclusion that you can't stand.

Both explanations fit the lack of involvement from a Super Being perfectly.


why would God not be over our heads? How stupid would it be to think he wouldn't be? even natural universe is beyond our understanding in terms of its origins.

In this case, The simplest one is true, and the other one is just made up noise.

You have not given a reason why simple = true. you can't use Occam becuase he was talking about nominalism and the razor doesn't apply to modern thought.

you also have scred definition of simple becuase it doesnt' mean just an abstense of parts. I quoted one thinker saying the "witch down the street did it" is a lot simpler than physis.

Come to that "God did it" is the simper answer.

you are totally illogical in your thinking. Because anything explained carefully enough is complex. many things are way too complex for one who is not at that level (quantum mechanics for example) you would never say it's not true would you?

Newtonian physics is way more simple than Quantum are you going to take Newton over QM?

God is the parsimonious answer.

I'll demonstrate that soon.

Dave said...

Actually Rex, theists (including Metacrock) have no problem with simply asserting the existence of God. So what? Is it a tie then? His arguments are employed because others have made claims such as "Belief in God isn't logical" or "The existence of God is implausible". His stated goal is show that belief in God is not less reasonable than disbelief. Chiding him for counter-arguments is disingenuous unless you wish to disavow the claims he is refuting. By your logic a Young Earth Creationist can say that evolution is false and that all that fancy smancy theorizin' and experimentin' ain't to nearly bein' as simple as sayin' it ain't so, given what they consider to be the obvious facts of the matter.

Technically, completely ignoring your failed attempt at, what, humor? (which is the charitable assumption), is the simplest course consistent with facts and reason.

Metacrock said...

Well said, Dave. Thanks.

Rex said...

@Dave,

If you are going to make an assertion, the burden of proof rests with you.

If your going to assert the extraordinary, then extraordinary proof is required.

Faith is belief in the face of no evidence. I like evidence.

Metacrock said...

If you are going to make an assertion, the burden of proof rests with you.\

we need to clear up some confusion about burden of proof. He who asserts an argument has the burden to prove it. If I don't argue "God exists I can prove it" then I don't have a prove that. If I argue "religion is rationally warranted" I have a burden to prove that, that's not as hard to prove. If you argue "religion is stupid and no good" you have a burden to prove that. If you say "I don't see enough evidence to prove X"then you don't have to prove you don't see enough evidence, becuase you are not making a claim merely informing the reader of your views. But if you say "the evidence to prove this is inadequate" then you have to prove that it is.

The burden that has to be met is a prima face burden. In other words it doesn't have to be proven absolutely forever it has to be proved "on face value." In other words, it has to be enough to stand on its own when all the evidence is known until further argument demonstates inadequacy.

The guy who defends the status quo has "presumption." That means the current system is deemed proved until that assumption is over turned.

that's in policy debate, National Forensic league for high schools National Debate Tournament and Pai Kappa Delta for College debate.

debating the existence of God is not policy debate. The same rules can apply but they must be augmented. Still I would argue that presumption is the same because we are talking about social norms. Society deems religion a valid societal institution and it deems atheism a fringe thing. There's a secular space for atheism since beleifs are are lumped in with matters of taste, but in the realm of discourse where one private realm touches space with another you have no right to assume that's yours is the status quo, especially 90% of the world disagrees with it.

belief in God has presumption.That doesn't mean the apologist doesn't have a burden of proof, you have a burden to prove any argument you make. But it does mean that you can't assert the inferior nature of God belief or the falsehood of it.

those assertions are begging the question anyway.

Metacrock said...

here is an article or two on presumption fro sources dealing with policy debate.

Presumption


this is the printed abstract of a paper on presumption in non Policy debate:

"Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Abstract:
A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. Argues that presumption represents a multidimensional concept, not a monolithic one. Claims that in reaching a decision on a nonpolicy debate, the decision rule "one who asserts must prove" ought to be given primacy over the predispositions of a given audience or of society at large. (JD)"

that's on ERIC "presumption in non policy debate in search of a paradigm"


in non policy

If your going to assert the extraordinary, then extraordinary proof is required.

That is not a rule of logic! That is not part of debate theory. that is garbage bullshit atheists made up to privilege their positions. here is my page showing why this is garbage.

ECREP sux!

Faith is belief in the face of no evidence. I like evidence.


that is a total lie! that is a purposeful distortion of truth that atheist hate group made up to mock and ridicule things they don't understand. It's not a rule of logic its not in any debate textbook it's propaganda only.

the definition of faith in Westminster Dictionary of Christian theology is two pages long. It amounts to this, faith has two dimensions: (1) belief (2) trust. Faith has more to do wtih trust but in terms of the belief dimension faith si placing confidence in a proposition. There is NO reason why that trust has to be based upon no evidence.

Hebrews says faith is "evidence of things not seen." So faith itself a kind of evidence and it is involved with evidence.

Dave said...

@Rex, so if you want to make the extraordinary claim there is no God when can we expect you to meet your burden?

Rex said...

@Dave,

I never say definitively that there is no god, because everyone knows that one cannot prove a negative.

I only say that there is no verifiable piece of objective evidence for god's existence.

I am still waiting.

Rex said...

@Meta

So what you are saying is that if a majority of some society believes your same craziness, that THEN it is okay to start with a bad assumption???


Wha?????

Gandhi said that the truth is always the truth, even if no one hears it.

Sorry that the truth upsets you, but maybe you could ask the 90% that you are talking about to take a vote on what the truth is.

That is how it works right?

Metacrock said...

I never say definitively that there is no god, because everyone knows that one cannot prove a negative.

I only say that there is no verifiable piece of objective evidence for god's existence.

I just proved it's more rational to assume there is a God.

you didn't even answer a sinlge point in that huge well documented argument that I made. Anyone of the sub points in that argument is an argument itself and you can't answer any of them not even one!

you want to prattle on about how your views are true but I disproved them! I proved you are wrong!

Metacrock said...

So what you are saying is that if a majority of some society believes your same craziness, that THEN it is okay to start with a bad assumption???


but you see why should you be the one to decide? hu? you are not particularly erudite, not well read, not an expert, no advanced degree, why should be privilege your views at the expense of everyone else? Especially since "everyone else" includes a bunch of experts, unlike you, who have actually read the subject matter you pretend to discuss.


Wha?????

Gandhi said that the truth is always the truth, even if no one hears it.


Yea, that's right, when are you going to start listening?

Sorry that the truth upsets you, but maybe you could ask the 90% that you are talking about to take a vote on what the truth is.

That is how it works right?


sorry to be blunt. i tried to be nice but you are just too dense.

You are ignorant and you lack the educational advancement to understand the issues involved in theology. I'm smarter than you I showed that your arguments are crap I showed my views are well defend, you are too unread and unlearned to understand it. I proved belief in God is rational and you have proven you are not up the task of discussing the issues!

You don't know how to follow an argument.