Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Argument from divine sense

2011-12-24T17:02:09Z

Jt: Added AE episode reference

The '''argument from divine sense''', or ''[[sensus divinitatis]]'' is an attempt to justify [[reformed epistemology]], which holds that belief in [[God]] can be considered properly basic, requiring no external justification. This particular argument has seen resistance from both [[believer]]s and non-believers, though for fundamentally different reasons. Believers point out that the argument not only eliminates any need for traditional [[apologetics]] that attempt to offer [[rational]] defenses of [[faith]] and belief in God, it also eliminates traditional views of faith, encouraging a position akin to "God is real for me, and that's all that matters." Additionally, [[theist]]s and non-theists point out that even if the argument were [[sound]], it cannot justify any particular God or concept of God beyond what the individual claims to experience.

For an example of this argument in action, one can listen to the [http://atheist-experience.com/archive/?y=2006#table Atheist Experience Episode #455] at about 21.5 minutes into the show.

==Foundationalism premise==
The underlying [[premise]] for the argument rests in the concepts of [[foundationalism]], which holds that beliefs can be divided into two categories:
# foundational beliefs (also called basic or properly basic), which are accepted [[axiom]]atically and require no external justification;
# all other beliefs, which are derived from foundational beliefs.

Foundationalism is not universally accepted, and competing epistemological philosophies exist which include objections to the premise of properly basic beliefs. (See [[Wikipedia:Foundationalism]] or our own article, [[Foundationalism]] for more information.)

==Basic argument==
One formulation of the basic argument from divine sense (tuned to Christianity, as [[Christian]] philosophers like [[Alvin Plantinga]] have been the major proponents of this claim):
* '''Premise 1 (P1)''' - If Christianity is true, it is very probable that humans are endowed with a cognitive faculty in addition to memory, perception, etc. which we can call the sensus divinitatis
* '''Premise 2 (P2)''' - If humans have a sensus divinitatis, then Christian belief can be foundational
* '''Conclusion (C1)''' - If Christianity is true, (very probably) Christian belief can be justified, without independent evidence.

==Objections, changes and more objections==
===Asserting the ''Sensus Divinitatis'' (SD)===
====Existence of SD====
:<small>''→ See main article on [[sensus divinitatis]]''</small>
In P1, we see ''"If Christianity is true, it is very probable that humans are endowed with a...sensus divinitatis."'' Those who accept this reformed epistemology assert that Christian teachings necessarily support the existence of SD and that this assertion can only be challenged on exegetical grounds. They hold that a number of passages in the [[Bible]] imply or affirm the notion that God has given everyone a mechanism for knowing and understanding his nature.

This assertion isn't accepted, to the same degree, by all Christians and additional passages from the Bible along with testimonials from believers clearly claim that God can, and does, interact with the physical world in empirically observable ways, not the least of which is the Christian doctrine that God came to earth in a physical form to deliver the most important message in Christendom. This sort of physical interaction would not be necessary if a properly basic SD existed.

{{comment-box1|label=Objections:|text=This premise renders the argument [[circular reasoning|circular]] - the truth of Christianity is being justified by a divine sense which is justified by Christianity. Additionally, if the basis for asserting the existence of SD is a specific interpretation of Christian scripture, then alternate interpretations render the assertion suspect and the first premise should read:
* '''P1''' - ''If this particular interpretation of Christian scriptures is correct, then humans have a sensus divinitatis''
Apologists would claim that this is why the premise says "very probable" instead of "necessary" but there's no clear way to determine which interpretation can be considered "very probably" correct, if any can. In truth, the first premise is a personal opinion which, after removing the [[conditional]]s should read:
* '''P1''' - ''My interpretation of Christian scriptures supports the existence of a sensus divinitatis''
Finally, the term ''sensus divinitatis'' may be an attempt at obfuscation by making the concept sound far more significant than it is. It certainly sounds important but, in reality, it isn't anything more than a "god detector". Without intending to be overly polemic, P1 could also be rephrased as:
* '''P1''' - ''If God exists, then he implanted a God detector in each of us.''}}

====Reliability of SD====
In P2 we see, ''"If humans have a sensus divinitatis, then Christian belief can be foundational."''
{{comment-box1|label=Objections:|text=This premise makes the assumption that SD can be considered properly basic. Instead of acting as an argument supporting reformed epistemology, it merely assumes that position is true and moves on.

For foundationalists, the justification for considering any belief properly basic is, on the one hand, avoidance of an infinite regression. Belief B is justified by B', which is justified by B", etc. To avoid the regression, one simply accepts that some beliefs do not require justification. Those who agreed with this principle also understood that dogmatically declaring beliefs as basic is no solution, as anyone could declare any belief basic and avoid the need to justify it - in other words, something can't be properly basic just because we claim it to be so. One major objection, from Christians and non-Christians, alike, is that this argument attempts to do exactly that.

For modern foundationalists, properly basic beliefs aren't dogmatically asserted, they have an inherent justification which places them in the position of requiring no ''further'' justification. The defining characteristics which render a belief properly basic are consistency and reliability - to the point that questioning the justification of those beliefs is nonsensical and counter-productive. While sensory data was considered properly basic among classic foundationalists, modern foundationalists reject this notion - because our senses can be unreliable and aren't above question. Sensory data can be viewed as "near" basic, or justified by the basic notion that the information our brains process is ''generally'' reliable, but subject to corroboration.}}

This raises questions about the reliability of claims attributed to a sensus divinitatis. If we operate under the assumption that SD exists:
*How do we explain the lack of such claims from the non-religious?
*How do we explain contradictions between scientific knowledge and claims of divinely revealed knowledge?
*How do we explain the many inconsistent and/or contradictory claims about god/God/gods made by members of various religions - including members who profess to be of the same religion?

There are more than 1000 denominations within Christianity and there have been many other religions and sects which claim to worship the same God, rely on many of the same scriptures and have claimed rough equivalents of SD. To even the most casual observer, this situation should call the reliability of claims regarding SD into question.

=====Why SD is unreliable=====
One common claim among apologists is that humans were created with a perfect sensus divinitatis, but after man [[sin]]ned by eating from the [[tree of knowledge]], part of his punishment was a separation from God which rendered this divine sense unreliable. They claim that this broken SD will be repaired, for [[No true Scotsman fallacy|true believers]], by God. Some of those who would use this argument would re-write P2 to read:
* '''P2''' - If humans have a properly working SD, then Christian belief can be foundational
{{comment-box1|label=Objections:|text=This ad hoc explanation completely destroys the argument.

First, this change of premise 2 creates a logical disconnect between the two premises. P1 refers to simply '''"SD"''' while P2 adds the qualifier '''"properly working"'''. This invalidates the argument and the conclusion cannot be reached without also changing P1 to include the qualifier. If we modify P1 to reconnect the argument, the format is restored, but the dilemma (''how do you explain inconsistencies?'') returns and the complete argument has a new problem:
* '''P1''' - If Christianity is true, it is very probably that humans are endowed with a '''properly working SD'''
* '''P2''' - If humans have a '''properly working SD''', then Christian belief can be foundational
* '''C ''' - If Christianity is true, very probably Christian belief can be justified without independent evidence
The new problem is that we've added yet another [[conditional]] to the argument - ''properly working'' - which, without additional information, renders the argument even more ineffective.}}

Modifying premise 2 demonstrates the fundamental flaws inherent in making claims of divine revelation:
*How do you distinguish SD from psychosis, delusion or wishful thinking?
*How do you know whether or not your SD is working properly?
*How do you know that your SD isn't being intentionally manipulated by [[Satan]]?
**Wouldn't a truly evil and near-god-like being prefer to have you believe you're understanding God when you're really understanding him?

The unreliable and often contradictory nature of claims attributed to SD clearly ensure that it shouldn't be considered properly basic. This is only exacerbated by ad hoc explanations to explain the unreliable nature of these claims which seem to be desperate attempts to avoid the obvious conclusion - there is no sensus divinitatis.
{{comment-box1|label=Questions for believers:|bg=#FFE7E7|text=The Bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God, clearly the work of men who's sensus divinitatis should have been functioning perfectly. This is, essentially, how believers justify the reliability of the Bible. If this is true, then the Biblical accounts of God performing, sanctioning or encouraging murder, [[rape]], genocide and human sacrifice are true and reflect God's moral character. Does your current sensus divinitatis give you a similar mental image of God? If not, why is yours correct?}}

===Application to other religions===
Yet another objection to this argument is that it doesn't create an argument that necessarily supports only Christianity. Consider the argument again, with another religion or belief replacing Christianity along with it's claim of something akin to sensus divinitatis. The conclusion will work for any claim which includes a method of self-confirmation.

The reason for this is obvious if we continue to simplify the argument...
====Simplified argument====
Consider this argument:
* '''P1''' - If X is true, there should be some method of verifying this.
* '''P2''' - Y is a method of testing which is suitable for verifying X.
* '''C1''' - If X is true, Y will verify this.
If X(god answers prayer), Y(a double-blind study) will verify this. Yet double-blind studies have demonstrated that prayer appears to have no effect. The apologists' response is to claim that studies like this are unable to properly evaluate the effectiveness of prayer - essentially challenging P2 - because the test didn't use true believers, or because God won't be tested, or some other excuse.

As other refined Y-methods are tried, the results continue to fail to verify the efficacy of prayer. Instead of relying on the external justification (or dealing with the external invalidation) of Y, they opt for self-justification:
* '''P1''' - If X is true, X includes a method of self-verification, X'.
* '''P2''' - X' will be defined as 'properly basic'
* '''C1''' - If X is true, X' will be sufficient justification

Essentially, '''I know God answers prayers because he's answered mine.''' Or, continuing the reformation of the argument, '''This belief is true because I believe it.'''

This is extremely clear when we consider that we could make up any religion and declare that anyone who '''feels''' that the religion is true is, in reality, sensing God as he provides them with confirmation. If we expand this to state that those who continue to faithfully observe a specific set of rules and traditions will become more "in tune" with God and those who disobey will become less clear and in danger of damnation - we quickly promote a self-reinforcing delusion. In a group society, when a few trusted individuals buy into these claims, others will follow.

The core argument can be used to justify any religion which can be interpreted as having an internal mechanism of self-justification.
{{comment-box1|bg=#FFE7E7|text=
As this argument can be used to justify many religions, what happens if it can justify two contradictory religions?
* '''P1''' - The argument from divine sense justifies belief in Christianity
* '''P2''' - The argument from divine sense justifies belief in Islam
* '''P3''' - Christianity and Islam have contradictory doctrines and one or both of them must be false
* '''C''' - The argument from divine sense justifies false beliefs

In logic, one fundamental element of a sound argument is that if the premises are sound and the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true. An argument which can be used to justify contradictory claims must be either invalid or unsound and its conclusions (though they may be true or false) are unsound.

This explains why the argument includes a number of conditionals which specifically eliminate this sort of analysis. For example, P1 above should read, ''"The argument from divine sense demonstrates that "If Christianity" is true, it is self-justified."'' The addition of the conditionals eliminates the counter argument above - but leaves us with an argument that doesn't prove a thing.}}

===Conditional argument===
The existence of several conditionals in the argument render it ineffective - ''"if Christianity is true"'', ''"very probable"'', ''"if humans have a sensus divinitatis"''. Even if it were valid and sound, the most it could ever prove is the '''possibility''' that the state of affairs it presents were true - and that possibility wouldn't be exclusive to any particular religion. Removing the conditionals removes this argument from the realm of the hypothetical and places the believer back in the position of having to defend the truth of the claims they make - and that's the real purpose of this argument: it is an attempt to avoid the [[burden of proof]].

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Reformed epistemology]]

Atheists know there is a God

2011-09-20T15:15:12Z

Jt: linked up a bunch of things

This argument is made against [[atheist]]s. [[Theist]]s claim that the existence of [[God]] is so axiomatic, that nobody can deny God. Often times rather than actually providing [[proof]] for their God, they resort to claiming that the [[evidence]] is all around us. Or they claim that God somehow is either a part of everyone or since God created our [[soul]]s/life we, therefore, already know him. based on that, theists claim that all atheists just "pretend" not to believe in God.

Of course, this argument is utter nonsense.

For the most part, it is not axiomatic, obvious, or self-evident that there is a God (feel free to further explore this site to see why). Rather, the theist who makes this argument is completely blinded by their own faith in their own personal beliefs that they have deluded themselves into thinking that their [[belief]]s are universally shared and accepted internally by every human on earth. The reason why this is [[delusion]]al is because there is no way to know what every human thinks or believes, and thus this argument depends on loads of wishful thinking.

It is also a terrible attempt to claim that the person knows the atheist better than the atheist.

Most of the time, the theist who uses this argument does not have a leg to stand on. Therefore, the theist retreats to wishful thinking.

[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

Argument from fallacy

2011-09-13T21:27:20Z

Jt: Added example

An '''argument from fallacy''' is a formal fallacy which occurs when analyzing an argument and assuming that, because the argument contains a [[logical fallacy]] the conclusion of that argument must be false. It is also commonly referred to as the '''fallacist's fallacy'''.

==Form==

The form of the argument from fallacy requires a meta-argument, or an argument about the claims of an argument.

:There is an argument '''A''' which has a conclusion '''C'''.
:That argument '''A''' contains a logical fallacy.
:Therefore, '''C''' is false.

The issue here is that while the presence of a fallacy is sufficient to render argument '''A''' invalid, it does not make '''C''' false. Rather, the truth value of '''C''' is unknown, because there is no valid argument as to whether '''C''' is true or false.

===Example===

* Bob asserts that [[evolution]] is true.
* Bob says it's true because [[Charles Darwin]] said so - which is an [[argument from authority]], and thus a fallacy.
* Therefore, evolution is false.

Argument from locality

2011-09-11T10:42:32Z

Jt: Editor didn't understand the point trying to be made. If you have an objection to the article, bring it to talk

The '''argument from locality''' states that every [[religion]] that has ever existed, or will ever exist, had an origin at a specific time and place within a specific [[culture]]. Any [[god]] or gods who truly wanted all humans to follow them logically could have started their [[religion]] at the very instant that the human race appeared and would have informed all cultures, not just one, thus giving all humans who would ever be born an equal chance at joining. The fact that no religion has ever done this shows that no religion is the "correct" one — or, at least, that no religion so far has had a "rational" [[deity]].

==Tenets of the argument==

# Any god who wanted all humans to follow him/her would have revealed themselves to all humans at once, not just one culture or race at a time.
# If rewards and punishment are given for [[belief]] and nonbelief respectively, then any god who waits hundreds or thousands of years before revealing itself to humans is unfair, since the people who lived and died before this revelation didn't have a chance to believe.
#* If believers are rewarded for their belief then it is unfair for only a specific group of people to receive more evidence than others.
#* And vice versa: if nonbelief is punished then it is also unfair for some people to receive less evidence than others (or no evidence at all).
# Any religion that strongly reflects the beliefs and thoughts of the time in which it was created is not the "true" one.

==The argument and Christianity==

# God revealed himself only to the [[Jew]]s at first. He was the god of the Jews and no one else. It wasn't until [[Christianity]] came along that he became the god of the world.
# Even though Christianity states that its god will save anyone who follows him, he still waited thousands of years before revealing this plan to humanity. Plus, the reason he suddenly decided to save all humans instead of just the Jews was never explained — thus making it unfair for the millions of non-Jews who lived before [[Christ]], who never got a chance to be saved.
# The Christian god rewards believers. Thus, the fact that he only revealed himself to a small group of people in the [[Middle East]] 2,000 years ago and left it up to humans to spread his word is very unfair of him.
# Non-belief is punished as well, which reinforces the unfairness of only telling a small group of people.
# The [[Bible]] strongly reflects the beliefs and thoughts of the time (e.g. a flat earth, women being inferior to men, [[slavery]], etc.).

==Possible objections==

[[William Lane Craig]] provided the following rebuttals in his debate with [[Christopher Hitchens]]:
# The population was not that large before Jesus
# Jesus appears just before the exponential explosion of the population
# The conditions were stable – Roman Empire, peace, literacy, law, etc.

Nevertheless, the above rebuttals fail to address the following:
# What happens to those who have never even heard of Christianity due to distance in time or space? What chance do they have in escaping damnation? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?
# Why does the Bible strongly reflect the beliefs and thoughts of the time? Why not something new?

Maybe God has already expected that some people will not believe in him regardless of the evidence. Maybe God has his own standards to judge us. Maybe God wants us to explore the wonders of the world on our own. Maybe God wants us to develop our sense of morality on our own. Maybe. Yeah, maybe God does not exist at all!

==See also==
* [[Outsider test]]

==Reference==
* [http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/locality.html The Argument from Locality] at Ebonmusings

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Empirical arguments]]

Occam's Razor

2011-09-11T10:36:41Z

Jt: Editor doesn't understand occam's razor. If there's an objection to the article, bring it to talk or explain it and then counter it

[[Occam's Razor]] (or '''Ockham's Razor''') is the philosophical principle which states:
''entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.''

==Explanation==
In layman's terms this means "Out of several equally good explanations, pick the simplest one." In this definition, the word "simplest" means "the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions." Similarly, "equally good" refers to the ability of the explanation to account for the observation and not to the veracity of the explanation.

===Example===
Assume a child contracts a nasty disease which leaves her in terrible pain. She is taken to the doctor and is given medicine. Meanwhile, the parents pray to [[God]] for her safe recovery. A few days later she is perfectly healthy again and the parents, in their happiness, proclaim "God saved our child!"

A better explanation for the child's recovery, however, would be that the medicine the doctors gave her did its job. When one compares the two explanations ("God did it" and "The medicine worked") it is clear that the second requires fewer assumptions. God isn't required for the medicine to have worked in the second explanation, therefore it is the one that should be chosen.

===Extending the Razor===
Consider any observation which requires a causal explanation; a rainbow, for example. We can devise numerous explanations for this phenomenon:

# [[Yahweh]] creates them as a reminder of his promise to never again flood the entire earth
# Light dispersion due to refraction as it passes through water droplets
# Sky pixies sprinkle colored dust in the sky
# [[Leprechaun]]s create them to mark pots of gold

Each of these explanations answers the question and they all also prompt additional questions, but only the second answer explains the phenomena in terms which we adequately understand. The additional questions raised by the second explanation (dispersion, refraction, visible spectrum, etc.) are simpler concepts supported by consistent, reliable definitions.

Each of the other explanations could be considered equivalent non-answers. The causal subjects are complex constructs which prompt many additional, unanswered questions about the nature of those subjects and how they managed to create the rainbow. The fact that these explanations are non-answers can be made more clear by substituting the subjects into different answer:

* Yahweh creates them to mark pots of gold
* Leprechauns sprinkle colored dust in the sky
* Sky pixies create them as a reminder of their promise to never again flood the entire earth

To understand why Occam’s Razor is a strong-atheistic argument, we must first understand what Occam’s Razor implies, and what its consequences are.

Occam’s Razor is a method to choose between hypotheses which explain the same facts. We can express it simply as: the hypothesis we must choose is the simplest. More rigorously, we can express it as such:

•Posit two hypotheses A and B, both explaining the same set of facts S.

•The set of explanatory entities and processes of hypothesis A is called Ea.

•The set of explanatory entities and processes of hypothesis B is called Eb.

•The intersection of A and B’s explanatory entities and processes is called I.

•If neither Ea-I nor Eb-I equals zero, the hypothesis with the smallest number of superfluous entities and processes is probably the valid one. We do not have a sufficiently large S, or good enough hypotheses, to choose in all confidence. (Insufficient context)

•If Ea-I or Eb-I equals zero, then the corresponding hypothesis is the valid one. (Sufficient context)
To understand this better, we might want to look at an example of each outcome.

Suppose that we are in Ancient Greece, and are ignorant of natural law altogether. We are asked to compare:

S. The apparent variety and adaptation of lifeforms on Earth.

A. Creation from one or many divine agents.

B. Gradual adaptation from generation to generation due to natural processes.

From this, we deduce:

Ea. One or many divine agents, and their act of creation.

Eb. Unknown processes acting on successive material forms.

I. Empty set.

In this case, what is the cardinality of Ea-I and Eb-I? At first glance, we should say that Eb-I is bigger. It presumes the existence of a great number of material forms, as well as processes acting on them. Ea-I only presumes the existence of a small number of divine agents, and one process of creative activity. Furthermore, inductive arguments would lend considerable support to A. So a person in this situation would choose A.

However, it is worth noticing that neither Ea-I and Eb-I are equal to zero, so we have an insufficient context. We now know that S is extremely incomplete: for one thing, it does not include any of the modern evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record, DNA, molecular and protein evolution, and so on. Furthermore, A and B are extremely unrefined, which is natural.

Now suppose that someone comes and tells us that the Earth is flat. We should be quite skeptical of such an assertion! We could then ask him how he can explain the curvature of the Earth, or the round shadow of the Earth on the Moon, or the pictures taken from space. He can then invoke a number of processes that are not known to science, such as some form of special refraction done by air. He will also need to make up more processes to explain the regularity of night and day. We can express this situation as such:

S. The curvature of the Earth, the round shadow of the Earth on the Moon, the pictures taken from space, the regularity of night and day.

A. The Earth is round.

B. The Earth is flat.

From this, we deduce:

Ea. The Earth.

Eb. The Earth, special process or processes of refraction.

I. The Earth.

In this case, Ea-I equals zero. We know that A is the valid hypothesis in this case. Eb-I entails one or many processes which are called superfluous.

It is important to stop here and note that Occam’s Razor does not allow us to conclude that A is “better” than B, but rather that A is valid and that B is invalid, if the premise of the Razor are fulfilled (i.e. that A and B both explain S). This is because there is no evidence for the superfluous entities and explanations, thus they are not shown to exist. We can rephrase this in the following way:

A1. I alone explains S.

A2. S is evidence for I and only I.

B1. “Special process or processes of refraction” do not serve to explain S.

B2. There is no evidence for “special process or processes of refraction”.

As such, there is no evidence left to support the existence of “special process or processes of refraction”, and thus we can say that they are beyond rational discussion. What has no evidence whatsoever, is beyond rational discussion. It may be an internally coherent claim, but that is the extent to which we can pronounce it justified. We may conclude the following:

1.“The Earth is roughly spherical” is true.

2.“The Earth is flat” is false.

3.“Special process or processes of refraction” are not justified.

Let us now examine the situation we are placed in, within the atheism-theism debate.

S. The sum total of all material things, their properties and processes.

A. Material things change in time by virtue of natural law.

B. A god created all material things, which change in time by virtue of natural law and divine intervention.

Of course, theists could attack the relation that A explains S, but science gives us strong reason to trust this relation. Insofar as science is the discipline that studies natural phenomena, and therefore the relation between A and S, and has had tremendous success in proving this relation in innumerable areas of nature, we can make an inductive argument that the relation between A and S will continue.

Furthermore, we can point out that B does not explain S. For one thing, if a god created all material things, then we should expect things like logic, morality, principles and absolutes to be absent from the universe, from Materialist Apologetics. From the Problem of Evil, we should not expect any evil to exist. From the Argument of Scope, we should observe a universe made at a human scope, which is not what we observe. From the Cosmological Arguments, we should not expect the Big Bang to exist. The number of observed facts that contradict the relation between B and S is endless.

From all of these, we can make a cumulative case that B is not a valid explanation for S. But for the sake of the argument, we can assume that B is a valid explanation for S, to verify if Occam’s Razor offers us supplemental proof for the falsity of the theistic hypothesis.

From this, we deduce:

Ea. All material entities and processes.

Eb. All material entities and processes, and a god with a creative process or processes.

I. All material entities and processes.

In this case, Ea-I equals zero, so we must judge the non-existence of a Creator and controller of the universe, strong-atheism, as the only valid position. Note, however, that I did mention that the relation between A and S is based on induction, and therefore we must qualify our conclusion by saying that strong-atheism is shown to be probably true by Occam’s Razor, not completely true.

Granted, a believer is free to invoke specific elements of S and try to prove that they cannot be explained by A. But to claim this is the equivalent of saying that the element is explained by B, which is a claim of divine intervention. As I detail in ‘The Impossibility of Divine Intervention’, to claim that divine intervention is possible demands total knowledge of natural law, or in this case to know all about A. Since we do not, such an argument cannot be made. So the “god-of-the-gaps” argument, apart from being an argument from ignorance, is just not a possibility.

Of course, we would be suspicious of the relation between A and S if we observed a fact deduced from theology. For instance, if we observed that time is not an integral part of the universe, or that matter popped from nothing, then we might hold theism as more credible.

But given that we do not observe such facts, and that a great number of facts of the universe contradict theism, we have to conclude that we should be far more suspicious of the relation between B and S, than we should be of the relation between A and S.

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Empirical arguments]]

Argument from inconsistent revelations

2011-09-11T10:33:40Z

Jt: Editor didn't understand that p3 was a premise, and not anything drawn from p1-p2

{{argument-stub}}
The '''Argument from inconsistent revelations''' is based upon the many number of [[interpretation]]s of [[holy text]]s and [[scripture]]. If scripture was revealed to man by [[God]] and God is infallible, then all revelations would be the same, inerrant text (notwithstanding necessary linguistic and, perhaps, cultural differences).

But contradictions and vagaries still remain in the [[Bible]] and the holy texts of other [[religion]]s. As a result, there are many different groups of people with many different interpretations.

Thus, God cannot exist in the sense that [[Christian]]s claim, because his own writings betray his capacity for error — or betray his non-existence. Either God is fallible, or humans wrote the Bible and God was not involved. Needless to say, Christians don't like either of those possibilities.

==Argument from existence of atheists==
:''Main article: [[Argument from nonbelief]]''

Closely related is the '''argument from existence of [[atheist]]s''':
# God is [[omniscient]].
# God is [[omnipotent]].
# God wants everyone to believe in him.
# Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
# Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
# Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
# However, atheists manifestly exist.
# Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.

Of course, an [[apologist]] could reply to this by saying that atheists ''do'' know that God exists but are just denying him out of stubbornness. Indeed, this response has been used many times by different apologists. Admittedly, some non-believers do disbelieve simply out of stubbornness, but most have good ''reasons'' for their disbelief, and thus this response isn't an effective one.

==See also==
*[[Outsider test]]

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category:Empirical arguments]]

Existence of Jesus

2011-09-04T23:02:24Z

Jt: Explained a bit about the importance of extrabiblical evidence

{{Argument-stub}}

The '''existence of [[Jesus]]''' as a real, historical figure has been debated for centuries. [[Apologist]]s who believe Jesus did actually exist try to use this purported fact to support other claims, such as that he was [[divine]] or that his teachings should be followed.

==Historical vs. Biblical Jesus==

When debating the question of whether Jesus really existed, it is necessary to distinguish between several questions: "Was there a preacher named Jesus in Judea around 1-33 CE, who was [[Crucifixion|crucified]] by the Romans?" and "Was there really a person who performed the [[miracle]]s attributed to Jesus in the [[Bible]]?" The former is an ordinary and plausible claim; the latter is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary [[evidence]]. This is like asking "Did George Washington exist?" vs. "Is it true that George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac river?"

If Jesus was an ordinary human who did not perform any miracles, it would not be surprising that there are no contemporary accounts of his existence, since most people from that era have gone unrecorded.

However, if he had performed miracles, or if his life had been accompanied by extraordinary events, we would expect many people to have written about them. For example, {{Bible|Matthew 27:51-53}} says that when Jesus died,

"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

The fact that there is no contemporary extra-Biblical evidence of such an extraordinary event strongly suggests that it never happened. Likewise, the star of Bethlehem, which allegedly marked Jesus' birth, would presumably have been seen all over the world, and been recorded by other literate societies, such as China.

==Contemporary Extra-Biblical Evidence==

Contemporary extra-Biblical evidence is often requested to help corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ. This is a very important [[epistemology|epistemological]] application. Objections to this requirement come in several forms:

* All the "extra-Biblical" texts that were available would have been aggregated into the Bible.
* The different books of the Bible are each individually independent corroborations.

It's unfortunate if the above is true, because the problem is still present - '''contamination'''.

When an incident or dispute occurs in modern society, and the police are called to address the situation, one of the first steps they take is to separate all the individuals involved. Next, they interview each person for his/her interpretation of events. The individual stories are then cross examined by the police officers in order to identify discrepancies and similarities, attempting to reconstruct what really happened.

If two witnesses are standing next to each other while one or the other is interviewed, the other person's testimony will be contaminated. If the second person is asked what happened right after the first person, and parrots what he/she heard, it's hardly independent corroborating evidence.

Yet that's what happens when all the evidence is collected into the Bible - it's all contaminated, and for all we know, has been edited to match. If we discover independent evidence that has not been contaminated, and it matches, it's going to be much more helpful in corroborating assertions in the Bible than not.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Existence of Jesus

2011-09-04T22:44:46Z

Jt:

Evidence

2011-08-06T19:11:51Z

Jt: typo

{{wikipedia|color=#FDF7DE;}}
{{wiktionary|color=#FDF7DE;}}
'''Evidence''' is, in a general sense, anything used to support an assertion. The standards used to determine what sort of evidence is acceptable can vary, depending on the situation.

What may qualify as evidence in a casual [[argument]] might not qualify in a formal [[debate]], [[legal]] proceeding or [[scientific]] investigation. [[Hearsay]], for example, is often used in casual conversation to support a claim, but it isn't permissible in most courtrooms. In [[science]], evidence is usually expected to be [[empirical]]ly [[observable]] and [[repeatable]]. Additionally, if a piece of evidence implicates more than one cause, additional evidence should be presented to [[exclusion|exclude]] the other possibilities. Scientific [[experiment]]ation depends on the analysis of many observations in order to determine consistent patterns and to reduce elements of [[chance]] or uncertainty. Any claims, or [[hypotheses]], derived from observations must be [[falsifiable]] if disconfirming evidence is observed.

Below is a list of the standards of evidence in science, as well as why each standard is important. Each qualification for evidence is meant to minimize error and maximize accuracy, so the evidence can be as useful as possible.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-
! scope="col" | Standard
! scope="col" | Why it's important

|-
|[[Logic]]al Connection / Causal Link
|Without a proposed and demonstrated mechanism between an asserted cause and effect, there's no way to demonstrate that it's anything more than a coincidence. The causal link between flipping a light switch and the light coming on is that the flow of electricity is allowed to the light bulb, which lights up. This causal link can be easily demonstrated. Conversely, what is the causal link between burying a statue of St. Anthony upside down by the "for sale" sign for the house that's on the market, and the house selling faster, and how would one demonstrate this causal link? Without the causal link, it's a form of [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]] to assert that they're connected.

|-
|Repeatability
|It's possible that when event B follows A that it was simply a fluke. Being able to repeatedly and consistently demonstrate A -> B ensures that statistical noise can be eliminated from the investigation.

|-
|Falsifiability
|It's possible to construct claims that cannot be disproven, yet are, in actuality, untrue. [[Prayer]] is a good example of this. The model of prayer is constructed in a way that, no matter the outcome, prayer has always succeeded. Such claims tend to be indistinguishable from them not occurring at all, and aren't useful for explaining anything, as their demonstrability is sacrificed to make them unfalsifiable. What is the utility of asserting something that cannot be distinguished from it not happening at all?

|-
|Testability
|Just in case a person making a claim isn't simply lying or incorrect for some reason, testability gives us the ability to verify each others' claims. Until a claim is tested, it's simply an assertion. How does one test the assertion that the birds and trees are evidence for [[creationism|creatoin]]? Not everything has to be directly observable or testable. Like magnetism that we cannot detect with any senses, we can investigate it indirectly, with metal objects for instance. [[Evolution]] makes testable claims. It can be used to predict that at one point, water creatures evolved into land creatures, and we could potentially find transitional forms of when some did evolve. This was successfully tested when we discovered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik], as predicted.

|-
|Presentability
|Evidence must be presentable to others, otherwise, one can claim that one has incontrovertible evidence, but it's currently unavailable. Without presentability, there's no way to validate the evidence asserted. Personal anecdotes often fail in this category, as they are necessarily first-person, and can only be asserted to others.

|-
|Objective
|The mind is so prone to error, misinterpretation and bias, that any data that originates from a mind is necessarily extremely unreliable. This is why testimonial evidence ranks so low in criminal trials. When someone claims a god exists because he/she can '''feel''' him, we cannot distinguish between the person's assertion being correct, and the person being schizophrenic. Data that originates from objective reality has this subjective error greatly minimized. Popular in the [[Intelligent design]] movement is the asserted evidence, "We can tell when someone ''appears to be designed'', so when we look at nature, and it ''appears to be designed'', it therefore is an indicated that it in fact designed." That's a matter of subjective opinion. It's like saying "We can recognize a cube when we see it, and if an object appears to be a cube, then we have established that it is a cube." Unlike "the appearance of design", we have an objective definition of a cube that can be objectively measured and confirmed.

|-
|Exclusion
|Exclusion has more to do with corroborating evidence than the specific evidence in question, and is frequently where apologetics fail. If one is investigating whether Bob is a smoker, and discovers that Bob's house burned down in the past, that ''could'' indicate that he was smoking in bed, had an accident, and the house caught on fire. The question arises, how do know the fire wasn't cause by ''other possibilities'', such as a lightning strike, bad wiring, or knocked over candle? Further evidence ''excludes'' one possibility from the others, until it's been sufficiently demonstrated that the asserted claim is the correct possibility. Likewise, when apologists cite the existence of Earth as evidence for a Creator, the question arises, what evidence do we have that it was a god, and not some other natural cause that we aren't aware of yet? The existence of an effect doesn't prove the asserted cause.

|}

==Counter-apologetics==
When [[skeptic]]s object to [[apologist]]'s claims on the basis of insufficient evidence, they're generally referring to a lack of scientific evidence or a preponderance of anecdotal evidence. For any given claim, there exists a [[burden of proof]] which must be supported by evidence. The defining characteristic of the required evidence rests in its quality, not quantity.

If, for example, someone claims "[[God]] answered my [[prayer]]" that is both an assertion (of a specific occurrence) and evidence for the general assertions about the [[existence of God]] and the [[efficacy of prayer]]. Unfortunately, the quality of that evidence is exceptionally low. So low, in fact, that such a claim is only considered evidence in the very broad, definitional sense. Anecdotal evidence and bald assertions have no evidentiary value and serve only as additional claims.

Suppose that 2.5 million people all testified, "God answered my prayer". The sheer quantity of evidence is sufficient to warrant an investigation of the claims, but the testimonies still don't qualify as sufficient evidence to support acceptance of the claim. Increasing the quantity of claims doesn't increase the quality.

Apologists commonly make claims supported by anecdotal evidence, hoping that the sheer quantity will be sufficiently convincing. Unfortunately, this tactic is often effective and claims like, "80% of the population believes in God — they can't all be wrong" can be very convincing to those who don't critically examine the claim. This argument works because people are reluctant to write off that 80% as delusional, stupid or insane. (See [[Argumentum ad populum]].)

The truth is that they most definitely '''can''' be wrong. At some point in human history, the overwhelming majority believed that the [[Earth]] was the center of the [[universe]]. ''That'' majority was wrong. They weren't necessarily delusional, stupid or insane; they were simply ignorant of the facts, and wrong.

Frequently, atheists are accused of being "in denial about all the evidence around us". It's important to point out that atheists aren't in denial; the evidence has been rejected for not meeting the standards of evidence, like a potential employee might not qualify for a job and is thus rejected. Rejecting that person's job application is ''not'' the employer being "in denial" about how qualified he/she is. The standards can be clearly and lucidly laid out for an apologist, including why the standards are important. At this point, the apologist typically abandons the concepts of logic and reason altogether.

==External link==
{{Def-word|evidence}}

{{Science}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Argumentation]]

Evidence

2011-08-06T18:24:18Z

Jt: table of standards, could be less verbose, as usual

{{wikipedia|color=#FDF7DE;}}
{{wiktionary|color=#FDF7DE;}}
'''Evidence''' is, in a general sense, anything used to support an assertion. The standards used to determine what sort of evidence is acceptable can vary, depending on the situation.

What may qualify as evidence in a casual [[argument]] might not qualify in a formal [[debate]], [[legal]] proceeding or [[scientific]] investigation. [[Hearsay]], for example, is often used in casual conversation to support a claim, but it isn't permissible in most courtrooms. In [[science]], evidence is usually expected to be [[empirical]]ly [[observable]] and [[repeatable]]. Additionally, if a piece of evidence implicates more than one cause, additional evidence should be presented to [[exclusion|exclude]] the other possibilities. Scientific [[experiment]]ation depends on the analysis of many observations in order to determine consistent patterns and to reduce elements of [[chance]] or uncertainty. Any claims, or [[hypotheses]], derived from observations must be [[falsifiable]] if disconfirming evidence is observed.

Below is a list of the standards of evidence in science, as well as why each standard is important. Each qualification for evidence is meant to minimize error and maximize accuracy, so the evidence can be as useful as possible.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-
! scope="col" | Standard
! scope="col" | Why it's important

|-
|[[Logic]]al Connection / Causal Link
|Without a proposed and demonstrated mechanism between an asserted cause and effect, there's no way to demonstrate that it's anything more than a coincidence. The causal link between flipping a light switch and the light coming on is that the flow of electricity is allowed to the light bulb, which lights up. This causal link can be easily demonstrated. Conversely, what is the causal link between burying a statue of St. Anthony upside down by the "for sale" sign for the house that's on the market, and the house selling faster, and how would one demonstrate this causal link? Without the causal link, it's a form of [[post hoc ergo popter hoc]] to assert that they're connected.

|-
|Repeatability
|It's possible that when event B follows A that it was simply a fluke. Being able to repeatedly and consistently demonstrate A -> B ensures that statistical noise can be eliminated from the investigation.

|-
|Falsifiability
|It's possible to construct claims that cannot be disproven, yet are, in actuality, untrue. [[Prayer]] is a good example of this. The model of prayer is constructed in a way that, no matter the outcome, prayer has always succeeded. Such claims tend to be indistinguishable from them not occurring at all, and aren't useful for explaining anything, as their demonstrability is sacrificed to make them unfalsifiable. What is the utility of asserting something that cannot be distinguished from it not happening at all?

|-
|Testability
|Just in case a person making a claim isn't simply lying or incorrect for some reason, testability gives us the ability to verify each others' claims. Until a claim is tested, it's simply an assertion. How does one test the assertion that the birds and trees are evidence for [[creationism|creatoin]]? Not everything has to be directly observable or testable. Like magnetism that we cannot detect with any senses, we can investigate it indirectly, with metal objects for instance. [[Evolution]] makes testable claims. It can be used to predict that at one point, water creatures evolved into land creatures, and we could potentially find transitional forms of when some did evolve. This was successfully tested when we discovered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik], as predicted.

|-
|Presentability
|Evidence must be presentable to others, otherwise, one can claim that one has incontrovertible evidence, but it's currently unavailable. Without presentability, there's no way to validate the evidence asserted. Personal anecdotes often fail in this category, as they are necessarily first-person, and can only be asserted to others.

|-
|Objective
|The mind is so prone to error, misinterpretation and bias, that any data that originates from a mind is necessarily extremely unreliable. This is why testimonial evidence ranks so low in criminal trials. When someone claims a god exists because he/she can '''feel''' him, we cannot distinguish between the person's assertion being correct, and the person being schizophrenic. Data that originates from objective reality has this subjective error greatly minimized. Popular in the [[Intelligent design]] movement is the asserted evidence, "We can tell when someone ''appears to be designed'', so when we look at nature, and it ''appears to be designed'', it therefore is an indicated that it in fact designed." That's a matter of subjective opinion. It's like saying "We can recognize a cube when we see it, and if an object appears to be a cube, then we have established that it is a cube." Unlike "the appearance of design", we have an objective definition of a cube that can be objectively measured and confirmed.

|-
|Exclusion
|Exclusion has more to do with corroborating evidence than the specific evidence in question, and is frequently where apologetics fail. If one is investigating whether Bob is a smoker, and discovers that Bob's house burned down in the past, that ''could'' indicate that he was smoking in bed, had an accident, and the house caught on fire. The question arises, how do know the fire wasn't cause by ''other possibilities'', such as a lightning strike, bad wiring, or knocked over candle? Further evidence ''excludes'' one possibility from the others, until it's been sufficiently demonstrated that the asserted claim is the correct possibility. Likewise, when apologists cite the existence of Earth as evidence for a Creator, the question arises, what evidence do we have that it was a god, and not some other natural cause that we aren't aware of yet? The existence of an effect doesn't prove the asserted cause.

|}

==Counter-apologetics==
When [[skeptic]]s object to [[apologist]]'s claims on the basis of insufficient evidence, they're generally referring to a lack of scientific evidence or a preponderance of anecdotal evidence. For any given claim, there exists a [[burden of proof]] which must be supported by evidence. The defining characteristic of the required evidence rests in its quality, not quantity.

If, for example, someone claims "[[God]] answered my [[prayer]]" that is both an assertion (of a specific occurrence) and evidence for the general assertions about the [[existence of God]] and the [[efficacy of prayer]]. Unfortunately, the quality of that evidence is exceptionally low. So low, in fact, that such a claim is only considered evidence in the very broad, definitional sense. Anecdotal evidence and bald assertions have no evidentiary value and serve only as additional claims.

Suppose that 2.5 million people all testified, "God answered my prayer". The sheer quantity of evidence is sufficient to warrant an investigation of the claims, but the testimonies still don't qualify as sufficient evidence to support acceptance of the claim. Increasing the quantity of claims doesn't increase the quality.

Apologists commonly make claims supported by anecdotal evidence, hoping that the sheer quantity will be sufficiently convincing. Unfortunately, this tactic is often effective and claims like, "80% of the population believes in God — they can't all be wrong" can be very convincing to those who don't critically examine the claim. This argument works because people are reluctant to write off that 80% as delusional, stupid or insane. (See [[Argumentum ad populum]].)

The truth is that they most definitely '''can''' be wrong. At some point in human history, the overwhelming majority believed that the [[Earth]] was the center of the [[universe]]. ''That'' majority was wrong. They weren't necessarily delusional, stupid or insane; they were simply ignorant of the facts, and wrong.

Frequently, atheists are accused of being "in denial about all the evidence around us". It's important to point out that atheists aren't in denial; the evidence has been rejected for not meeting the standards of evidence, like a potential employee might not qualify for a job and is thus rejected. Rejecting that person's job application is ''not'' the employer being "in denial" about how qualified he/she is. The standards can be clearly and lucidly laid out for an apologist, including why the standards are important. At this point, the apologist typically abandons the concepts of logic and reason altogether.

==External link==
{{Def-word|evidence}}

{{Science}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Argumentation]]

Atheism is a religion

2011-08-02T02:04:31Z

Jt: /* Counter-apologetics */

[[Apologist]]s frequently assert that '''atheism is a religion'''. Whether this is true or not depends greatly on what definitions of ''[[atheism]]'' and ''[[religion]]'' are being used. The argument is most effectively made against [[strong atheism]], in which positive assertions are made that no gods exist, but even in that case there are real problems with applying the label of religion to something that is explicitly denying a central belief of almost all religions. Further muddying the issue is the purely [[legal]] notion that, for the purposes of the [[First Amendment]]'s [[free exercise clause]], atheism should be considered a form of religion worthy of protection.

==Apologetics==

If you truly [[believe]] that there is no [[god]], how is that different from believing that there is a god? Both are positions on a fundamentally religious question that must ultimately rest on [[faith]]. Therefore, atheism is just another form of religion.

==Counter-apologetics==

=== Non-differentiating Definitions ===
* Frequently, atheism is equated to religion by using '''non-differentiating definitions''', meaning, aspects of a concept that do not distinguish the concept from others, are used for comparison. For example:
** Religion is a group of people.
** Atheists are a group of people.
** Therefore, atheism is a religion.
Now that religion is based on groups of people, everything from baseball teams to people sitting in a waiting room, are now religions. Few would find the argument compelling: "''Oranges are made of matter. Stars are made of matter. Therefore, oranges are kinds of stars.''" Whether something is made of matter is not what ''distinguishes'' a star from a non-star.
Other non-distinguishing comparisons that commonly come up:
* Getting together in groups / socializing
* Having a set of beliefs
* Having tax-exempt status
* Having '''a''' belief about gods
* Voicing our concerns/opinions ("proselytizing" or "evangelizing")
While most religions do these things, they aren't religions ''because'' of these aspects - but rather by a set of attributes that ''distinguish'' it from other concepts, such as belief in supernatural events or beings.

=== Additional Counter-Apologetics ===

* "If I'm not buying what you're selling, it doesn't mean I'm selling something else."

* According to [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion dictionary.com], the primary definition of ''religion'' is:
# ''a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.''

* There's a lot of wiggle room in those "especially"s and "usually"s. Does atheism (strong or not) consider the [[universe]] as a [[creation]] of superhuman agency? Of course not; just the opposite (in that atheists do not believe in such a superhuman agent in the first place). Must atheism in all cases involve devotional and [[ritual]] observance? No. Must atheism in all cases prescribe a [[moral]] code? No. Of course, there are systems of morality that atheists would be comfortable calling their own (see the article on [[secular morality]]), but atheism in itself does not suggest which moral system one should follow.

* More to the point, is atheism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? No. Atheism is one specific belief, not a set of beliefs. Even strong atheism is simply a position on one particular issue: there is no god. Thus, even assuming strong belief in this point, that doesn't say anything at all about the actual cause, nature or purpose of the universe, except in the negative ("it's not God").

* People who think that atheists are all of one mind about the nature of the universe need only consider the beliefs of [[Raelian]]s to see this is not so.

*Some people claim that atheism is a religion based on later definitions of the word, such as:
:''something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: [for example] to make a religion of fighting prejudice.''
:Technically, atheism could be considered a religion in this sense, but this wanders very far from what [[theist]]s imply when they call atheism a religion, and can thus be considered [[equivocation]]. As the entry itself mentions, under this definition "fighting prejudice" is a religion. If this is true, then so are [[wikipedia:capitalism|capitalism]], [[wikipedia:football|football]], and [[wikipedia:Star Trek|Star Trek]]. It is surely not much of an insult to be included under such a broad definition. (On the other hand, many religious people would likely be insulted if this were taken to be the ''only'' meaning of the term when applied to ''their own'' religion!) Atheism would be a religion in the same sense that golf is a religion but not in the sense that [[Catholicism]] is a religion.
*If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.
*If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.
*If atheism is a religion, being healthy is a disease.
*Tu quoque! This argument exists to defend religion by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for the religion. Beyond shifting the burden of proof, the argument serves as a non-sequitur.

==See also==

* [[Atheism is based on faith]]

==External links==
* [http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html Is atheism a religion?] by Adrian Barnett

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

User:Cjovanstevei

2011-07-24T11:52:11Z

Jt: yeah, spam

I'm Donald Mason. I am a 25 year old, unemployed, full-time student finishing up my sophomore year of a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science. My home is in Utah. I have a blog on scholarships for single mothers. My preferable coding environment is in any *nix operating system, while utilizing vim and screen.

User:Jt

2011-07-15T23:03:46Z

Jt:

I've apparently arrogantly and assumptively assigned myself into being an Iron Chariots Cityguard.

----

The bible refers to real cities, therefore:
* Talking donkeys
* Walking on water
* Food replication
* Zombies
* Resurrection
* Healing through faith

Theism is the placebo effect manifest, conjured through psychosomatic responses, maintained through a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

Re: You have to believe first, then you'll get your evidence. This is nonsensical. Normally, in order to buy a car, one needs to have sufficient money to meet the cost of the car, then one can buy it. What the theists are suggesting here is that you have to <i>first</i> own the car, <i>then</i> the money will appear to buy it. It just doesn't work that way.

==Notes to self==

* Write or augment page to address "evolution producing new 'kinds' of animals", cat-dog differences, perception of our categorizing of species and its influence on understanding what evolution proposes.

* Might be interesting to add "fallacy in action" links to youtube videos of AE clips, for different fallacies.
* In [[Atheists are just in denial]], might be good to note a few things
** These discussions start off as a cyclic "Is too", "Is not" squabbling, so the way to resolve the argument is to see if the evidence meets the standards - if not, the theistic claim loses
* Theists do this thing all the time where if they can't meet the minimum requirements... they redefine and change the thing they're trying to get accepted into into ''meeting them'', instead.
*** Kansas redefinition of science to allow supernatural
*** Redefinition of evidence from science standards to meet low quality apologetics standards
*** Dembski's (and other apologists) creating their own crappy peer-review journals to bypass the fact they can't pass peer-review from real scientists with real, credible journals
*** Continually trying to shift the burden of proof

* AE 598 @ ~1:07:00 - Caller was making an argument that could roughly be the [[Existential fallacy]] (C > B > A, where A exists, so some C must exist)? - think about it

* Argument from DNA = Code? Check
** AE 657 @ ~50.00
** Example: We've only seen apple trees that have been planted by Bob. Therefore, these apple trees we've come across in this field must have been planted by Bob too. - conflation fallacy

* Article on "Appeal to Unspecified Context"
*# Taking things out of context is a genuine problem.
*# Example: Darwin evolution quotemine
*# Key is that we understand, and can explain, the broader context, and how it invalidates the out-of-context quote.
*# If a theist brings up the "You have to look at a passage through the lens of the whole Bible", then they also must also be able to do #3, else they have no case. They can't just leave it at that, as though an appeal to an invisible, nebulous context invalidates the point one is trying to make without further explanation.
*# If the overall context of the Bible were that it's using reverse psychology, then analyzing the verse about stoning unruly children to death could be dismissed, but one has to actually be able to establish the context and validate it. Otherwise, they're simply dismissing what one is saying out of slight of hand for no good reason.

* Article/Augment Prophesy - Framework and invalidation

== My Temp Storage ==

- Started to babble on out of context of a page.. this ought to go elsewhere
- also, point out that if the Bible was indicating a spherical earth, why is it that such assertions were prosecuted as heresy by the bible believers before?

that isn't a vastly distorted and spun translation? Here's an example:

* "''He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.''" ([[Job|Job 26:7]])
* "''It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, ...''" ([[Isaiah|Isaiah 40:22]])

Some spin these references into meaning that the Earth is a sphere. The problem with translation is that the further you go from the literal meaning, the more error you're potentially

10th commandment

2011-07-15T22:53:30Z

Jt: Reverted Vandalism

{{Ten Commandments}}
The '''10th commandment''' (of the so-called [[Ten Commandments]] in the [[Bible]]) prohibits coveting of a neighbors property. Property is said to include ones house, [[wife]], [[slave]]s, oxen, asses, and, well, "anything" else.

{{Bible|Exodus 20:17}}:
{{Bible-verse|17|Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.}}

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 5:21}}:
{{Bible-verse|21|Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.}}

A very different 10th commandment from {{Bible|Exodus 34}} doesn't correspond with any commandments from the {{Bible|Exodus 20}} and {{Bible|Deuteronomy 5}} versions:

{{Bible|Exodus 34:26}}:
{{Bible-verse|26|Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.}}

==Counter-apologetics==
* Wife is listed among property. Modern societies tend not to accept this view anymore.
* There is no prohibition against coveting a husband. Thus men and women are viewed unequally. It does not say “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s husband’ because it is assumed that everything, including law, is directed at males.
* [[Slave]]s are listed among property. Slavery is no longer officially sanctioned anywhere in the world.
* Coveting is a [[thought crime]]. How can you command someone not to covet? And why would you? If stealing is wrong, then there is no need for this commandment. If I tell you that you have a beautiful house and that I wish I had it for myself, is that immoral? (Some claim that “covet” in this verse more properly means “to cast an evil eye” or spell upon something, and this should be viewed as a prohibition of sorcery. But the Hebrew word ‘chamad’ according to Strong’s Concordance, means ‘to delight in: beauty, greatly beloved, covet, delectable thing, delight, desire, goodly, lust, pleasant, precious thing.’)

==In United States law==
* The 10th commandment is possibly the commandment that is most firmly '''not''' a part of U.S. law. [[Capitalism]] is the basis for the U.S. economy. The idea that "I shouldn't want the nice things my neighbor has," if actually followed, would probably cause the collapse of the entire U.S. economy. It is absurd to pretend that this commandment even remotely applies to the U.S. system of laws. (See [[America is a Christian nation]] and [[United States Constitution]].)

[[Category:Commandments]]

User talk:JenniferBurns

2011-07-15T22:53:02Z

Jt: Spam

Nessuno dice che la realtà è facile. Ma a volte è proprio quello che ti rende più forte nella vita.

* giochi blackjack

Islam

2011-07-15T22:52:34Z

Jt: Reverted Vandalism

{{wikipedia|color=#E7E7E7;}}
'''Islam''' is the predominant [[religion]] in the Middle East and is the second-largest religion in the world. Not limited to the Middle East, it has approximately 1.4 billion members, 80% of which are non-Arabs. It is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Its adherents are called "Muslims" (also spelled Moslem), historically "Musselman", "Muhammedans", or even simply "Turks" in Europe and North America. In Arabic, a Muslim is "one who submits to [[God]]" ([[Allah]]).

Muslims, like Jews and Christians, are monotheistic and trace their roots to Abraham. However, they receive their instruction from the [[Qur'an]] (also spelled Koran) rather than the [[Bible]] or [[Torah]]. Islam's beginnings as a distinct people can be traced back to the 7th century under the leadership of [[Muhammed]] and his followers. An universalizing (evangelizing) religion, it spread throughout the world by military conquest and Muslim [[missionaries]].

Islamic fundamentalism is fairly strong in middle-eastern regions, one result being the oppression of women. Spurred by, though unlikely exclusively due to, inflammatory passages of the Qu'ran, there have been instances of terrorism in the name of Islam, including suicide bombings, beheadings and public [[stoning|stonings]] [http://nazret.com/blog/index.php?title=islamists_stone_to_death_somali_woman_fo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/].

Moderate Muslims are more prevalent in Europe, but despite this there are still extremists in Europe who a large part of the time push to silence criticism of their religion and of Muhammed rather than addressing the criticisms.

==See also==
*[[Problems with Muslim Sharia Law]]
*[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

==External links==
Videos
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9LVf_KMO0&feature=related The myth of Islamophobia]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4&feature=related The religion of fear]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA&feature=related Appeasing Islam]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8&NR=1 Islam is not a victim]

{{Islam}}

[[Category:Religions]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Proof by logic

2011-07-09T15:16:25Z

Jt: /* Overview */ - wrote a bit more about proof in math vs reality

=Overview=

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|empirical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

==Examples==

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]
* "Concepts existed before us. Concepts require a mind. That mind is God." (Caller quote from AE #680 at 0:14:30)

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Discussion==

It's important to note that the concept of "proof" only really exists in math as an absolute claim. Once we start examining reality, the mathematical concept can only be used to approximate. For instance, one can define a perfect circle within mathematics, but we are incapable of creating a physically perfect circle in reality.

A perfect circle is defined as a set of points (in a 2D plane) that are equidistant to a center point.

If we're drawing on paper, and one of the atoms is off by a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of the diameter of an electron, the circle is no longer perfect, because one of the atoms is not exactly equidistant with the other atoms. Logical claims versus reality have similar issues.

There's a number of ways, overall, in which proofs by logic are dubious.

===Validity of Premises===

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be <i>demonstrably</i> true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

===Limitations of Common Sense===

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

===Limitations of Current Knowledge===

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. As it stands, we could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this happens in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

===Logic and the Scientific Method===

'''Typically, when attempting to build a [[theory]] with the [[scientific method]], the process follows a basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''' and analysis, propose a model that describes the phenomenon.
# Using '''logic''', propose a series of testable [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to validate the model, possibly [[falsifiable|falsify]] the model, and [[exclusion|exclude]] other explanations.
# [[Testable|Test]] hypotheses, and return to #1 with results to revise model, until model converges on a stable answer.
# Theory is now well supported ("proved").

One example is the history of our [[knowledge]] about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History black holes]. For a long time, all the evidence we had regarding gravity and light seemed to point to this idea that a star can be so massive that light couldn't escape. It wasn't until we had tested hypotheses, with empirical evidence, that the scientific community accepted that black holes were real. We didn't stop at making a logical argument for black holes, stop there, and assume we've proven they exist, even though the logical argument was very compelling.

'''A proof by logic follows the following basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''', propose an explanation that describes the phenomenon, using bits of data that appear to fit the argument.
# Make no attempt to confirm the argument, or exclude it from other possibilities.
# Assertion is now "proved".

People making this error end up simply skipping the most important part of the scientific method - testing and revision. Even more importantly, they often make no attempt to find ways to falsify their claims, which is critical in science. In this way, proofs by logic are functionally very similar to [[conspiracy theories]].

[[Category:logic]]

Proof by logic

2011-07-09T14:30:27Z

Jt: /* Examples */ - added example

=Overview=

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|empirical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

==Examples==

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]
* "Concepts existed before us. Concepts require a mind. That mind is God." (Caller quote from AE #680 at 0:14:30)

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Discussion==

===Validity of Premises===

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be <i>demonstrably</i> true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

===Limitations of Common Sense===

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

===Limitations of Current Knowledge===

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. As it stands, we could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this happens in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

===Logic and the Scientific Method===

'''Typically, when attempting to build a [[theory]] with the [[scientific method]], the process follows a basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''' and analysis, propose a model that describes the phenomenon.
# Using '''logic''', propose a series of testable [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to validate the model, possibly [[falsifiable|falsify]] the model, and [[exclusion|exclude]] other explanations.
# [[Testable|Test]] hypotheses, and return to #1 with results to revise model, until model converges on a stable answer.
# Theory is now well supported ("proved").

One example is the history of our [[knowledge]] about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History black holes]. For a long time, all the evidence we had regarding gravity and light seemed to point to this idea that a star can be so massive that light couldn't escape. It wasn't until we had tested hypotheses, with empirical evidence, that the scientific community accepted that black holes were real. We didn't stop at making a logical argument for black holes, stop there, and assume we've proven they exist, even though the logical argument was very compelling.

'''A proof by logic follows the following basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''', propose an explanation that describes the phenomenon, using bits of data that appear to fit the argument.
# Make no attempt to confirm the argument, or exclude it from other possibilities.
# Assertion is now "proved".

People making this error end up simply skipping the most important part of the scientific method - testing and revision. Even more importantly, they often make no attempt to find ways to falsify their claims, which is critical in science. In this way, proofs by logic are functionally very similar to [[conspiracy theories]].

[[Category:logic]]

User:Jt

2011-07-06T13:49:16Z

Jt: /* Notes to self */

I've apparently arrogantly and assumptively assigned myself into being an Iron Chariots Cityguard.

----

The bible refers to real cities, therefore:
* Talking donkeys
* Walking on water
* Food replication
* Zombies
* Resurrection
* Healing through faith

Theism is the placebo effect manifest, conjured through psychosomatic responses, maintained through a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

==Notes to self==

* Write or augment page to address "evolution producing new 'kinds' of animals", cat-dog differences, perception of our categorizing of species and its influence on understanding what evolution proposes.

* Might be interesting to add "fallacy in action" links to youtube videos of AE clips, for different fallacies.
* In [[Atheists are just in denial]], might be good to note a few things
** These discussions start off as a cyclic "Is too", "Is not" squabbling, so the way to resolve the argument is to see if the evidence meets the standards - if not, the theistic claim loses
* Theists do this thing all the time where if they can't meet the minimum requirements... they redefine and change the thing they're trying to get accepted into into ''meeting them'', instead.
*** Kansas redefinition of science to allow supernatural
*** Redefinition of evidence from science standards to meet low quality apologetics standards
*** Dembski's (and other apologists) creating their own crappy peer-review journals to bypass the fact they can't pass peer-review from real scientists with real, credible journals
*** Continually trying to shift the burden of proof

* AE 598 @ ~1:07:00 - Caller was making an argument that could roughly be the [[Existential fallacy]] (C > B > A, where A exists, so some C must exist)? - think about it

* Argument from DNA = Code? Check
** AE 657 @ ~50.00
** Example: We've only seen apple trees that have been planted by Bob. Therefore, these apple trees we've come across in this field must have been planted by Bob too. - conflation fallacy

* Article on "Appeal to Unspecified Context"
*# Taking things out of context is a genuine problem.
*# Example: Darwin evolution quotemine
*# Key is that we understand, and can explain, the broader context, and how it invalidates the out-of-context quote.
*# If a theist brings up the "You have to look at a passage through the lens of the whole Bible", then they also must also be able to do #3, else they have no case. They can't just leave it at that, as though an appeal to an invisible, nebulous context invalidates the point one is trying to make without further explanation.
*# If the overall context of the Bible were that it's using reverse psychology, then analyzing the verse about stoning unruly children to death could be dismissed, but one has to actually be able to establish the context and validate it. Otherwise, they're simply dismissing what one is saying out of slight of hand for no good reason.

* Article/Augment Prophesy - Framework and invalidation

== My Temp Storage ==

- Started to babble on out of context of a page.. this ought to go elsewhere
- also, point out that if the Bible was indicating a spherical earth, why is it that such assertions were prosecuted as heresy by the bible believers before?

that isn't a vastly distorted and spun translation? Here's an example:

* "''He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.''" ([[Job|Job 26:7]])
* "''It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, ...''" ([[Isaiah|Isaiah 40:22]])

Some spin these references into meaning that the Earth is a sphere. The problem with translation is that the further you go from the literal meaning, the more error you're potentially

Objective

2011-06-30T12:33:34Z

Jt: /* Misinterpretations */ - tweak

== Overview ==

'''Objectivity''', in relation to [[evidence]] and the [[scientific method]], is the [[existence]] of a thing outside of a [[mind]]. For instance, while the perception of music exists in a mind, and is thus [[subjective]], the actual physical air vibrations exists outside of minds, and is thus objective. A third party can examine air vibrations, but cannot examine a person's perception of music.

Objectivity is a critical standard for evidence, because it maximizes accuracy in determining what's true.

== Reasons why Objectivity is Good ==

=== Misinterpretations ===

Human understanding of the world around us needs to pass through several layers, from the objective reality, to the internal human mind.
* Objective reality can take a form that can be mistaken for something else, such as mirages or optical illusions.
* The human sensory, such as the eyes and ears, as imperfect biological devices, can incorrectly gather information. Grainyness of vision in the dark, or occasional neurons firing, causing flashes of light, are examples of this.
* The human brain, as a powerful pattern recognition engine, can detect a false pattern. Ink blot tests and seeing sheep in clouds play on this phenomenon. It's important to note that the nature of our brains is to '''fill in the blanks with their best guesses, if information is lacking'''. That's why we often mishear what someone says in a noisy room. We're sure the other person said one word, when he/she actually said another.

By keeping the evidence objective, we can have multiple people examine the same object, cross examine, and reduce the chances that the first person simply misunderstood what he/she perceived.

The primary way that [[apologetics]] fails in this regard is that a lot of the "evidence" they posit are '''only'' in the mind. There's no way for anyone else to examine the object, and since we only have this person's word on his/her evidence, we cannot then [[exclusion|exclude]] other possibilities, such as that it's simply a delusion on his/her part.

A good example is the perception of [[argument from design|design]], as an apologist might say:

:''I look at nature and I perceive '''design''', like I can perceive that a watch is designed, therefore, I can infer '''design'''. Thus, the evidence that nature is '''designed''' is that it appears to be '''designed'''.''

There's no way to tell whether this ''opinion'' isn't just all in his/her head. It would be like saying:

:''I look at this object and I perceive '''that it's a cube''', like I can perceive that dice are '''cubes''', therefore, I can infer that it's a '''cube'''. Thus, the evidence that the object is a '''cube''' is that it appears to be a '''cube'''.

No one is going to take that argument seriously, because the first question is going to be, "''How can you tell whether something is a cube or not?''" Luckily, we do have a description that is '''objective''', and can be objetively confirmed:

:''A cube is a geometric shape with 6 sides that are all the same size and shape, which are 4-sided polygons, where the edges are at 90 degree angles to one another.''

The perception of design is all in the apologist's head, as we have a very vague definition of how one can tell if something is designed, whereas we can accurately and objectively verify that an object is actually a cube.

Other forms of subjective evidence that is basically useless for convincing anyone else is:
* ''Feeling'' that something is true.
* Personal experiences that only the claimant has any access to the information.

=== Diminishing Returns ===

While we, as thinking beings, will always have to deal with a subjective layer of error, as described in misinterpretations, the error can compound unless we have an original to examine. We don't know whether we're perceivng something in the supposed original, or in a ''copy ''of the original. This is why heresay is not accepted in the U.S. justice system. By the time we get the information of what Bob says that Fred says about what Jack said that Jill did, the data is simply too unreliable to be useful.

Objective evidence, such as having an original fossil to examine, bypasses the problem of diminishing returns, and greatly minimizes the potential for subjective error accumulation.

=== Bias ===

Even if reality doesn't "trick" us, our sensory organs don't fail, and our perceptions and interpretations are fairly accurate, yet another layer of error exists for subjective evidence - bias.

An imporant thing to know about brains is that they are very adept at information management. Without realizing it, our brains sift through an incomprehendable amount of data entering our senses, and on-the-fly, filters that information into categories, and for bulk of that data, '''discards it'''. While the metrics for which data is determined to be discarded (or retained) varies from person to person, a very general metric is whether it fits our current understanding of the world around us.

This is a common phenomenon that manifests with our minds. Some forms of this are [[confirmation bias]] and [[cognitive bias]] in general.

While the individual peices of evidence that builds one's understanding of the world might be objective, the understanding itself is often used as a basis of evidence, and can be subjectively inaccurate, especially if they're based on a priori beliefs about reality.

An excellent example of this is the supposed veracity of [[prayer]].
# Prayer is believed to work.
# Any answered prayer is mentally retained as confirmation that prayer works, and then '''remembered'''.
# Any unanswered prayer is discarded as a fluke, or dismissed for other [[ad hoc]] rationalizations, and then '''forgotten'''.
# A subjective understanding about the veracity of prayer forms in a person's mind based on bias sample sets.
# This aggregated information is then personal evidence for the fact that a prayer-answerer ([[God]]) exists.
# Therefore, God exists.

Despite that this person collected objective data, subjective statistical evidence was derived from that, evidence that we cannot examine objectively and confirm. It's possible that the prayers were in fact answered, and now that we are testing prayer after the fact, the god stops answering the prayers. We would then have to take the person's word for it, in order to accept the claim.

[[Category:epistemology]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:evidence]]

Burden of proof

2011-06-29T19:03:21Z

Jt: grammar

{{wikipedia}}
'''Burden of proof''' is the position, in [[argumentation theory]], that the individual making a claim that something is true is required to support the claim with [[evidence]] or [[Validity vs. soundness|sound]] argument sufficient to warrant acceptance of the claim by the other party. If the claimant cannot provide sufficient evidence, the other party is allowed to disregard the claim without having to ''disprove'' it.

The primary reason why this is important is that the person who is making a claim tends to be the one who has '''access to the information and evidence'''. That person is thus the one in the best position to prove it, not the person who's just hearing about it.

While each individual is free to set their own standards of evidence, there are rules and accepted conventions which determine the evidenciary standards in courts of law, formal debates and other settings.

Some familiar examples:
* In the United States legal system, the burden of proof in most ''criminal trials'' is on the prosecution (claimant) to prove to a judge or jury that the defendant is guilty (the claim) ''[[beyond a reasonable doubt]]'', because there is a ''presumption of innocence'' (thus presuming the claim to be false) going into the proceedings.
* Again in the United States, in most ''civil trials'' the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (claimant) merely to "tip the scales" in their favor, so that their claim is "more likely true than not" (also known as ''[[preponderance of the evidence]]'' or ''[[balance of probabilities]]''). In this case, there is much more "symmetry" between the two sides of the case, and yet in the unlikely case of a "tie" — complete parity between the two cases presented — judgment must be in favor of the defendent.

Other legal burdens of proof include ''[[air of reality]]'', ''[[probable cause]]'' and ''[[clear and convincing evidence]]''. Other non-legal notions of burden of proof include ''[[benefit of the doubt]]'' and ''[[tie goes to the runner]]''.

==Apologetics==
When asked to support the claim that a god exists, it's not unusual for an [[apologist]] to respond with "[[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]", or similar statements. Essentially, this is an attempt to [[shift the burden of proof]] (a [[logical fallacy]]).

[[Category:Argumentation]]

Burden of proof

2011-06-29T19:02:46Z

Jt: why it's important

{{wikipedia}}
'''Burden of proof''' is the position, in [[argumentation theory]], that the individual making a claim that something is true is required to support the claim with [[evidence]] or [[Validity vs. soundness|sound]] argument sufficient to warrant acceptance of the claim by the other party. If the claimant cannot provide sufficient evidence, the other party is allowed to disregard the claim without having to ''disprove'' it.

The primary reason why this is important is that the person who is making a claim is tends to be the one who has '''access to the information and evidence'''. That person is thus the one in the best position to prove it, not the person who's just hearing about it.

While each individual is free to set their own standards of evidence, there are rules and accepted conventions which determine the evidenciary standards in courts of law, formal debates and other settings.

Some familiar examples:
* In the United States legal system, the burden of proof in most ''criminal trials'' is on the prosecution (claimant) to prove to a judge or jury that the defendant is guilty (the claim) ''[[beyond a reasonable doubt]]'', because there is a ''presumption of innocence'' (thus presuming the claim to be false) going into the proceedings.
* Again in the United States, in most ''civil trials'' the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (claimant) merely to "tip the scales" in their favor, so that their claim is "more likely true than not" (also known as ''[[preponderance of the evidence]]'' or ''[[balance of probabilities]]''). In this case, there is much more "symmetry" between the two sides of the case, and yet in the unlikely case of a "tie" — complete parity between the two cases presented — judgment must be in favor of the defendent.

Other legal burdens of proof include ''[[air of reality]]'', ''[[probable cause]]'' and ''[[clear and convincing evidence]]''. Other non-legal notions of burden of proof include ''[[benefit of the doubt]]'' and ''[[tie goes to the runner]]''.

==Apologetics==
When asked to support the claim that a god exists, it's not unusual for an [[apologist]] to respond with "[[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]", or similar statements. Essentially, this is an attempt to [[shift the burden of proof]] (a [[logical fallacy]]).

[[Category:Argumentation]]

Talk:Observation

2011-06-29T17:22:45Z

Jt:

Might be good to merge this article with [[Objective]].
--[[User:Jt|jt]] 12:22, 29 June 2011 (CDT)

Falsifiability

2011-06-29T17:21:09Z

Jt: Categories

'''Falsifiability''' is a fundamental property of a statement of it being possible to have counter-examples to (the search for these counter-examples is called [[falsification]]). According to [[Karl Popper]], claims that are not falsifiable are considered to be outside the realm of [[science]]. This criterion is accepted by most of the worldwide scientific community.

==Examples==
Special creation is not falsifiable. There is no test which could show, even theoretically, that things were not specially created if they weren't. There is also no test which could show God didn't hire unicorns to create us if he didn't. Without falsifiability there are an infinite number of alternatives one can't prove, all of which have equal merit.

The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. Had the fossil record been found to be static, it would have shown that species have not evolved. Had a mechanism been found that prevents, and has always prevented, genetic mutations from accumulating or being inherited, it would make evolution impossible. However, the opposite is true in both cases - those things were instead found to support the theory.

==See also==
* [[Logic]]
* [[Logical fallacy]]
* [[You can't prove a negative]]
* ''[[Zeitgeist]]''

[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Evidence]]

Exclusion

2011-06-29T17:20:19Z

Jt: categories

==Overview==

'''The Exclusion Principle''' of [[evidence]] is the concept that in order for a piece of evidence to be useful to support a claim, it must first be excluded, or differentiated, from other possibile explanations.

===Case Study===

For example, an individual named Bob claims that Jack smokes. Bob points out that Jack's house burned down as [[proof]] for this claim. While it is true that Jack's house burning down is ''potentially'' due to a mishap from smoking in bed, Bob is making a fallacy.

He's assuming that smoking in bed is the ''only'' legitimate cause for Jack's house burning down. In realty, there's several possibilities.

* Lightning struck the house.
* Bad wiring in the house.
* Arson.
* Mishap while smoking in bed.
* Knocked over scented candle.
* Tissue paper caught fire on stove.

The possibilities are literally endless to what could have started the fire. It's even possible that aliens from a parallel dimension shot a interdimensional heat ray at Jack's house, starting the fire.

Bob, in this case, has seemingly arbitrarily chosen ''smoking in bed'' as the cause for the house burning down. The critical thinker would immediately ask, "''What makes you think that's the cause, as opposed to bad wiring?''" The assertion that he's a smoker because his house burned down makes ''even less sense'' if Jask has no history of smoking (Which is analagous to theists asserting [[supernatural]] causes when nothing supernatural has been demonstrated yet).

In order to distinguish smoking in bed as the correct cause, and distinguish it from the other possibilities, Bob must provide ''additional'' evidence.

For instance, several additional pieces could distinguish smoking in bed as the correct cause.

* Indications the fire started in the bedroom.
* Cigarette butts discovered in the bedroom.
* Disqualify lighting due to clear skies.
* Disqualify scented candle if Jack never uses them.

To simply insist that Jack smokes because his house burned down, with no additional details would be woefully inadequate.

==Examples in Religious Claims==

In all the different ways that [[theist]]ic claims can fail the standards of evidence, the ''most common'' unmet standard is exclusion. Typically, the theist ignores, or is unaware of, other possibilities. Sometimes, they ignore the [[null hypothesis]] and assume that [[God]] is the default answer to an asserted piece of evidence, which leads to the [[God of the gaps]] phenomenon.

Consider the following examples.

:'''The proof of God is that you exist.'''
:Natural causes is also a possible explanation. In fact, we can readily demonstrate that [[nature]] exists, and is operational, as opposed to supernature, which is entirely unconfirmed. What's the additional evidence that excludes nature?

:'''The evidence for a god is answered [[prayer]].'''
:The supposed evidence for prayer could be a mixture of [[confirmation bias]], a model for prayer that is [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]], and coincidence. What's the additional evidence that excludes these possibilities?

:'''The evidence for a god is the apparent [[intelligent design|design]] in nature.'''
:The perception of design in nature is a subjective opinion. What's the evidence that excludes the possibility that it's simply a question of interpretation?

The irony is that they often pick ''the most ludicrus and far-fetched'' causes as the proven cause, or simply assume that it's the most reasonable answer, despite it being unproven entirely.

==Probabilistic Sorting of Possibilities==

The principle of exclusion with evidence is the addressing the problem of determining which, of the infinite possibilities, is ''the most likely'' cause for an effect. The first step is to identify reasonable potential causes.

Typically, the reasonable causes are matched up against what is already known. One piece of evidence given for the veracity of the [[Bible]] is the discovery of chariot wheels discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea. This apparently supports the story of [[Moses]] parting the Red Sea, which came crashing down on the Egyptian army that was following behind him. The evidence here is the discovered chariot wheels, however, there's several possibilities as to how they got there.

# The story of Moses is true, and the wheels are the remains of those drowned soldiers.
# A shipment of chariot parts on a boat was lost during an attempted sailing across the sea, and the boat capsized.
# Members of an alien species from another planet abducted some Eqyptian soldiers and discarded the chariots as they flew away, which happened to be over the Red Sea.

Due to a loose application of [[Occam's Razor]], #2 would seem to be the most reasonable explanation, barring further evidence. It's the one that's ''not'' asserting unproven flights of fancy to make the explanation work. What's more, we have evidence that not only is life very robust and versetile, but we're discovering more and more planets that ''could'' support life. That means, we have actual evidnece that extraterrestrial life could exist elsewhere.

That means that #3 is actually ''more plausable'' than #1, since currently we have no valid evidence of any kind of supernatural realm or being, at all.

Without further evidence to exclude the other possibilities from the Biblican explanation, we must then choose, tentatively, the most reasonable explanation - an accident during the shipment of chariot wheels - as the ''most likely'' possibility presented thus far.

[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Evidence]]

Experiment

2011-06-29T17:19:39Z

Jt: category

In [[science]], an '''experiment''' is a carefully controlled study of a phenomenon through the manipulation of conditions [[variables]]. For example, in a [[wikipedia:clinical trial|clinical trial]] of a new drug, individuals may be randomly assigned to groups that receive either the new drug or a [[placebo]]; the responses of the people under the two treatments are then analyzed to determine whether the drug had an effect [[significantly different]] from (or better than) that provided by the placebo.

While the [[scientific method]] is the universal application for how experiments are to be performed there are common indicators that can indicate an experiment was performed in a manner that eliminates [[bias]].

Experiments are sometimes contrasted with ''observational studies'' in which observations are made of pre-existing populations without direct manipulation by the researcher. For example, one may study patients who undergo [[wikipedia:open-heart surgery|open-heart surgery]] to determine which factors, such as age, gender, race or socio-economic status, influence post-operative health. Often observational studies are undertaken rather than true experiments because of [[ethical]], [[legal]] or practical considerations involved with the kinds of treatments which would have to be imposed in an experimental setting.

[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Evidence]]

Repeatable

2011-06-29T17:19:01Z

Jt: category

'''Repeatability''' in science is the capacity to execute an [[experiment]] or data collection again and again. For instance, if a scientist claims to be able to achieve Cold Fusion in a styrofoam cup, given the procedures the scientist undertook, other scientists should be able to replicate the same results. If they cannot, then either the procedures given by the claimant are faulty, the experiment results were misunderstood, or it succeeded for other reasons. Without repeatability, the [[scientific method]] is incredibly ambiguous about what the conclusions to the data are.

One common misconception about repeatability is that the original phenomenon must be repeated in order to qualify. Such examples are:
* We must recreate the [[Big Bang]] in order to prove it
* We must directly observe, in one sitting, one "kind" of species [[evolve]] into another ("[[macro vs micro evolution|macro evolution]]")

The repeatability is entirely viable through the individual confirming experiments, such as microwave background radiation for the Big Bang, or new predicted fossils discovered by scientists, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik roseae]. If such an objection about repeatability were true, then the entire field of archaeology would be rendered superfluous.

[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:evidence]]

Objective

2011-06-29T17:18:48Z

Jt: tweaks

== Overview ==

'''Objectivity''', in relation to [[evidence]] and the [[scientific method]], is the [[existence]] of a thing outside of a [[mind]]. For instance, while the perception of music exists in a mind, and is thus [[subjective]], the actual physical air vibrations exists outside of minds, and is thus objective. A third party can examine air vibrations, but cannot examine a person's perception of music.

Objectivity is a critical standard for evidence, because it maximizes accuracy in determining what's true.

== Reasons why Objectivity is Good ==

=== Misinterpretations ===

Human understanding of the world around us needs to pass through several layers, from the objective reality, to the internal human mind.
* Objective reality can take a form that can be mistaken for something else, such as mirages or optical illusions.
* The human sensory, such as the eyes and ears, as imperfect biological devices, can incorrectly gather information. Grainyness of vision in the dark, or occasional neurons firing, causing flashes of light, are examples of this.
* The human brain, as a powerful pattern recognition engine, can detect a false pattern. Ink blot tests and seeing sheep in clouds play on this phenomenon. It's important to note that the nature of our brains is to '''fill in the blanks with their best guesses, if information is lacking'''. That's why we often mishear what someone says in a noisy room. We're sure the other person said one word, when he/she actually said another.

By keeping the evidence objective, we can have multiple people examine the same object, cross examine, and reduce the chances that the first person simply misunderstood what he/she perceived.

The primary way that [[apologetics]] fails in this regard is that a lot of the "evidence" they posit are '''only'' in the mind. There's no way for anyone else to examine the object, and since we only have this person's word on his/her evidence, we cannot then [[exclusion|exclude]] other possibilities, such as that it's simply a delusion on his/her part.

A good example is the perception of [[argument from design|design]], as an apologist might say:

:''I look at nature and I perceive '''design''', like I can perceive that a watch is designed, therefore, I can infer '''design'''. Thus, the evidence that nature is '''designed''' is that it appears to be '''designed'''.''

There's no way to tell whether this ''opinion'' isn't just all in his/her head. It would be like saying:

:''I look at this object and I perceive '''that it's a cube''', like I can perceive that dice are '''cubes''', therefore, I can infer that it's a '''cube'''. Thus, the evidence that the object is a '''cube''' is that it appears to be a '''cube'''.

No one is going to take that argument seriously, because the first question is going to be, ''How can you tell whether something is a cube or not?''. Luckily, we do have a description that is '''objective''', and can be objetively confirmed:

:''A cube is a geometric shape with 6 sides that are all the same size and shape, which are 4-sided polygons, where the edges are at 90 degree angles to one another.''

The perception of design is all in the apologist's head, as we have a very vague definition of how one can tell if something is designed, whereas we can accurately and objectively verify that an object is actually a cube.

Other forms of subjective evidence that is basically useless for convincing anyone else is:
* ''Feeling'' that something is true.
* Personal experiences that only the claimant has any access to the information.

=== Diminishing Returns ===

While we, as thinking beings, will always have to deal with a subjective layer of error, as described in misinterpretations, the error can compound unless we have an original to examine. We don't know whether we're perceivng something in the supposed original, or in a ''copy ''of the original. This is why heresay is not accepted in the U.S. justice system. By the time we get the information of what Bob says that Fred says about what Jack said that Jill did, the data is simply too unreliable to be useful.

Objective evidence, such as having an original fossil to examine, bypasses the problem of diminishing returns, and greatly minimizes the potential for subjective error accumulation.

=== Bias ===

Even if reality doesn't "trick" us, our sensory organs don't fail, and our perceptions and interpretations are fairly accurate, yet another layer of error exists for subjective evidence - bias.

An imporant thing to know about brains is that they are very adept at information management. Without realizing it, our brains sift through an incomprehendable amount of data entering our senses, and on-the-fly, filters that information into categories, and for bulk of that data, '''discards it'''. While the metrics for which data is determined to be discarded (or retained) varies from person to person, a very general metric is whether it fits our current understanding of the world around us.

This is a common phenomenon that manifests with our minds. Some forms of this are [[confirmation bias]] and [[cognitive bias]] in general.

While the individual peices of evidence that builds one's understanding of the world might be objective, the understanding itself is often used as a basis of evidence, and can be subjectively inaccurate, especially if they're based on a priori beliefs about reality.

An excellent example of this is the supposed veracity of [[prayer]].
# Prayer is believed to work.
# Any answered prayer is mentally retained as confirmation that prayer works, and then '''remembered'''.
# Any unanswered prayer is discarded as a fluke, or dismissed for other [[ad hoc]] rationalizations, and then '''forgotten'''.
# A subjective understanding about the veracity of prayer forms in a person's mind based on bias sample sets.
# This aggregated information is then personal evidence for the fact that a prayer-answerer ([[God]]) exists.
# Therefore, God exists.

Despite that this person collected objective data, subjective statistical evidence was derived from that, evidence that we cannot examine objectively and confirm. It's possible that the prayers were in fact answered, and now that we are testing prayer after the fact, the god stops answering the prayers. We would then have to take the person's word for it, in order to accept the claim.

[[Category:epistemology]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:evidence]]

Objective

2011-06-29T17:15:14Z

Jt: work is slow today - started page - might want to disambiguate between regular objectivity and evidence/objectivity

== Overview ==

'''Objectivity''', in relation to [[evidence]] and the [[scientific method]], is the [[existence]] of a thing outside of a [[mind]]. For instance, while the perception of music exists in a mind, and is thus [[subjective]], the actual physical air vibrations exists outside of minds, and is thus objective. A third party can examine air vibrations, but cannot examine a person's perception of music.

Objectivity is a critical standard for evidence, because it maximizes accuracy in determining what's true.

== Reasons why Objectivity is Good ==

=== Misinterpretations ===

Human understanding of the world around us needs to pass through several layers, from the objective reality, to the internal human mind.
* Objective reality can take a form that can be mistaken for something else, such as mirages or optical illusions.
* The human sensory, such as the eyes and ears, as imperfect biological devices, can incorrectly gather information. Grainyness of vision in the dark, or occasional neurons firing, causing flashes of light, are examples of this.
* The human brain, as a powerful pattern recognition engine, can detect a false pattern. Ink blot tests and seeing sheep in clouds play on this phenomenon. It's important to note that the nature of our brains is to '''fill in the blanks with their best guesses, if information is lacking'''. That's why we often mishear what someone says in a noisy room. We're sure the other person said one word, when he/she actually said another.

By keeping the evidence objective, we can have multiple people examine the same object, cross examine, and reduce the chances that the first person simply misunderstood what he/she perceived.

The primary way that [[apologetics]] fails in this regard is that a lot of the "evidence" they posit are '''only'' in the mind. There's no way for anyone else to examine the object, and since we only have this person's word on his/her evidence, we cannot then [[exclusion|exclude]] other possibilities, such as that it's simply a delusion on his/her part.

A good example is the perception of [[argument from design|design]], as an apologist might say:

:''I look at nature and I perceive '''design''', like I can perceive that a watch is designed, therefore, I can infer '''design'''. Thus, the evidence that nature is '''designed''' is that it appears to be '''designed'''.''

There's no way to tell whether this ''opinion'' isn't just all in his/her head. It would be like saying:

:''I look at this object and I perceive '''that it's a cube''', like I can perceive that dice are '''cubes''', therefore, I can infer that it's a '''cube'''. Thus, the evidence that the object is a '''cube''' is that it appears to be a '''cube'''.

No one is going to take that argument seriously, because the first question is going to be, ''How can you tell whether something is a cube or not?''. Luckily, we do have a description that is '''objective''', and can be objetively confirmed:

:''A cube is a geometric shape with 6 sides that are all the same size and shape, which are 4-sided polygons, where the edges are at 90 degree angles to one another.''

The perception of design is all in the apologist's head, as we have a very vague definition of how one can tell if something is designed, whereas we can accurately and objectively verify that an object is actually a cube.

Other forms of subjective evidence that is basically useless for convincing anyone else is:
* ''Feeling'' that something is true.
* Personal experiences that only the claimant has any access to the information.

=== Diminishing Returns ===

While we, as thinking beings, will always have to deal with a subjective layer of error, as described in misinterpretations, the error can compound unless we have an original to examine. We don't know whether we're perceivng something in the supposed original, or in a ''copy ''of the original. This is why heresay is not accepted in the U.S. justice system. By the time we get the information of what Bob says that Fred says about what Jack said that Jill did, the data is simply too unreliable to be useful.

Objective evidence, such as having an original fossil to examine, bypasses the problem of diminishing returns, and greatly minimizes the potential for subjective error accumulation.

=== Bias ===

Even if reality doesn't "trick" us, our sensory organs don't fail, and our perceptions and interpretations are fairly accurate, yet another layer of error exists for subjective evidence - bias.

An imporant thing to know about brains is that they are very adept at information management. Without realizing it, our brains sift through an incomprehendable amount of data entering our senses, and on-the-fly, filters that information into categories, and for bulk of that data, '''discards it'''. While the metrics for which data is determined to be discarded (or retained) varies from person to person, a very general metric is whether it fits our current understanding of the world around us.

This is a common phenomenon that manifests with our minds. Some forms of this are [[confirmation bias]] and [[cognitive bias]] in general.

While the individual peices of evidence that builds one's understanding of the world might be objective, the understanding itself is often used as a basis of evidence, and can be subjectively inaccurate, especially if they're based on a priori beliefs about reality.

An excellent example of this is the supposed veracity of [[prayer]].
# Prayer is believed to work.
# Any answered prayer is mentally retained as confirmation that prayer works, and then '''remembered'''.
# Any unanswered prayer is discarded as a fluke, or dismissed for other [[ad hoc]] rationalizations, and then '''forgotten'''.
# A subjective understanding about the veracity of prayer forms in a person's mind based on bias sample sets.
# This aggregated information is then personal evidence for the fact that a prayer-answerer ([[God]]) exists.
# Therefore, God exists.

Despite that this person collected objective data, subjective statistical evidence was derived from that, evidence that we cannot examine objectively and confirm. It's possible that the prayers were in fact answered, and now that we are testing prayer after the fact, the god stops answering the prayers. We would then have to take the person's word for it, in order to accept the claim.

User:Jt

2011-06-29T16:03:56Z

Jt: /* Notes to self */

I've apparently arrogantly and assumptively assigned myself into being an Iron Chariots Cityguard.

----

The bible refers to real cities, therefore:
* Talking donkeys
* Walking on water
* Food replication
* Zombies
* Resurrection
* Healing through faith

Theism is the placebo effect manifest, conjured through psychosomatic responses, maintained through a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

==Notes to self==

* Write or augment page to address "evolution producing new 'kinds' of animals", cat-dog differences, perception of our categorizing of species and its influence on understanding what evolution proposes.

* Might be interesting to add "fallacy in action" links to youtube videos of AE clips, for different fallacies.
* In [[Atheists are just in denial]], might be good to note a few things
** These discussions start off as a cyclic "Is too", "Is not" squabbling, so the way to resolve the argument is to see if the evidence meets the standards - if not, the theistic claim loses
* Theists do this thing all the time where if they can't meet the minimum requirements... they redefine and change the thing they're trying to get accepted into into ''meeting them'', instead.
*** Kansas redefinition of science to allow supernatural
*** Redefinition of evidence from science standards to meet low quality apologetics standards
*** Dembski's (and other apologists) creating their own crappy peer-review journals to bypass the fact they can't pass peer-review from real scientists with real, credible journals
*** Continually trying to shift the burden of proof

* AE 598 @ ~1:07:00 - Caller was making an argument that could roughly be the [[Existential fallacy]] (C > B > A, where A exists, so some C must exist)? - think about it

* Argument from DNA = Code? Check
** AE 657 @ ~50.00
** Example: We've only seen apple trees that have been planted by Bob. Therefore, these apple trees we've come across in this field must have been planted by Bob too. - conflation fallacy

* Article on "Appeal to Unspecified Context"
*# Taking things out of context is a genuine problem.
*# Example: Darwin evolution quotemine
*# Key is that we understand, and can explain, the broader context, and how it invalidates the out-of-context quote.
*# If a theist brings up the "You have to look at a passage through the lens of the whole Bible", then they also must also be able to do #3, else they have no case. They can't just leave it at that, as though an appeal to an invisible, nebulous context invalidates the point one is trying to make without further explanation.
*# If the overall context of the Bible were that it's using reverse psychology, then analyzing the verse about stoning unruly children to death could be dismissed, but one has to actually be able to establish the context and validate it. Otherwise, they're simply dismissing what one is saying out of slight of hand for no good reason.

== My Temp Storage ==

- Started to babble on out of context of a page.. this ought to go elsewhere
- also, point out that if the Bible was indicating a spherical earth, why is it that such assertions were prosecuted as heresy by the bible believers before?

that isn't a vastly distorted and spun translation? Here's an example:

* "''He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.''" ([[Job|Job 26:7]])
* "''It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, ...''" ([[Isaiah|Isaiah 40:22]])

Some spin these references into meaning that the Earth is a sphere. The problem with translation is that the further you go from the literal meaning, the more error you're potentially

User:Jt

2011-06-29T15:59:19Z

Jt: /* Notes to self */

I've apparently arrogantly and assumptively assigned myself into being an Iron Chariots Cityguard.

----

The bible refers to real cities, therefore:
* Talking donkeys
* Walking on water
* Food replication
* Zombies
* Resurrection
* Healing through faith

Theism is the placebo effect manifest, conjured through psychosomatic responses, maintained through a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

==Notes to self==

* Write or augment page to address "evolution producing new 'kinds' of animals", cat-dog differences, perception of our categorizing of species and its influence on understanding what evolution proposes.

* Might be interesting to add "fallacy in action" links to youtube videos of AE clips, for different fallacies.
* In [[Atheists are just in denial]], might be good to note a few things
** These discussions start off as a cyclic "Is too", "Is not" squabbling, so the way to resolve the argument is to see if the evidence meets the standards - if not, the theistic claim loses
* Theists do this thing all the time where if they can't meet the minimum requirements... they redefine and change the thing they're trying to get accepted into into ''meeting them'', instead.
*** Kansas redefinition of science to allow supernatural
*** Redefinition of evidence from science standards to meet low quality apologetics standards
*** Dembski's (and other apologists) creating their own crappy peer-review journals to bypass the fact they can't pass peer-review from real scientists with real, credible journals
*** Continually trying to shift the burden of proof

* AE 598 @ ~1:07:00 - Caller was making an argument that could roughly be the [[Existential fallacy]] (C > B > A, where A exists, so some C must exist)? - think about it

* Argument from DNA = Code? Check
** AE 657 @ ~50.00
** Example: We've only seen apple trees that have been planted by Bob. Therefore, these apple trees we've come across in this field must have been planted by Bob too. - conflation fallacy

* Article on "Appeal to Unspecified Context"
*# Taking things out of context is a genuine problem.
*# Example: Darwin evolution quotemine
*# Key is that we understand, and can explain, the broader context, and how it invalidates the out-of-context quote.
*# If a theist brings up the "You have to look at a passage through the lens of the whole Bible", then they also must also be able to do #3, else they have no case. They can't just leave it at that, as though an appeal to an invisible, nebulous context invalidates the point one is trying to make without further explanation.

== My Temp Storage ==

- Started to babble on out of context of a page.. this ought to go elsewhere
- also, point out that if the Bible was indicating a spherical earth, why is it that such assertions were prosecuted as heresy by the bible believers before?

that isn't a vastly distorted and spun translation? Here's an example:

* "''He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.''" ([[Job|Job 26:7]])
* "''It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, ...''" ([[Isaiah|Isaiah 40:22]])

Some spin these references into meaning that the Earth is a sphere. The problem with translation is that the further you go from the literal meaning, the more error you're potentially

User:Jt

2011-06-27T18:02:07Z

Jt: /* My Temp Storage */

Proof by logic

2011-06-27T18:00:37Z

Jt: /* Logic and the Scientific Method */ - black holes

=Overview=

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|empirical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

==Examples==

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Discussion==

===Validity of Premises===

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be <i>demonstrably</i> true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

===Limitations of Common Sense===

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

===Limitations of Current Knowledge===

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. As it stands, we could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this happens in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

===Logic and the Scientific Method===

'''Typically, when attempting to build a [[theory]] with the [[scientific method]], the process follows a basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''' and analysis, propose a model that describes the phenomenon.
# Using '''logic''', propose a series of testable [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to validate the model, possibly [[falsifiable|falsify]] the model, and [[exclusion|exclude]] other explanations.
# [[Testable|Test]] hypotheses, and return to #1 with results to revise model, until model converges on a stable answer.
# Theory is now well supported ("proved").

One example is the history of our [[knowledge]] about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History black holes]. For a long time, all the evidence we had regarding gravity and light seemed to point to this idea that a star can be so massive that light couldn't escape. It wasn't until we had tested hypotheses, with empirical evidence, that the scientific community accepted that black holes were real. We didn't stop at making a logical argument for black holes, stop there, and assume we've proven they exist, even though the logical argument was very compelling.

'''A proof by logic follows the following basic pattern:'''
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''', propose an explanation that describes the phenomenon, using bits of data that appear to fit the argument.
# Make no attempt to confirm the argument, or exclude it from other possibilities.
# Assertion is now "proved".

People making this error end up simply skipping the most important part of the scientific method - testing and revision. Even more importantly, they often make no attempt to find ways to falsify their claims, which is critical in science. In this way, proofs by logic are functionally very similar to [[conspiracy theories]].

[[Category:logic]]

Proof by logic

2011-06-27T11:36:21Z

Jt: /* Logic and the Scientific Method */ - added a small bit

=Overview=

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|empirical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

==Examples==

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Discussion==

===Validity of Premises===

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be <i>demonstrably</i> true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

===Limitations of Common Sense===

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

===Limitations of Current Knowledge===

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. As it stands, we could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this happens in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

===Logic and the Scientific Method===

Typically, when attempting to build a [[theory]] with the [[scientific method]], the process follows a basic pattern:
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''' and analysis, propose a model that describes the phenomenon.
# Using '''logic''', propose a series of testable [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to validate the model, possibly [[falsifiable|falsify]] the model, and [[exclusion|exclude]] other explanations.
# [[Testable|Test]] hypotheses, and return to #1 with results to revise model, until model converges on a stable answer.
# Theory is now well supported ("proved").

A proof by logic follows the following basic pattern:
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''', propose an explanation that describes the phenomenon, using bits of data that appear to fit the argument.
# Make no attempt to confirm the argument, or exclude it from other possibilities.
# Assertion is now "proved".

People making this error end up simply skipping the most important part of the scientific method - testing and revision. Even more importantly, they often make no attempt to find ways to falsify their claims, which is critical in science. In this way, proofs by logic are functionally very similar to [[conspiracy theories]].

[[Category:logic]]

Proof by logic

2011-06-26T20:21:58Z

Jt: bit of an overhaul

=Overview=

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|empirical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

==Examples==

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Discussion==

===Validity of Premises===

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be <i>demonstrably</i> true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

===Limitations of Common Sense===

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

===Limitations of Current Knowledge===

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. As it stands, we could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this happens in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

===Logic and the Scientific Method===

Typically, when attempting to build a [[theory]] with the [[scientific method]], the process follows a basic patter:
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''' and analysis, propose a model that describes the phenomenon.
# Using '''logic''', propose a series of testable [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to validate the model, and [[exclusion|exclude]] other explanations.
# [[Testable|Test]] hypotheses, and return to #1 with results to revise model, until model converges on a stable answer.
# Theory is now well supported ("proved").

A proof by logic follows the following basic pattern:
# Observe a phenomenon and gather information.
# Using '''logic''', propose an explanation that describes the phenomenon, using bits of data that appear to fit the argument.
# Make no attempt to confirm the argument, or exclude it from other possibilities.
# Assertion is now "proved".

People making this error end up simply skipping the most important part of the scientific method - testing and revision.

[[Category:logic]]

Talk:Proof by logic

2011-06-24T22:04:24Z

Jt: creator's notes

==Creator's Notes==

This phenomenon pops up often enough that I wanted to address it officially. The term "proof by logic" I essentially made up. There might be another term for it, so feel free to clarify that.

Proof by logic

2011-06-24T22:02:52Z

Jt: started page

==Overview==

[[Logic]] is a fantastic tool for guiding one's investigations into reality, however, sometimes people don't understand it's application to the practicalities of reality, and its limitations.

One of the frequent [[theist]]ic attempts at demonstrating their [[god]], is a method known as '''proof by logic''', or "''logicing God into existence''". The basic idea is that, devoid of any [[Empiricism|emperical]] [[evidence]] demonstrating the existence of the god, they will attempt to [[proof|prove]] the existence using nothing but logical arguments.

===Examples===

* [[God is love|God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.]]
* [[Transcendental argument|Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. Logic transcends human minds, so a transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. That transcendent mind is God.]]
* [[Kalam cosmological argument|Everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore has to have a cause. Since we need a starting point, as opposed to an infinite regress, that cause is the "uncaused cause", which could only be God.]]

None of these are confirmed true, and they rely on axioms that are dubious.

Sometimes, people believe that if an argument is logically ''sound'' (described as "logical"), it must therefore be true; for instance, that [[creationism]] is true because it's logical.

==Counter Apologetics==

The primary reason why these arguments fail is because the premises of a logical argument must be 100% umambiguously correct, valid, and unassumed. Each premise must be <i>demonstrably</i> true. They never are.

For instance, the Kalam cosmological argument makes the following undemonstrated assumptions:
* Everything has a cause - have they ''checked'' everything in existence to make sure it has a cause?
* The universe couldn't be eternal - voiding the "began to exist" clause.
* Even if the universe had a cause, that therefore it had to be intelligent, as opposed to another natural mechanism.
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc.

This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about the what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of casuality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break.

Not only does "common sense" not work in all situations, but in advanced sciences, rarely ever works, because we're digging deeper into realms that aren't "common" to our understanding yet.

These "proofs by logic" are an example of how [[religion|religious]] thinking operates the opposite of [[science]]. Science operates by building models of understanding based on already known, demonstrated data. Religious thinking operates by building sophisticated networks of assertions and assumptions without demonstrating any of it. This arises frequently as [[ad hoc]] rationalizations.

Ultimately, the only way that logical proofs can work outside of [[mathematics]] is if one is [[omniscient]]. We could discover and learn something new about reality tomorrow that demolishes one of the premises to a logical syllogism. As theists frequently point out, this sort of thing happens often in science. Thus, we cannot rely on the premises to be wholly accurate, but rather, a tentative assessment of what we currently know for the moment. The absolute logical arguments then fail because of that.

Logic, as applied to reality, works best as a guide to investigation, not as an end-all proof for claims.

[[Category:logic]]

Kalam

2011-06-24T21:54:11Z

Jt: added segue into another page

The '''kalam''' argument is an altered form of the [[cosmological argument]]. It is intended to circumvent the [[infinite regress]] problem contained within the traditional cosmological argument by altering the [[premise]]s.

==Apologetics==

[[William Lane Craig]]'s version of the kalam cosmological argument is as follows:
# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
# The [[universe]] began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

The distinction between this and the traditional cosmological argument is that it distinguishes effects in general from those that have a beginning. This qualification leaves open an interesting possibility that some things in the universe might exist that never began to exist. But Craig is not that sloppy, so before we jump on this observation, we need to address the kalam argument's second premise and its support.

The kalam argument's second premise—"The universe began to exist"—is a claim that seems more of a [[presupposition]] than a fact, but watch how it is supported:
# An actual [[infinite]] cannot exist.
# A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
# Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

The important term here is, of course, "actual infinite." [[Wikipedia:Actual infinite|Wikipedia]] has the following to say about actual infinities:
{{quote|''Actual infinity'' is the notion that all (natural, real etc.) numbers can be enumerated in any sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set together. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity is the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all [[Wikipedia:Natural number|natural numbers]] or an arbitrary [[Wikipedia:Sequence|sequence]] of [[Wikipedia:Rational number|rational numbers]], as given objects.}}
Furthermore:
{{quote|The mathematical meaning of the term ''actual'' in ''actual infinity'' is synonymous with ''definite'', ''completed'', ''extended'' or ''existential'', but not to be mistaken for ''physically existing''. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature.}}

==Counter-apologetics==

Overall, this argument is an example of a [[proof by logic]], where the god is "demonstrated" with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence.

===Counterargument===
Let S1 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist, and S2 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did exist.

The theist is trying to claim that the Universe began to exist, that is, there was a state in which there was God, "and then" there was a state in which there was the Universe. In other words, they want to say S1 "and then" S2. In order to do that, they must show that S1 and S2 are distinct. The possibilities are:

# The Universe never began to exist
# The Universe never existed
# S1 and S2 follow each other in time
# Some agent in S1 is the atemporal cause of S2

If we can eliminate all four latter examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. If that is the case, then there is no "beginning" - no state at which the Universe began to exist, thus undermining the conclusion.

If we try to prove by contradiction that the Universe never began to exist, the contradiction becomes evident. By assuming the Universe began to exist, it rules out (1). The Universe exists, so that rules out (2). (3) is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. (4) can't be true because Craig defines "atemporal causation" as follows:

<blockquote>To borrow an illustration from Kant, a heavy ball’s resting on a cushion is the cause of a depression in the cushion, even if the ball has been resting on the cushion from eternity past.</blockquote>

However, this cannot be used to distinguish between S1 and S2 because it requires cause and effect to be simultaneous. S1 and S2 cannot be simultaneous, as the Universe would exist at the same instant that it doesn't exist - a contradiction.

By assuming that the Universe began to exist, we have ruled out all explanations for how it could have began to exist. Thus, we cannot distinguish at the moment between S1 and S2 - undermining their conclusion.

===Counterexample===
There's nothing in the laws of physics which demands that the law of cause and effect be more than generalizations for interacting with the world above the quantum level.

Within quantum mechanics there seems to be real counter examples to the first premise of the argument. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." For example, when Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12 the radioactive decay is a perfectly random causeless event and thus though the Carbon-12 began to exist it wasn't caused to exist. Likewise, when matter and antimatter (particle-antiparticle formations) such as electron-positron creation, they can be said to have started to exist but not to have been caused to exist. While radioactive decay of particle-antiparticle formation can be predicted and serves a function, such as stabilizing the atom and equaling out the energies from two-photon interactions, there is no reason why such a thing should happen at those specific space and time coordinates. The underlying probabilities can be calculated and are extremely accurate, but alien from the classical sense of cause and effect.

Further, similar quantum considerations could have direct analogies to the Big Bang which might be causeless as well. Resolving other issues like the atemporal causality seen above as quantum phenomenon does force us to consider simultaneous instances of X and ~X, for example where X is "Schrodinger's cat is dead". Ignoring this speculative cosmology, the counter example suffices to disprove the premise (things can begin to exist without being caused) and thus demonstrate that the argument is unsound.

===Circularity===

In Dan Barker's article [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity], he writes

<blockquote>
The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to [[begging the question]].
</blockquote>

In other words, the set of items that do not begin to exist must be pluralized - otherwise it is just another word for God.

===Special pleading===

The kalam argument seems to have been worded specifically to address the refutation of the cosmological argument, as it made the qualification that only things that begin have causes. The kalam arguer will simply state that [[God]] didn't begin, and so no regress occurs and no Creator of God is necessary.

However, this answer seems flawed. The essential criticism can be pin-pointed in an arbitrary choice, a form of the fallacy of [[special pleading]], that must be made. As [[Richard Dawkins]] put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything (or at least things that begin) must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice, as in either case the rule must be violated, but with the proposition of God, we have to add something to the theory that adds nothing else to it.

If God not having a beginning is not a problem for Craig and other defenders of this argument, why is it a problem for the natural universe? To answer this, we must look at a further problem. This problem concerns the definition of god used in both arguments. A theologian might reply this counter argument and insist that the decision is not arbitrary, and that god must be allowed to have these attributes that the kalam argument seems to imply. He may say that the argument is an attempt to show the need for there to be a God that has the attributes that we cannot find in the universe. He might say that because we know that everything in the universe needs a cause and that the idea of infinite time is non-sense, there must be this being with these unique attributes. That is, there must be this being that does not begin, has no creator, and is thus able to create the universe. However, this suffers from the same problem from, and is in fact the same as, the [[ontological argument]].

The ontological argument strives to define a god into existence. Essentially, it asks us to imagine the most perfect of all beings, and says that it must exist because existence is better than non-existence, and if this being is truly perfect it must have this attribute as well. The problems with this argument are two-fold; merely thinking or imagining some being does not imply the being has actual existence outside of it being conjured in the imagination.

This choice is not only unnecessary, it is not [[parsimonious]]. In order to explain something apparently designed and which cannot create itself, a being is conjured into existence which would require even more unlikely explanation.

The kalam argument attempts to circumvent the problem of infinite regress but steps right into the problem of special pleading so is no better off.

===Equivocation===

Kalam also [[Equivocation|equivocates]] on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything up your street, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and everything we are familiar with is a actually reconfiguration of preexisting matter than has been around for billions of years. The atoms that compose people, places, and planets do not "come into existence" in the same sense Kalam is claiming the universe came into existence (matter appearing from a previous state of non-being/non-existence). Rather they have always existed, and the objects we see around us are merely the latest rearrangements of those atoms. So in speaking of the universe requiring a "cause" for it's existence, Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or earthquakes being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo, which is not at all the type of creation we are familiar with in every other circumstance. Kalam therefore is using a word game and the fallacy of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist" to try and draw a parallel between wildly different things.

There is a possible further equivocation with regard to the term "everything" as used in the first premise. When used colloquially, it isn't necessarily clear whether one is referring to each thing separately or to the entire set as a single entity. Thus, in the context of this argument, the meaning of the first premise can be interpreted to mean either: 1) that there is a single cause to which we can rightly attribute the existence of all things that have ever begun to exist (making the entire argument circular, since this is essentially the same as the conclusion); or, 2) that each "thing" individually has its own cause. In the latter case, one would need to better define what is meant by a "thing" before it is even possible to assess the truth or falsehood of this premise and/or its applicability to the argument.

Additionally, while the term "universe" is commonly understood to mean "the sum of everything that exists," Kalam represents an attempt to establish the existence of something ''outside'' the universe. This is conceivable only in the case of a non-standard definition (which presumably involves some kind of dualistic distinction between a physical universe and some other realm external to it). In this case, the first premise becomes even more tenuous; how can one assert that ''everything'' that begins to exist has a cause when one believes in the existence of a realm outside of our universe with properties unlike anything we can discover through mere observation? A commonsense version of causality is not applicable here...meaning we now have a problem defining "cause" in this context!

===Why only one cause?===

In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved. There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials. There must be an appropriate location, and a diverse set of conditions that allowed the entire process to take place. Yet, the first premise would have us believe that all of this comprises just one "cause." This fails even on the most basic intuitive level, and even when it involves an object with which we are intimately familiar. Discussing something as foreign to our intuitions as the beginning of time would seem to compound the problem further.

However, even if we grant that each "thing" in the universe has exactly one cause, and that postulating an uncaused cause is sufficient to explain the origin of all things, it still would not follow that there could be only one uncaused cause. There could be several such influences working in concert, as polytheists would have us believe. There could be millions of uncaused causes that began separately but whose creations have since intermingled to form the universe we have now. In short, it isn't clear why anyone should suggest "a cause" rather than an unknown number of them - unless, of course, one's goal is to support an ideology that claims a singular creator for other reasons.

==="Comparing apples and oranges"===

In the first premise, Craig declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.

In an article titled [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity], [[Dan Barker]] writes:

<blockquote>The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.</blockquote>

See [[Russell's paradox]] for issues that arise from allowing a set to be a member of itself. Also see the [[Fallacy of composition]] for issues with properties of all of the parts being true for the whole. Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to extrapolate the properties of things we are familiar with (which are objects within a set) to properties of the set as a whole (the universe). Example: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly." The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately, we are stuck inside the universe, therefore any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole.

===False dichotomy===
The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, or not a natural cause.

===So what===
:''See also: [[Which god?]]''
Although some other variation of the Kalām argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalām argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.

===Kalam Cosmological problem of Evil===
# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
# The Evil began to exist.
# Therefore, Evil must have a cause.

We know that evil is an abstraction, and for it to exist it must be cognized. Either God is the cause of this cognition (two faced pan-moral god -Hinduism) or God is not the cause of this cognition (two opposing forces of good and evil -Zoroastrianism)
In Christianity, God knows all things. By virtue of this fact God is the creator of evil and the source of immorality.

If premise 2 is wrong, then Evil must have existed from the beginning
# Everything that did not begin to exist has no cause
# The Evil did not began to exist.
# Therefore, Evil does not have a cause.

Therefore if God exists either:
#He is the source of evil and therefore not omnibenevolent,
# He has an equally powerful rival power
# He is not omnipotent.

==External links==
* [[Wikipedia:Kalam cosmological argument]]
* http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/incoherency_of_divine_creation/
* http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/
* http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/
*[http://journeymanheretic.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-kalam-cosmological-argument-for-gods.html The Journeyman Heretic: On the Kalam Cosmological Argument]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Cosmological arguments]]

Argumentum ad odium

2011-06-24T17:13:06Z

Jt: whoops

The appeal to spite (Argumentum ad odium, appeal to hatred) is a [[fallacy]] in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of spite, or schadenfreude (pleasure derived from misfortune of others) in the opposing party. Basically it is an attempt to associate the opposition with a distasteful ideology.

The argument is often mistaken for an [[Ad hominem]], which openly attacks the opposition, as well as appealing to negative emotion, whilst the appeal to hatred/spite only appeals to a negative emotion and assumes hatred for the opposition exists. Attacking the opposition directly is unnecessary.

'''Examples'''

1. "If you vote for this tax cut, it will mean that the fat cats will get even more money to spend on their expensive luxury yachts, while you and I keep struggling to pay the bills."

2. "Stop recycling! Aren't you tired of Hollywood celebrities preaching to everyone about saving the Earth?"

Argumentum ad odium

2011-06-24T17:07:35Z

Jt: Removed SPAM link

The appeal to spite (Argumentum ad odium, appeal to hatred) is a [[fallacy]] in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of spite, or schadenfreude (pleasure derived from misfortune of others) in the opposing party. Basically it is an attempt to associate the opposition with a distasteful ideology.

The argument is often mistaked for an [[Ad hominem]], which openly attacks the opposition, as well as appealling to negative emotion, whilst the appeal to hatred/spite only appeals to a negative and assumes hatred for the opposition exists. Attacking the oppostion directly is unnecessary.

'''Examples'''

1. "If you vote for this tax cut, it will mean that the fat cats will get even more money to spend on their expensive luxury yachts, while you and I keep struggling to pay the bills."

2. "Stop recycling! Aren't you tired of Hollywood celebrities preaching to everyone about saving the Earth?"

Talk:Atheism causes evil

2011-06-22T20:20:23Z

Jt:

This topic frustrates me. I'm trying to find the most succinct and efficient way of explaining why atheism can't cause anything. It's an ongoing process, and all I can do it seems is come up with oddball analogies. It's a subtle topic, and easily confusing, but there must be something solid to ground the discussion in.

I more than welcome others' attempts to refine my thoughts here to something more lucid.

Is not preventing a cause, a cause? How could ''not'' doing something be a cause?

--15:20, 22 June 2011 (CDT)

Atheism causes evil

2011-06-22T20:08:44Z

Jt: /* Counter Apologetics */ - added analogy

=Atheism as a Cause for Evil=

==Apologetics==

This particular apologetic manifests similar to the following pattern:

* Pol Pot was an atheist was an evil murderer.
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]].
* Thus, Pol Pot's atheism has something to do with him being an evil murderer.
* Therefore, atheism causes evil.

It's not always Pol Pot that's the example. Sometimes it's [[Stalin]], [[Hitler]] (Although they erroneously claim Hitler was an atheist), or whoever they can [[cherry picking|cherry-pick]] as a bad example of an atheist, often who also happen to be totalitarian dictators.

When asked to explain how atheism, the lack of a belief in a god, leads to anything, apologists will return with explanations such as the following:

{{Quote|Atheism only conducts itself from an empty ethic, which can neither support nor reject the action of murder. This means that actions can be brought about by disbelief. For example, to disbelieve in the existence of a good reason not to kill, would justify the opposing view. Disbelief gives rise to belief or is a form of belief itself, and thus the origins of causation, for a certain action, can be derived from disbelief. This fact falls into the historical narrative of Pol Pot, giving a legitimate case for why atheism, a disbelief in all religious dogmas and concepts of god, must assume a piece of responsibility in Pol Pot’s choices.}}

==Counter Apologetics==

The original claim is an [[association fallacy]] in action, and the explanation is a massive [[Non sequitur]].

In an extremely loose sense, it can make sense on the surface to say that his atheism influence his decisions, but it's an optical illusion.

Yes, the fact he didn't have a positive belief that people ''shouldn't'' be killed ''does play a role''. That lack of belief, however, is not the ''cause'', which is the point they're trying to make. Only beliefs can be the cause of action, and in two particular ways - '''provocation''' and '''prevention'''.

* '''Provocation''' - I believe Bob was the one who killed my wife, so I'm going to kill him back.
* '''Prevention''' - I believe Bob is going to kill my wife, so I'm going to kill him before he can act.

The third position, lacking a belief, would not lead me to doing anything to Bob. Any decision I make about Bob always comes from beliefs I do have. The explanation is subtle, and to understand, one needs to may attention to the exact usage of the words.

* FredGod is a god that insists that his followers don't kill people.
* Believing in FredGod will cause Bob to not kill people.
* '''Not''' believing in FredGod only '''Not''' causes Bob to not kill people.
* '''Not''' believing in FredGod does not cause Bob to kill people.
* Without that prevention, '''something else''' may cause Bob to kill people, but the lack of prevention isn't itself the cause.

===Examples===

====Flavor====

Another way of looking at this, is an analogy of flavor.
* While adding sugar to coffee makes it ''less'' bitter, ''not'' adding sugar doesn't make it ''more'' bitter. It's bitterness is created because of chemicals, such as chlorogenic acid, in the coffee. The presence of the sugar can merely counteract the bitterness. If ''not'' adding sugar something makes it bitter, then water should taste bitter without sugar. It doesn't. If the water does taste bitter, it's not because it didn't have sugar added, but because ''something else was added that '''made''' it bitter''.

====Preventing a Death====

Let's say that a woman in town is struck by a car, and dies. I could have went into town and pushed her out of the way, thus preventing her from dying. I didn't.

What caused her death? She died because she was struck by a car, not because I didn't push her out of the way. The negligent car driver would be charged with vehicular manslaughter, not me. This is how it works in reality.

====Not being a Buddhist====

If one is a [[Buddhist]], an atheist philosophy/religion, one is bound to be opposed to killing people. This following argument is never spoken, however:

# Stalin was an evil murderer.
# Stalin was not a Buddhist, which would have prevented him from murdering people.
# Therefore, not being a Buddhist is dangerous, and influences one to kill poeple.

This argument isn't made, because besides the fact it's an obvious fallacy, very few people are attempting to smear Buddhism. It's generic atheism that's constantly a victim of slander campaigns.

====Deciding whether to Kill a Mosquito====

* I don't believe that a mosquito's life has value. I don't believe they should be protected.
* I kill mosquitos.
* The reason I kill them '''is not''' that I don't value their lives.
* The reason I kill them is because they keep attacking me, sucking my blood, making me itch, and potentially carrying diseases like Malaria. Thus, I believe I need to defend myself against them, whether it's to swat one that's currently attacking me, or to premptively kill those I think are potentially going to attack me.

To say that the reason I kill them is because I don't value their lives, instead of being due to defense, is asinine.

If they didn't attack me, I wouldn't do anything to them, whether I thought their lives should be protected, or not.

====Infinite Non-Beliefs====

If you want a more mathematical reason of why this reasoning doesn't work, it starts with an oversight.

*While we all have a finite set of beliefs, there's an infinite number of things we '''don't''' believe.
*Thus, according to this apologetic, every one of those non-beliefs is influencing me.
*I have finite decision making, and finite cognition, designated by amount - '''A'''
*The amount of influence each non-belief has on me is: '''A''' divided by ∞, which equals '''0'''

We could try to list all the infinite number of beliefs Pol Pot ''didn't'' have, and point out that because we can't "rule out each's influence", that we should take note of them. That wouldn't be practical.

User talk:MarianiCatoex8g

2011-06-21T21:47:46Z

Jt: This user's page appears to be spam.

What is this? Seems like spam.

Main Page

2011-06-05T14:01:15Z

Jt: Reverted Vandalism

{{Main Page Banner}}

'''[[Iron Chariots Wiki:Introduction|Iron Chariots]]''' is intended to provide information on [[apologetics]] and [[counter-apologetics]]. We'll be collecting common [[argument]]s and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as [[evidence]] for [[religious]] claims.

The complexity of issues surrounding religion ensures that any proper assessment requires us to delve into a number of philosophical, historical and sociological topics. Our ultimate goal is to provide a robust and definitive resource for:

<table align="center" width="85%" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
* [[atheist]]s seeking responses to common apologetic arguments
* [[theist]]s who are questioning the efficacy of their beliefs
</td>
<td>
* [[apologist]]s who feel that their "pet" argument is above reproach
* individuals of any philosophical ideal who have an interest in religious studies
</td>
</tr>
</table>

{{Main Page navigation links2}}
----


<table align="center" width="100%" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;" width="%50">

<table style="vertical-align: bottom;" align="center" width="80%" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; font-size: 24pt;">Starting points</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

----

Feel free to make use of the [[Special:Search|Search]] feature if you're looking for a particular article.

{{Main Page starting points}}
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;" width="%50">

<table style="vertical-align: bottom;" align="center" width="80%" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; font-size: 24pt;">Feature Articles</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

----

Previously addressed arguments. The following articles feature detailed rebuttals to common apologetics in various media:
* Recently, there was a group project to respond to the email titled "[[50 reasons to believe in god]]." The point of the exercise was to revise and expand any relevant articles so that each one provides a coherent rebuttal to a clearly stated theistic argument.
* ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' — apologist TV series featuring [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]].
** "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]" — a ''Way of the Master'' episode on atheism.
** "[[Evolution (Way of the Master)|Evolution]]" — a ''Way of the Master'' episode on evolution.
* [[Chick tract]]s — comic-book style series of evangelical pamphlets by Jack Chick.
** "[[Big Daddy? (Chick tract)|Big Daddy?]]" — a Chick tract focusing on evolution.

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

----

'''Get involved — edit this site!''' If you're interested in contributing to the site (in the non-monetary sense), you must [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup register] first to get a username. You might also want to register at our [http://forum.IronChariots.org IronChariots.org Forums] so you can post over there.

If you want to contribute in the ''monetary'' sense, please see [[Project:Site support|Site support]].

For more information, please take a look at these pages:
* [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Project:Editing guidelines|Editing guidelines]]
* [[Project:Layout and styleguide|Layout and styleguide]]
* [[Project:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]

If you're looking for some new or incomplete articles that need writing, please consider taking some suggestions from [[Project:Requested pages|Requested pages]].

----
<div align="center">'''Other languages:''' [[Página principal|Português]]</div>

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:Atheism

2011-06-02T01:52:50Z

Jt:

The "strong atheists" link is supposed to be redirecting to strong atheism (even that entry shows this) - but it's redirecting to weak atheism. Any idea why?

[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:17, 20 June 2006 (MST)

I felt the atheism, strong atheism, and weak atheism articles were stubs. So I merged them into one article (keeping as much of the original writing as I could). hope nobody's upset! - [[User:MadOtaku|MadOtaku]] 13:02, October 24 2006 (PST)

I think that makes sense, at least until there's a need (read: sufficient content) for them to be moved to separate entries. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:51, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Should we be adding any more information to this page, as Atheism is a pretty major subject for the wiki, in my opinion? I mean, look at Conservapedia, they have a 'wonderful' article about Atheism that is at least ten times longer than necessary, but at least it explains how we're all mass murderers and immoral... wait that's not a good example. XD - [[User:RoaringAtheist|RoaringAtheist]] 17 Januari 2009
:While you can add what you'd like, most of the people coming here for information are looking for counter-apologetics, considering that the purpose of this wiki is that very subject. Most of the people using the wiki would probably self-identify as atheist or agnostic, so it isn't the most important article in the world. [[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 06:04, 20 January 2009 (CST)

I removed the sentence "This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god." from the introduction, as it conflicts with the definition given for Strong Atheism. --[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 19:57, 7 December 2010 (CST)

There is no conflict. Atheism is the top-level category, weak and strong are sub-categories. The top-level category does not require a positive claim of the nonexistence of a god. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:38, 8 December 2010 (CST)

I'm a little perplexed by the section that reads "For the above reason, strong atheism is sometimes criticized for "requiring faith." But this is not necessarily true." First of all it seems that a better response is to ask why this is a criticism. Certainly no one who's taken an intro philosophy course is going to state that they can prove everything they base their actions on. I think that assuming "basing it on faith" is actually a criticism is attaching some sort of negative connotation to "faith" which is self defeating. "Faith" is a synonym for the word "assumption". People may be worried by the idea that they make assumptions, but as this is unavoidable why should it be treated like a valid criticism?

Perhaps we would be better served by adding a section describing how attaching the term "faith" to atheism is a kind of verbal trap which assumes the atheist has made the claim that everything they believe is based on evidence?--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 20:33, 7 December 2010 (CST)

BunniRabbi -

While I don't necessarily disagree with most of the changes you made, there was one part I take issue with.
:''and that assumption is functionally identical to faith''

I disagree. They start off the same, but the difference between an assumption and faith is that you can a posteriori confirm whether the assumption was valid or not. Faith, on the other hand, remains unconfirmed, because, once it is, it's no longer faith.

For instance, we start off assuming that our senses are basic, but we can retroactively confirm whether it was a correct assumption.

They're not the same. Similar in some respects, perhaps.

--[[User:Jt|jt]] 20:52, 1 June 2011 (CDT)

Exclusion

2011-05-30T12:32:43Z

Jt: started page - probably a bit verbose

Talk:Failed Prophecy

2011-05-26T19:57:30Z

Jt:

=== Text Taken from Website ===

[[Christhiru]]
It's problematic to copy/paste the content from there into here. Typically, it's frowned upon to do that even with wikipedia. It would be better to simply link to that page, with a description here, perhaps with an excerpt, or additional commentary.

I think it's more the amount you took is excessive than the fact you're referencing other work, even if the source is cited.

--[[User:Jt|jt]] 13:03, 26 May 2011 (CDT)

:I'll take it down

:--[[User:Christhiru|christhiru]

::Well, I didn't mean you had to take it down entirely. It's still a valid topic.
::[[User:Jt|jt]] 14:57, 26 May 2011 (CDT)

Talk:Failed Prophecy

2011-05-26T18:05:24Z

Jt: /* Text Taken from Website */

Talk:Failed Prophecy

2011-05-26T18:03:32Z

Jt: copy/paste issue

Evidence

2011-05-22T21:28:15Z

Jt: Another evidence requirement. Priming for new page.

Argument from the meaning of life

2011-05-13T01:36:21Z

Jt: tweaks

==Argument From the Meaning of Life==

The '''argument from the meaning of life''' is a type of [[appeal to emotion]]. In this case, the arguer typically feels as though life hasn't come about by chance and is therefore special and designed with a purpose in mind. The arguer might say "if there was no god, then life would be pointless." They might even propose that the only way life can have meaning is if God exists.

No one wants to admit that their life is void of meaning and purpose. The arguer uses this by suggesting that to believe life has meaning, you must also believe that God exists.

==Problems With This Argument==

*Those that use this argument assume that life without a god has no meaning. In fact, a person can still have a fulfilling and memorable life even if that life is finite.

*It is important to determine what the theist believes the meaning of life actually is. In some cases, they say the meaning of life is to worship God. Subservient worship is not going to be most people's idea of a meaningful life.

*Even still, there is the question of "so what?" Just because we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, it does not mean that a god necessarily exists. At most, this argument becomes a variation on [[Pascal's Wager]]. The arguer is suggesting that we should believe in a god, even if it does not exist, so that we can feel the self esteem boost of our lives having a higher meaning.

*This argument fails when we bring predestination and free will into the picture. Firstly, if meaning is predestined, then either God is unjust and does not give atheists the same facility to meaning, or is impotent, and can't. Secondly, freewill and "designed" meaning cannot exist together, as they are mutually exclusive.

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments from design]]