Thursday, October 27, 2011
Maximally great being- a being in which none could be greater.
Now we have the actual argument, which I will present in its entirety and then break down the premises to show how it works. As presented by Plantinga:
1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore maximally great being exists.
Ok so premise 1: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
It is important to note, that this is actual possibility, not perceived possibility. This will become important later. To explain this a little, it is possible that something could be perceived to be possible yet in actuality it is impossible. Therefore in order for this to work we need to know it is actually possible, or at least say it is likely to be possible. As of right now that seems ok.
Now onto premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Possibility of existence naturally implies that in some possible world it exists. This may not be the real world but if it didn't exist in some possible world then it would be impossible, so this premise is good.
Onto Premise 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
The logic behind this appears to be that if a being could exist in all possible worlds then it would be greater then a being that only exists in some possible worlds. While I would agree, we could dispute that it is logically possible for a being to exist in every possible world. After all the point of changing god from the omni god to maximally great was to avoid paradoxes. Yet alas I will grant this premise. This means that the only way a maximally great being exists is if this is the set of possible universes:(M=Maximally great being)
in other words you could not have these sets:NM( no maximally great being)
or any variation that combines the two.
So now, we have a updated definition of Maximally great being:
Maximally great being: a being in which none could be greater that exists in every possible world.
We move onto premise 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
This is pretty basic, the actual world is a possible world so its obvious that if this being exists in every possible world it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Same thing here, anything that exists in the actual world exists. Obvious, no complaints.
6) Therefore maximally great being exists.
So obviously the conclusion follows if we get up to this point with all arguments being sound.
That is how the Ontological argument works;
This can appear very appealing to a theist and they think they have their proof. A closer look and we can see a problem. As Plantinga himself proposes we could define No Maximality. No Maximality is defined as: the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Ok so onto the anti-ontological argument.
1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.
2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.
3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.
Ok, so lets see if this argument works the same way.
1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.
Again, in order to know for sure that no maximality exists it must be actual possibility, not perceived possibility.
Premise 2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.
Same reasoning as for the original argument, if a no maximality possibly exists, that would mean it exists in some possible universe, otherwise it would be impossible.
Ont Premise 3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
This is where the theist, usually whines and complains that no maximality has no requirement to exist in every possible universe. But, alas the theist has defined Maximally great being in such a way that yes it does. Once you have the first possible universe in your set as this:
We have already established through the theists own logic that a maximally great being would not exist in a set of universes that has a universe that contains its opposite. So therefore the only universe "No Maximality" can exist in is :
So based on the theists own reasoning and a little bit of reductio ad absurdum logic, which is as follows: A maximally great being cannot exist in all possible universes, yet not exist in a possible universe. That is breaking the law of non-contradiction.
Onto Premise 4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Same reasoning as for the previous argument.
Premises: 5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.
as for 5 and 6 we then get there the same way.
So, as is now obvious both arguments get to their beings existing as long as the being is possible.
Analyzing the 2 sides now:
Now we must determine which is actually possible or at least probable. If the theist were to prove the maximally great being as probable, they would have to argue that their being was more likely then "no maximality." If they wanted to completely prove their god, they would be best suited to use reductio ad absurdum that no maximality is absurd. Now, I am not sure that we can reduce either side to absurdity with our knowledge now. So, at best we can say that it is 50/50 which being exists. I would argue though that it is far less then that.
The no maximality, is less restrictive on possible universes and also requires less assumptions. Currently we don't know of any Maximally great beings, so assuming one is possible is one more assumption. Also it seems that a maximally great being would have a certain impact on universes that would restrict the possible universes. As the logical construct of Occam's razor says, all things being equal the idea that requires the least assumptions and is the least restrictive is preferred.
I would also argue that a maximally great being is pretty well defeated by the problem of evil, as long as you take the assumption that it would be greater to stop suffering, then it is to let it happen. There does not appear to be any logical inconsistency with stopping suffering. Therefore it appears to me, once we look at this, No maximality actually has a greater probability then a Maximally great being. Good Night ontological argument.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
I figured I would start out with that quote. While the quote is not necessarily true, it does have some merit to it. We must first address what morality or good and bad things are. I argue that all of our morality comes from the same place, benefit to society or human and animal well being. If you are an atheist or a theist this is where your morality has come from.
Let me explain for the theists. I am going to stick with Judaism and Christianity for this example, although Islam will follow the same path. Judaism gets you to follow God's law by telling their believers that Yahweh rewards people for following the law and punishes people for not following the law. So, in essence the rules will relate to the Jewish peoples well being so they follow those rules. Christianity and Islam do similar things but extend the benefit to human well being to outside this life into another. The eastern religions use similar things such as reincarnation. In the end, the religions are subconsciously playing off of our drive for well being, which is where all morality comes from. This is also where atheist morality comes from. So, now that we can say that based on what we have labeled morality that good acts are acts that benefit well being and bad acts are acts that do not benefit well being, it is time to look at whether we can make objective decisions about these.
Ironically, we need not look much further then these same religious examples to see that we can. What have these religions demonstrated? Let me explain, each one of these religions has shown that if you change the "facts on the ground" and give people incorrect information then we see differing morality. In other words morality comes from facts about what gives us the most human well being. If these facts are incorrect we get good people doing bad things. Examples of this range from the obvious, in WW2 we can see that the German society had been in bad shape and was looking for a reason to figure out why they weren't experiencing a higher standard of well-being. Hitler was able to convince them that their society was being hurt by the Jews. This is what enabled good people to do bad things. There were obviously Germans who did not buy into Hitlers propaganda, so that explains them as well. Another example would be the example of parents praying for their child over seeking medical attention. The parents have been convinced that pray works to heal, and psychologists have even testified that these parents were trying to do what they felt was right. They were, the problem is their view of what is right was obscured by incorrect "facts on the ground."
That last example makes it easy to see that there are actual right or wrong answers to moral questions. Since, our morality comes from benefit to society or human well being, then the statistics don't lie. Medical treatment for this child was a better option then praying as it has a greater chance of increasing the child and the parent mental well beings. Can we measure well being, some of you may be asking. Well the answer is we may not be able to get absolute certainty, but being we do know information about life expectancy and neuroscience is currently studying happiness in an objective manner, we can say that there are actual answers these questions. We just need to do our best to get the correct facts to make our best judgement on these important questions. This is yet another way religion poisons society. It gives us incorrect facts that can negatively effect our morality.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Now advertisers are typically required to present truth in advertising. We all know everyone would be in an uproar if an atheist put up a true sign,let alone a sign that doesn't tell the truth. So lets take a look does this ring true. Well born again christians would be more likely to pray, so they should divorce less, but not so much. In a study done by a Christian researcher they have a 27% rate of divorce. The liberal Christian has a 24% rate of divorce. Finally those lowly atheists who don't pray together, well a 21% rate of divorce. This seems a blatant lie. While, I can see where it comes from, the fact that families that do activities together do tend to have better relationships. Though, these stats may indicate that better activities exist then prayer. Should truth in advertising apply to religions, and if so, shouldn't this organization have to demonstrate the truthfulness of this claim.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
World English Dictionary
rational (ˈræʃən ə l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
1. using (good)* reason or (good)*logic in thinking out a problem
*I inserted the (good) into the definition as to not confuse some readers coming over from a certain website who have problems grasping context.
Ok, so we know that being rational is to use or be in accordance with logic. What is not in accordance with logic? Well that would be a logical fallacy. So, if we can demonstrate that placing faith in one specific god is no using logic or thinking out a problem and instead is the opposite we have proven it is not rational. Lets go:
We have multiple possible gods. Lets see for example: Thor, Jesus, Yahweh(jewish), Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus, and Trickster. All of which one can place faith in.
Since, this is the only thing you can use here, how does one determine which god is the only one to place faith in. Can it be rational to choose just one? Lets take a look. From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html we find that special pleading takes this form.
Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.
If we can demonstrate that picking one on faith alone takes this form we have a fallacy. So lets see if picking one takes this form:
Premise 1: Gods I generally don't grant faith
Premise 2: My god is an exception of the rule because I picked that one
Conclusion: Therefore my god is not a god I don't grant faith.
Ok, now remember premise 1 is true, because there are quite a few gods and you are granting faith to only one specific god.Premise 2 is merely you picking your god.
This clearing takes the form of special pleading. Since from the same link we find special pleading is a logical fallacy we have this problem:
A decision based on a fallacy is not based on logic and reason
This decision is based on a fallacy.
Conclusion this decision is not based on logic and reason.
Since, Rational is defined as: using reason or logic in thinking out a problem, and this is the opposite. We conclude that it is not rational to place faith in only one god.
Monday, May 30, 2011
The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.
In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design.
In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined." According to Wikipedia.
This argument is based on a very faulty presupposition. The argument attempts to use probability to prove a designer of the universe. The problem with this line of reasoning is this its not probable. Let me explain:
In order for a complex thing to imply design we would need to see that out of the number of complex things we observe the majority(above 50%) are demonstrably designed. I am being generous with the 50% number I would think it should be higher but we will go with this. So do things we know to be designed outnumber the number of stars, galaxies, black holes, planets, plants, comets, and more. Well the resounding answer is no. The number of things we know to be designed in the universe that are complex pales in comparison to the things we consider complex that have no evidence for a designer and appear to come about naturally.
In the set of watches for example we have seen enough evidence of design that in the watch set it is probable for design. Unfortunately, for this argument the set of watches is not the same as the set of all complex things. Complex things have not been demonstrated to be over 50% designed. That is why whenever you observe something in the set of complex items you need to go a step further and still find further evidence of design, because the probability of complex items being designed has not been proven to be more probable.
Let me provide a further example to demonstrate the failure of this argument. Lets take the set of football's and try to draw a conclusion abut the set of balls(no dirty minds). All footballs are oblong and have points at the end. If someone says they have a football it is reasonable to expect it to have that shape. It may even be reasonable for someone who has only been exposed to footballs to think that all balls will have that shape. Once a person has been exposed to the set of baseballs, soccer balls, beach balls, basketballs, bouncy balls, tennis balls, and golf balls, this stance of expecting a ball to be oblong and have 2 points on it is no longer reasonable or rational. That is the same failure that a person exposed to the facts of the universe makes when they make this argument. You can not attribute a attribute of a subset to a set just because you want to, it is too likely to be flawed.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Most of the time the atheists position is that we may not know what the actual reason for these things are so they don't know. The theist will attack this position, where in reality they need to attack the other positions in the actual dichotomy of options for the existence logic or inductive reasoning. To do so would be a ridiculously futile attempt,so I understand why they try to blatantly cheat, by insisting that the atheist doesn't know proves god. Though that is telling the atheist their position. The theist is being very intellectually dishonest, there are many things in life that we may not personally know the cause of but we can still use them. So lets take a look at the options that are part of the true dichotomy of possibilities that could be there for inductive reasoning. This will not include all options, because what makes this even more ridiculous is that there may be many more possibilities we have never thought of. Here is a list they would actually need to attack to be able to use reductio ad adsurdum as their argument(this will be for inductive reasoning for our purposes):
Inductive Reasoning is a brute fact of the universe
Inductive Reasoning fairies
Inductive Reasoning trolls
Other gods, if they intend to prove their god
Inductive reasoning Unicorns
The invisible pink unicorn
Flying spaghetti monster
and many other unthought of natural explanations
Now I can here the morons who use this argument whining, well you don't believe that. Well guess what, whether I believe any of them has nothing to do with whats the truth. That is my point, I don't believe your god either, you need to show me why your god is more likely. I can make cases for several of these options over your god. Lets just try 2 to show the presuppositional apologetic proponents how it is done:
I will defend that inductive reasoning is a brute fact. I would argue that being a brute fact requires the simplest easiest explanation with the least amount of baggage. To add a god would violate the logical construct of Occams razor, that says that the explanation that requires the least amount of extra baggage is preferred, and god is a lot of extra baggage.
I would also argue that Inductive Reasoning fairies are more likely then the christian god as it only requires one seemingly unknown thing, inductive reasoning, where as the Christian god actually requires: zombie resurrections( Jesus, Lazurus, and the zombie apocalypse of Matt 27), so again based on Occam's razor, I argue they are more reasonable.
See how that works, you actually attack the dichotomy of possible answers the question, what is the reasoning we can know inductive reasoning, rather then attacking the withholding of judgement based on their being a larger dichotomy then you want to admit.
I here a recent person I debated on this topic, whining, but we are saying you must presuppose god, not that god is the cause. Well get this, a believer in inductive reasoning fairies could whine the same thing. The burden is on you to demonstrate your presupposition is necessary, not just to whine that I don't believe the other possibilities.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Ibn Al-Sharik tells me I must have faith in Allah and the holy koran is gods word and that is what i must have faith in.
David Cohen comes up and tells me I must have faith in good ole' Yahweh and that the Pentateuch lays out gods law for us and I must have faith in this.
Some guy whose name oddly reminds me of a villain from the Children of the Corn series, tells me about John Smith and a little something about magic underwear, and I must have faith in this.
Tom Cruise tells me about Dianetics and e-meters and how I must have faith in them.
Now seriously thinking Christians, are you really going to just say, well it comes down to faith. Don't you see how absurd this is. You can't really be serious with this nonsense can you? It wouldn't even make sense if your faith or no faith was an actual true dichotomy, it makes even less sense when you explore the whole dichotomy of faiths.
Faith does not answer the question: Why do you believe in your god? It avoids the question, its a non answer, its the equivalent of jumping up and down and whining, it is because I say it is.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
I pointed out that she completely ignores other biblical laws such as these:
Leviticus 11:12 (New King James Version)
12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you.
Leviticus 19:19 (New King James Version)
19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.
1 Timothy 2:12 (New King James Version)
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Corinthians 14:34 (New King James Version)
34 Let your[a] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
I pointed out that she is picking a choosing which bible verses she was using and which ones she ignored. This girl did not grasp the point. She even told me I should be messaging her and asking questions. Now while I don't believe this, I said well according to your bible, Im the man, your a woman, you should be listening to me. She unfriended me once I called her a bigoted bitch, because I had insulted her, and she had never insulted me. This girl has no idea if anyone I know friends or family are homosexuals, and yes I did have a family member who is. So this whole comment offended me. This should offend humanity. She deserves to be called out and told exactly what she is. Reasoning with hateful bigots like this doesn't work. Sometimes they just need to be told how it is.
Religion should not be allowed the free reign to be justification for hate like this. This was genuine hate for people she was displaying. Christianity is not a religion of love but a religion of hate, she didn't like it when the very verses that were used to oppress woman for years were turned on her. But this bigoted bitch had no problem using her bible as means to oppress other people, this type of person makes me sick.
To end this, if any atheist is reading this, I am well aware the verses I used for the passages about women are probably forged into the bible years later, but Martha uses King James so I have no problem using them on her.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Why should we protect belief from the truth. Shouldn't we protect the truth from wrong beliefs, not the other way around. If the 5 books of Moses are clearly written by 4 different authors: J, E,P, and D, why shouldn't I be able to say so at my job. I hardly think that, at my job, there would be a problem with me saying that George Washington was the first president. Even if there was a large contingency of people who had a deep felt belief that it was Michael Jackson. We would still respect the truth being said that it was George Washington. This makes no sense to me.
So, you may ask why is truth more important then belief? Well that is simple, the more mankind has found out about the truth the better our society has become. Look at our advancements in health and medicine when we stopped respecting the idea that most diseases were demon possessions, like good ole Yeshua O Nazarene would have one believe. We have advanced to the point where many diseases that meant certain death are curable in days. That is just one of many examples of how finding the truth has helped society.
Its time we turn the zeitgeist on this whole idea of respect beliefs in spite of the truth. The person whose beliefs are not grounded with facts should be the one that doesn't feel as comfortable saying them, not the other way around. I'm not talking banning of religious beliefs, I'm just saying our societies attitude toward truth vs belief(faith) needs to change. Lets keep the truth, not the faith.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Premise 1: we have not found Jesus' body.
Premise 2: A resurrection is the most probable explanation
Conclusion: The belief in the resurrection is justified.
Premise 1 is true, I grant that, so far so good. One of the most successful theist arguments ever, first premise is sound. So we get to the second premise.
This is where David runs into huge issues. We have a huge data set on resurrection possibilities. We have millions of cases and not a single resurrection out of the last how ever million cases. Our data set is so large that the margin of error is near zero. The percentages are very low that Jesus resurrected. So we can say we are close to a zero percent chance that a body resurrects after 3 days. So these other possibilities must be pretty bad and impossible right. Well, we could probably stop this ridiculousness at the body was stolen, but that would be to easy. As grave robbery happens far more frequently then bodily resurrections. So that is more likely. Premise 2 is sounding very poor, but I contend that we can do better then this. I contend that there should be no expectation at all that Premise 1 should come as any shock.
Lets go back to this now. I contend that if Jesus was a real person, and this is a huge concession to make, that the historical Jesus is so far from the Jesus of Christianity that we should not expect to find a body. My contention is that if you had only seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you would not expect the person to find Ed Gein, in case you are not familiar he is the real life serial killer that inspired the character. (http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/gein.htm). You would not expect to find st Nicholas by only knowing the story of Santa Claus. The latter may actually be a better example, by the fact that we got there from a constant expansion of myth about the man, where as Ed Gein turned to Leatherface in a more intentional way, as the writer of the movie took many liberties. But that is neither here nor there as the end result is the mythical character makes it hard to find the real person if that is all you have.
Im going for my masters, David, seems to miss the concept that historians only give credit to a historical Jesus as being a apocalyptic preacher. That is far from the actual character that we are searching for. The story of Jesus was not written down until at least 30-40 years after his supposed death. It had long been mixed with Mythology and authors making changes. The changes could be mere mistakes, or intentional to cover up opposing views of Christianity. Early christians had many different alien views of Jesus then modern christians. There are many examples of these causing authors to change the story. He also ignore the whole theory that the resurrection is myth that follows the tradition of many previous gods being raised from the dead. So we have some huge problems with his assumption. We are well aware that throughout history characters have far more often become more myth then reality. This happens in a far greater proportion then any 3 day resurrection story. Not only this but if Jesus was really crucified, he ignores another problem. Criminals executed like Jesus were commonly buried in mass graves, not given anything like a single tomb like the gospels portray. If he was crucified there is no reason to believe that he would be treated any different. How would we even know his bones if we found them.
Another possibility is hoax. This means it was mad e up a people bought into it being real. Many modern examples of this exist today,many people bout the Blair with project as real, ditto for Paranormal actiivity and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. People buy into the lochness monster and in almost every state there is a ghost story about the prom girl walking the road or the hooker man walking the railroad tracks as ghost stories. Wow that is far more modern day examples of fake events being bought into as being real,then any 3 day resurrection stories.
There is zero reason to believe that we should have found Jesus's body. So it turns out our good boy David is just accepting a story without even giving it the basic thought process it deserves. Sorry David your argument fails. Then again I would hope that David would have been honest enough with himself not to have bought into 4 unknown authors claiming a resurrection, when he wouldn't buy into 4 of his own friends telling him someone who died 3 days ago was outside playing basketball. This has to be one of the most blatant displays of intellectual dishonesty in a long time and for a guy who claims to have studied theology this argument gives it an even worse black eye then it already has. That's quite a feat for a field that includes clowns like William Lane Craig and Lee Stobel, but alas thats probably where David adapted this from. Those 2 buffoons empty tomb arguments.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A person is taught to see the good in the world and attribute it to god. They look at the world and their lives and attribute the good things that happen them to god. Many christians will ignore the bad or attribute it to satan. There is no evidence that this is the reason any of this happens they are just trained this way. People have a psychological tendency to fall for these types of things. For instance people will go to a psychic like John Edward and he through some tricky help(spies) and the use of statistical guesses will make a claim about someone in the group. Once the person decides this is about them they find a way to confirm the belief that he really is talking to a dead relative or friend. When actually analyzed we find many errors he has made and many misses but the person did not hear these because they want to believe. The same can be said about religion, it makes you want to believe and you confirm the ideas with your own confirmation bias.
Another example would be prayer, prayer works is a common claim among christians. They ignore the failed prayers and are taught to attribute it to gods will. Then they confirm their beliefs with the prayers that actually come true. Even though prayers are usually something you want so you increase the odds of them coming true by working towards them. Other times you may know somebody who was cured of a disease that kills most, they take that person surviving the disease as a sign of god, but fail to see that many people who were prayed for die.
People will confirm miracles or what they call miracles as well. I had one christian tell me it was a miracle he didn't wreck his motorcycle one day. This person was well trained to attribute this to god, without ever considering the number of people who do crash. Another great example is a miracle that was attributed to Mother Theresa had to do with a new film actually working the way it was suppose to. The camera man made a comment about it being a miracle even though it was the film and he knew this, the rumor spread and out of nowhere even the camera man correcting the situation and saying it was the film not really a miracle could not stop this belief.
Another thing they use are what we call spiritual experiences. It can be through the use of music or the community effect or meditative brain states. . Music is often used in a way to get people to think they are experiencing god. The people are trained to actually think that the feeling they are getting through the church music is god. This is ironic as contradictory gods are given credit for this feeling. The same can be said about the use of the community. Being a part of a community can make a person feel better, even improve themselves, this is then attributed to the god of that community. Also, people all throughout religions have what are called as spiritual experiences, if you are in deep prayer in the usa you will attribute this brain experience to jesus, where as if you are in iran you may attribute it to Allah, or a Buddhist may give credit to reaching nirvana.
Speaking of Geographically, I also talk to a lot of Christians who claim to not have been indoctrinated with their belief by their parents. This may be true but chances are these people are American. A place where 80% of the population is Christian. They probably pass several churches on their way to work. They watch tv filled with TV messages that are associated with the christian world view. One of the biggest ironies many Christians will oppose things such as horror movies or heavy metal music that uses the imagery of Satan, which stays within the christian worldview. This makes the person who wants to be good, go against Satan, further ingraining the idea of Jesus is the right decision.
The person desperately wants to believe in religion so they accept the explanation they are given for these experiences on unfounded evidence, the religion self supports itself without actually having to prove these things are actually related to religion. If there is one thing we can say about religion is the design is brilliant from a psychological side.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A man has raped 96 children and there is one witness so I will interview him today. Ok so we have a witness coming forward to all these crimes the one being who saw all this is our Lord and savior who has a multiple personality disorder Yahweh/Jesus. Lets get right to the interview now.
Atheistbebil: Hi Yahweh or Jesus whatever you want me to call you. Thanks for being here.
God: Just call me God, and no problem.
Atheistbebil: Why did you choice to do nothing in this situation.
God: I had to give the guy free will, besides Joe Smoe american was needing help with a struggle because their child didn't agree with them today.
AtheistBebil: So you thought Joe Schmoe americans problem was worth violating free will and not 96 boys being raped? Interesting?
Atheistbebil: You don't find this wrong?
God: not at all. What did you want me to do?
Atheistbebil: Well you are all powerful are you not?
God: Yes, but I couldn't do the obviously right thing that would make the whole concept of faith invalid.
Atheistbebil: So faith is more important to you then actually carrying out your supposed love for the people you claim to love?
God: Come on, thats harsh, if i made it to obvious, you atheists would believe in me, then who could I burn.
Atheistbebil: Guess that gets right to the heart of it.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Ok, the first one will be basic, for this we just need god to be all powerful. Here are the syllogisms that lead to a contradiction.
premise 1: a part of all power is being able to make a rock that anyone cannot pick up
Premise 2: god is all powerful
Conclusion: God can make a rock no one can pick up
Premise 1: a part of being all powerful is being able to pick up any rock
Premise 2: god is all powerful
Conclusion: God can pick up any rock
The problem is this one attribute creates contradictory claims. God cannot pick up the rock he made, yet he can pick up any rock. But lets assume we get past this and have more damning arguments against god. Lets say god is all powerful and perfect. For this argument, what I intend to do is show you have a cognitive dissonance in your head if you believe this. I am going to assume you accept this statement. It is wrong to watch a child get raped if you can stop it. If I can prove god does this then god is perfect is a contradictory belief to that. Here is the argument:
Premise 1: God is all powerful
Premise 2: A part of being all powerful is being able to stop child rape
Conclusion: god can stop child rape
Keep that conclusion in mind we will use it again later in this proof.
Premise 1: God is all powerful
Premise 2: A part of being all powerful is having all knowledge
Conclusion: god has all knowledge
Keep that conclusion for later as well.
Premise 1: A part of being all powerful is being able to choice to act on anything you know
Premise 2: God is all powerful
Conclusion: God can act on anything he knows about
Premise 1: Child rape is something you can know about
Premise 2: God has all knowledge
Conclusion: God has knowledge of child rape
Premise 1: God has knowledge of child rape
Premise 2: god can act on anything he knows about
Conclusion: god can act on the action of child rape
Notice here we have god having the ability to stop child rape, his powers give him the knowledge of it and the ability to act on it. Yet he choices not to. That contradicts the original statement. You know its wrong!
Next we have a god who is all loving and has the guidelines set up that if you accept him you go to heaven if you do not accept him you go to hell. This is specific to Jesus for this case: Jesus is suppose to be all loving. But I intend to dispute that based on the assumption that you are moral enough to know that further torture of the Jewish holocaust victims is not loving.
Ok here's the argument:
Premise 1: If you do not accept Jesus you go to hell
Premise 2: The jews in the holocaust for the most part did not accept Jesus(unproven, but very founded premise)
Conclusion: The jews who died in the holocaust went to hell.
What is hell like torture according to a very many christians.
Premise 1: The jews who died in the holocaust went to hell
Premise 2: To go to hell is to be tortured.
Conclusion: The jews in hell are tortured
That's your Jesus character. This shows Jesus is all loving, yet we admitted at the beginning it is not loving to torture the jewish victims of the holocaust further, yet those are the rules Jesus set up. Contradiction.
These are just a few problems god faces in the world of reality.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Chistian: The bible is the word or inspired word of a perfect god who made perfect laws.
My claim: The bible is a very fallible book that contains immorality and contradictions.
If I am trying to convince a theist that the bible is fallible, why would i bother pointing out the parts that don't contradict that stance. We both know there are parts in the bible that are good and consistent. The difference is are there parts of the bible that are inconsistent or immoral. So if I want to show that god is immoral I will pick parts of the bible such as these:
Judges 11:30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
Or this:2 kings 2: 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys
1 Samuel 6: 15And the Levites took down the ark of the LORD, and the coffer that was with it, wherein the jewels of gold were, and put them on the great stone: and the men of Bethshemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices the same day unto the LORD.
16And when the five lords of the Philistines had seen it, they returned to Ekron the same day.
17And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto the LORD; for Ashdod one, for Gaza one, for Askelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one;
18And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced cities, and of country villages, even unto the great stone of Abel, whereon they set down the ark of the LORD: which stone remaineth unto this day in the field of Joshua, the Bethshemite.
19And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.
Those are just a few of the examples I would use but it would make no sense for me to waste my time in this debate with the parts I feel are consistent with the christian viewpoint. I pick and choose these quotes based on the christian claim. I don't need the other parts, as the claim is attributed to the entire bible and once parts of it are shown not to be consistent it doesn't matter if some parts are.