Dear Anonymous: Part 3 - The Real Meaning of Love

This is the third part of a three part series of posts in response to a commenter at the blog post below:
A Critique of Richard Dawkins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You asked me if I knew what love is--and I believe I do. Love is honor, respect, caring, teaching, and nurturing. I have all of these in my life, and I am grateful for that. There is no reason to love anyone if you know you will not be loved in return. "Loving your enemies" as Christians claim to do, will most likely end in tragedy.   Christians may claim to love their enemies, but for most Christians, this aphorism is quite meaningless, as they have tortured and burned literally millions of their so-called "enemies"--including the innocent medicine women, vilified by the church as "witches." What would America be like if the President "loved his enemies"??--most likely it would not be the America we know today. Loving ones enemies is a trick the power mongers use in order to manipulate the masses into conforming to their will. Love the master=love the enemy. No--loving ones enemy will do nothing to make the world a better place to be.

It is the Capitalist/Christian matrix which promotes such ridiculous paradigms--this needs to change in order for humanity to survive. My goal is not to increase the hate--it is to make those who deserve to be hated take responsibility for their actions. My goal is, as you say to "rid the world of the Christian menace," as I have already explained that the Christian doctrine of salvation leads to moral laxity, and a corrupt society. People such as Harris, Dawkins, myself and others are not espousing despair and hatred, nor are we promoting it. As Shirley Phelps might say, "To what end?" To what end would someone like myself want to promote hatred and despair? Your conclusion on this point makes no logical sense. I promote living, as Jesus said, a "perfect" life. He himself said to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect."--meaning do what is right the FIRST time, and do not choose to lie, steal, commit adultery etc, because, well, you believe you were "born bad" and can't help but be that way. This is total nonsense, and is a philosophy that yes, I want eliminated. If society was taught they are born perfect, and can choose right--the world would be a much better place for us all. There is a great deal of meaning in living a life in which you can make it better for those that follow you. This is what I do. In the near future I will be publishing a post dealing with the subject of perfection, and the Christian misconception of it.

I have no interest in humility.  As I have already mentioned, humility, like loving ones' enemies, makes one vulnerable to someone else's manipulations. I have pride in myself, and in my words and actions. Pride, after all, is not a vice--but is, according to Aristotle, the means between humble and arrogant. Pride is having the proper amount of self-respect, and if you have self -respect, you will be less likely to be led to do things that are improper and/or dangerous. There is no such thing as having too much pride if pride is having the proper amount of self-respect. Yes, I have pride, and I am proud of that...;) For more information on why pride is not a vice, but a virtue, see the following blog posts:

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 2 

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 3 

You go on to say:

" At the moment, you are the enemy and someone like Craig is only going to debate someone with enough listeners that it would matter for eternity. You don’t have enough of an audience to matter right now. That’s not taking a shot, it’s just that only a handful of people have big enough names to warrant attention in this realm right now. "

I would philosophize with anyone, even a homeless hobo who had no connections with anybody, as I am only concerned with the arguments. If however, WL Craig is only looking for the fame and fortune of debating well known atheists, well--that says a great deal about his character. I would debate him anonymously, as I do not care for "fame and fortune." All I care about is the arguments, and getting people to see how absurd Christian dogma truly is in order to reduce moral laxity and avoid more suffering.

Oh, and if I am your "enemy" as you say--how much do you love me?--lol. I had to laugh..... All the more reason, according to your Christian beliefs, to spend time arguing/debating with me. In philosophy, an argument is a set of premises from which a conclusion can be deduced logically. I am more than willing to spend time arguing/debating with theists--whom I do not even claim to love!

You claim I do not admit when I am wrong--and you are wrong. I put forth arguments and it is up to anyone who disagrees to offer their counter arguments and rebuttals. If they are not successful, that is not my fault. Like in this case, you have not refuted any of my arguments, but have merely tried to dissuade me via a personal attack--which is irrelevant to the arguments. I have no problem admitting when I was wrong, or if I do not know something. I have no idea how the universe was created for instance, but if all we have are theories, I will hold to the "best explanation" until proven otherwise, and the supernatural is always going to be the LEAST likely explanation for any type of phenomena. What I do know are via my experiences, and I know that I get great joy in helping people view the world in a different light. By viewing this life and the earth as being precious, and by promoting an altruistic lifestyle, the only life we may ever know becomes that much better.

And I will never "knock it off" as you so desperately want me to. I will continue to inform as many people as I can of the arguments, contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible, and how Christian dogma leads to moral laxity, and how it promotes suffering in the world.

Again, my thanks for the great fodder. Please feel free to comment anytime, and I will respond in kind.

In defense of Atheism--A Critique of Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig

Many know Richard Dawkins as an outspoken advocate of atheism and author of "The God Delusion." He is a well known speaker and has debated the subject of Christianity with many learned theists, including the Archbishop of Canterbury--but he refuses to debate the Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig. Because of this, Dawkins has been labelled by Craig and others, as a coward for not stepping up to take that challenge.

Now, in my view the debates are moot anyway, since the arguments have already been refuted long ago, and I too have offered refutations to WL Craig's arguments on this blog. In his defense, Dawkins claims he does not want to debate anyone who is willing to defend the slaughter of the Canaanites as being necessary --yet he has already debated others who have these same beliefs, including two archbishops of Canturbury--so this excuse makes no sense.  It makes no sense because as Christians, they cannot "disown" as Dawkins puts it, the parts of the bible that reveal the god ordained slaughtering of the innocents. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-15,) To do so would be to negate the authority of the bible--and it would become meaningless. Many scholars however, acknowledge that much of what is written about in war, and in other circumstances, is exaggerated hyperbole--and especially in the case of the slaughter of the Canaanites, the language used is full of bravado, is exaggerated, and is said to be hypberbolic.  Why, as the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" have shown, using  archeological evidence, the battles probably never even happened in the first place.   Jesus however, never "disowned" any part of the Old Testament, and did not claim the OT to be anything but the word of God.  He did not "disown" the so called word of God--and neither can Christians, or they would not be Christains.   Christians seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place concerning this issue, because if we consider some of the bible to be hyperbole, then all of it comes into question and can be considered as such. We have no way of knowing what is hyperbole and what is not. But if they take it literally, then their bible reveals a god who is not at all "all-loving" as he orders the slaughter of innocent women and children. Hmmm.... If Christians disown the slaughter of the innocent Canaanites, they might as well disown the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus as well--perhaps that is hyperbole too. That is, if Christians claim the story of the slaughter of the Canaanites is merely "hyperbole"--then we can say the same thing about the supposed torture and death of Jesus on the cross, and his so-called "resurrection." Perhaps it is just hyperbole too--it never really happened.

Furthermore, according to Christians, Jesus used hyperbole many times, such as when he said "prayer moves mountains." We know that doesn't happen either. Perhaps it is also his use of hyperbole when he claims to be the son of god.  When Jesus said that "me and the father are one"--that too could just be hyperbole--as when I say that "me and my grandmother are one. "  I say this because my grandmother and I share the same philosophy--just as Jesus claimed that he shares the same philosophy with his father. But, it would not mean that I am my grandmother, nor that Jesus is God.

Nevertheless, WL Craig, whom I now label as the "king of strawmen, " (as that is his favorite fallacy) offers weak arguments that can easily be taken apart; but what sets him apart from other apologists is his rhetorical skills. He does not win debates on whether what he is arguing for is the truth or not--it is purely by rhetoric. Now, if Dawkins can be criticized for not being willing to defend his position--so can the apologists. To illustrate how hypocritical many so-called apologists for Jesus are, note what the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight" --the blogger that does not take critical comments on his blog--mentioned in a recent post:

"I don't mind that atheists think atheism is true, and that theism is irrational. That's their view, and they are entitled to hold it and speak it and teach it. But I think that Came is right to say that they should also be willing to defend it in public. Dawkins is clearly not willing to defend his views, and that tells me that he has no reasons to believe them."

Wintery Knight is a blogger who will NOT take comments against his own views, and edits comments to suit his fancy. In other words, he too does not defend his views against criticism. Talk about hypocrisy--but he is not the only one. There are quite a few Christian bloggers out there that are unwilling to post comments from people such as myself because I know how to take apart their arguments and make them look ridiculous. Some of them are Tom Gilson at "Thinking Christian", "Wintery Knight"--and my favorite, JW Wartick, at "Always Have a Reason." Now, there are a few, such as Bill Pratt at "Tough Questions Answered" and Ray Comfort at "Atheist Central" that still do take my comments, and I commend them for that, but for those that do not--they are no different than Dawkins and WL Craig. You see, Craig has also refused to debate certain scholars, as he will not take up the challenge of debating his former student, John Loftus over at "Debunking Christianity", because Craig knows that Loftus knows what he knows!!  Craig has no problem debating people he feels have less knowledge than he does, or weaker rhetorical skills, but Craig refuses to debate Loftus--why? Because he knows Loftus would make a fool out of him.  Craig claims he does not want to debate a former student--which, like his arguments, is just a weak excuse. Craig et al. are hypocrites and cowards, and have no business "defending" their faith against criticism--when they cannot take criticism.

As my mother said long ago--if the theists can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I would debate Craig anytime, and I know I would make him look ridiculous. And to show I am not interested in the publicity, I would do it over the internet as a podcast--anonymously. Would Craig take up the challenge? If he has read my blog--he knows that it would be in his best interest not to take up the challenge because his weak arguments would be defeated.

Theists need to step up their game if they wish to keep up with scholars such as myself--because the cracks in their armor are showing, and I see feathers peeking through.

Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design Argument Refuted--Part 2

 

In my last posting regarding Stephen Meyer's claim that the Intelligent Design argument: "stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself," I argued that there is a hidden premise in his argument; that being if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained. The result being that if there is a designer, then that designer would also need a designer, which I then showed led to a vicious infinite regress via reductio ad absurdum. A comment by someone by the name of Greg was made in which a competing hidden premise was offered:

"... all I have to do to show your argument fails is to disprove your statement that his hidden premise must be what you say it is. Otherwise, you are putting words in his mouth, or, essentially, setting up a straw man. And if that is the case, you are not accepting his premises to be true. You are accepting his premises to be true plus other premises that make his argument fail. I think you would agree as a philosophy professor that this is not the correct way to do the reductio ad absurdum argument."

Keeping in mind the phrase that I have emphasized ("in our cells") means that his hidden premise is not that anything that has intelligence requires an explanation, it is instead that anything with an origin in the finite past that has intelligence requires an explanation."

Let us consider Greg's proposal for the hidden premise. We now have two competing hidden premisses, and I have already shown that my hidden premise leads to an infinite regress. But now let's consider the hidden premise that was offered by Greg as an alternative to mine. Greg's hidden premise is that "anything with an origin in the finite past that has intelligence requires an explanation." Let's assume that Greg's hidden premise is the actual hidden premise. Then we have at least two cases. I will show that both these cases also lead to the same infinite regress, or absurdity, or a contradiction. Case 1 leads to the vicious regress I have already proved. Case 2 leads to a contradiction. That contradiction being there would be no need for further explanation and there is a need for further explanation--for it would have to be shown that the designer was in fact infinite and not finite!

Case 1

Case 1 is that the intelligence or information in our cells is due to design and that the designer is finite. For example, the designer could be an alien scientist who was commissioned to create a planet with information and intelligence in it, so that they could study and research the results. In this case, the designer would have to have information or intelligence, and in which case, the designer would need an explanation, and hence we would have a vicious infinite regress.

Case 2

Case 2 is that the intelligence or information in our cells is due to design and that the designer is infinite. In which case, there would be no need for further explanation. At which point, I would argue, and have argued, that the best explanation for the universe is it being "in its own nature." The best explanation of any so-called "designer" is the universe itself--and not a god. Therefore, the intelligence or information that is in the universe is explained by being "in its own nature."

Now, there would be two reasons why this explanation requires no explanation or proof. One being that the best explanation requires no further explanation, and the commentator’s hidden premise which states that if something is infinite, it requires no further explanation. I define the universe as being infinite, and I base this definition on the new research in quantum mechanics. Quantum fields are said to be infinite, and universes can come from quantum fields. If someone says, "How do you know that the universe is infinite?" We can ask the same question for any other potential designer. Let's assume that the designer is a god. The fact of the matter is, saying that God is infinite by definition just begs the question. Note, that I said that I define the universe as being infinite, but this is not just by definition. There is some scientific evidence that points towards the universe being infinite, but there is no evidence, not even a priori evidence for the existence of a god of any kind, let alone that this god is infinite.

If we accept the Greg's’s hidden premise, then it is clear that if one wishes to consider the designer to be infinite, then we are permitted to ask for an explanation or proof that the designer is indeed infinite. If this is not the case, then it would also be the case as it relates to the universe being infinite--no explanation or proof would be required!

If the designer is said to be god, and is therefore infinite, because god by definition is said to be infinite, then to paraphrase Kant, any first cause argument, in this case ID argument, is dependent on the ontological argument. Kant was correct, since the only answer for god being infinite is by mere definition. Let's consider some of the refutations of the ontological argument:

1. Thomas Aquinas argued that the ontological argument would only be meaningful to someone who knew the essence of God completely, and since only God could completely know his own essence, only God can use the ontological argument to prove his own existence to himself. This undermines any kind of causal argument for God’s existence, including Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design Argument--

from our standpoint, for God only has causal powers on this account from within some larger context that is itself inaccessible to us. So, if the designer is god, and if god exists, then only god would know that he is infinite! The commenter, nor any other person can provide proof that if god exists, that he is infinite, since no one would know his essence.

2. The character of Cleanthes, in David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, argues that no being could ever be proven to exist through an a priori demonstration:

"There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable."

Though this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, it applies to the ontological arguments as well. So again, the ontological argument fails.  Likewise, there is no contradiction in conceiving of a god that is finite, which further illustrates the absurdity of the claim that god is infinite by definition, or a priori.

Hume also pointed out that causal relations are dependent on experience, and the premise of causality is the result of inductive, or a posteriori reasoning. Causal relations are not true a priori, or deductively. We know causal relationships because we have experienced them. However, we do not know if these causal relationships hold for the universe or anything prior to our known universe. Any first cause argument is making a fallacious move because it tries to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond our experience. The premise of causality is based on induction, and thus, experience. All things in the universe that exhibit order, or information, or knowledge, to our knowledge, are created by material, imperfect, finite beings or forces. We have no known instances of an immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything. We have no experience of finite things being caused by an infinite designer, other than perhaps the universe being "in its own nature." Which further supports my argument that the best explanation for intelligence or information in the universe, IS the universe.

This also raises a further problem for the ID argument. How can a designer, who is said to be infinite and eternal, be the cause of intelligence or information in cells which are finite, changeable, and of limited duration, if a cause must be a logically suffi­cient condition of its effect? If the cause is eternal, and the effect follows logically from it, how can the effect not be eternal? The answer is that designer, in so far as he is infinite and eternal, would not be the ade­quate cause of intelligence or information in finite things.

3. William Lane Craig has tried to address this problem by claiming that "...the idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible." According to Craig :
 

 "In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed   in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.  The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained.  This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!"

There are at least two problems with Craig's explanation. The first problem is that I and others like me do not in fact have any "intuitively intelligible notion" of divine causation, nor are we able to explain the supposed relationship between God and the universe.  For every known causal relationship that we know or can conceive of is based in a materialist model of causation and not that of a supernatural model of causation. 

The second problem is that, if we assume that Craig is right, then the same would apply to the universe being the cause of itself. I paraphrase Craig, "This notion certainly applies to the universe causing the universe. If the universes' causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!"

4. In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that if we include existence in the definition of something, then asserting that it exists is a tautology, and if we say that existence is part of the definition of God, i.e an analytic judgment, then we are just repeating ourselves in stating that God exists. It is not a synthetic judgment which adds new information about the real existence of God to the purely conceptual definition of God. Note, that the same thing applies to the property of infinity. Furthermore, if you cannot prove that god exists, then clearly you cannot show that he is infinite! If you can not prove that the proposed designer is infinite, then we have no way of knowing whether the proposed designer is not finite.  If we have no way of knowing that the proposed designer is not finite, then we would need an explanation or proof of the designer in question.

In my last posting regarding Stephen Meyer's argument for intelligent design, which he claims "stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself," I argued that there is a hidden premise in his argument, that being if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained. The result being that if there is a designer, then that designer would also need a designer, which I then showed led to a vicious infinite regress via reductio ad absurdum.

Now, we see that if we accept Greg's hidden premise that "anything that is infinite that has intelligence or information in it requires no explanation," still needs an explanation. The designer would need an explanation and/or proof of being infinite.

So, we have two competing hidden premisses. Either way, Stephen Meyer's argument for intelligent design fails. If we accept my hidden premise, that "if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained, leads to an infinite regress, and if we accept the commentator's hidden premise that "anything with an origin in the finite past that has intelligence requires an explanation," leads to the same vicious regress or a contradiction. That contradiction being there would be no need for further explanation and there is a need for further explanation!--For it would have to be shown that the designer was in fact infinite and not finite! This has not been shown. Therefore, Stephen Meyer's argument for intelligent design fails.

According to WL Craig's Argument, It's "Possible" Yahweh is a Sadistic Monster, or Moogooboogoo is God.

In his paper, "No Other Name":A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ", William Lane Craig attempts to show that the premises below are compatible with Christian salvation. Using Craig's own words, and the laws of substitution, this post will illustrate how, according to Craig, any: "proposition need not be plausible or even true; it need be only a possibly true proposition, even if it is contingently false."-- essentially means that ANY possibility can be true--even the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god of an unknown tribe in the jungle exists, and that if Christians do not know him, they can still be saved. Or, we could also create a new "possibly true" proposition in which Yahweh is a sadistic monster.

Below are the premises from Craig's argument:

"1. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent

is inconsistent with

2. Some persons do not receive Christ and are damned.

Since (1) is essential to theism, we must therefore deny (2).

In order to show (1) and (2) to be consistent, the orthodox defender has to come up with a proposition which is consistent with (1) and which together with (1) entails (2). This proposition need not be plausible or even true; it need be only a possibly true proposition, even if it is contingently false."

Now, let's apply WL Craig's logic and use the laws of substitution. I can also say that:

1. Moogooboogoo (a possible god of an unknown tribe in the jungle) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

is inconsistent with

2. Some persons do not receive Moogooboogoo and are damned.

The above premises are "possibly true." Just because Craig does not know about the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god Moogooboogoo, does not mean that this god does not exist. What is even worse for Christians, is that according to Craig's claim that a "proposition need not be plausible or even true; it need be only a possibly true proposition, even if it is contingently false" this means I can make substitutions in his argument which need only be possibly true, and it is also "possibly true" that his god is a malevolent, sadistic, misogynistic monster:

1. Yahweh is a sadistic, malevolent, misogynistic monster

2. Some persons do not receive Yahweh/Jesus and are damned.

As an ignostic atheist, I believe there are better explanations for phenomena than saying "goddidit" however, even if we assume his god exists, according to what is written in the bible, my premises are not only possible, they are plausible. I came up with an argument in which (1) and (2) are consistent, and a proposition which is consistent with (1) and which together with (1) entails (2)."

Using WL Craig's logic and the bible, it is just as plausible that Yahweh, if he existed, IS a sadistic, malevolent misogynistic monster, and according to the bible, those that do not receive this monster, are damned--possibly to a life of bliss.

1. Killing defenseless children, fetuses, and pregnant mothers is sadistic and malevolent.

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16

2. Yahweh is misogynistic, as women are represented as unclean chattel in the bible, and had been treated as property with no rights of their own for thousands of years due to passages such as those cited below, which are only two of many such passages in the bible:

"How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?" Job 25:4

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Col. 3:18


3.  Yahweh is not all good.  For if Yahweh was all good, then he would be all virtuous, but the bible tells us Yahweh is an angry, jealous god--which are vices.  Therefore, Yahweh is not all-virtuous, and not "all-good." 

Therefore, I have gone one step further and have shown that it IS possible and plausible that Yahweh is a sadistic, malevolent misogynistic monster and as such, being "saved" might entail being "saved" to be eternally tortured for the pleasure of this god; and being damned might be the ultimate joke on humanity. It is possible that since so many evil people are rewarded in life, they too might be "damned" with eternal bliss in the after life by this misogynistic, sadistic god. If this is possible, then perhaps Christians would be better off worshipping Moogooboogoo.

Of God and Unicorns--Why JW Wartick Fails Again

 

In a recent blog post, Christian JW Wartick claims that atheists are "appealing to emotion" when they claim there is as much evidence for unicorns as there is for god. This is not an appeal to emotion. While some atheists may use this argument in the manner and fashion Wartick points out, I can show that it can be used as an argument by analogy, and not as an "appeal to emotion."

An appeal to emotion is a fallacy which presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason, and is intended to draw knee-jerk emotions from the acquirer of the information with the intent of convincing them that the fallacious argument is true without offering any substantial proof of the argument that is offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid. It is clear that some atheists, as well as some Christians use the "appeal to emotions" fallacy, and this fallacy has also been one of the most successful ploys Christians use in gaining converts, as Christianity can offer no proof for any of its major eschatological claims, which is why they resort to an appeal to the emotions.

Wartick and other theists such as WL Craig claim that atheists make the mistake of claiming that if there is no empirical evidence of something, then that something does not exist--which is a mistake of Positivism. The unicorn argument can be made without making the mistake of Positivism. It merely states the fact that there is as much evidence for god as there is for unicorns. So it can be made without making an appeal to emotions, or resorting to Positivism; but merely as a statement of fact. This statement of fact can then be used to draw a correlation between god and unicorns, and thus, is the basis of an argument by analogy. It provides a rational link that Wartick claims cannot be provided. Wartick made the statement:

"Think about it, when you hear these phrases,(comparing unicorns to god) what rational process goes on? There is no rational link between unicorns and theism. There is no reason to correlate the two. ...The atheist is attempting to psychologically discredit Christianity without ever engaging any kind of logical reasoning."

Again, Wartick is mistaken. The correlation between the two is the fact that there is no evidence for either. This is not to say however, that gods and unicorns do not exist. It is only to say that there is no evidence for either one--which is a correlation. One thing the unicorn argument illustrates to Christians who claim to "know" that their god exists, is to remind them that their claims amount to nothing more than the the claims made by others who believe in unicorns, or leprechauns or Santa Claus or any other entity that has no proof of existence. The unicorn argument is not to show that god does not exist, it is merely to remind Christians that their lofty claims of "knowing" god exists, has no foundation or support, as there is as much evidence for their god, as there is for unicorns.

Wartick further points out, if the logical Positivists were true, then:

"If the Christian’s account of God was found to be incoherent, then God would not exist. It would, in fact, be impossible for God to exist were his nature contradictory...By assuming that God can only be disproven by empirical evidence, they (atheists) uncritically advance a philosophical enterprise which has largely been abandoned within modern philosophy."

While some atheists may make this mistake, Wartick, as he often does, has overgeneralized--not all atheists make this mistake. The fact that there is not a coherent explanation of something does not mean that it does not exist. However, let me paraphrase a point that Quine makes in his essay, "On What There Is":

"In debating over what there is, there are still reasons for operating on a semantical plane. One reason is to escape from the predicament between the atheists and theists, of atheists not being able to admit that there are things which theists countenances and atheists do not. So long as atheists adhere to their ontology, as opposed to theists, atheists cannot allow their bound variable to refer to entities which belong to theist's ontology and not to their own. Atheists can, however, consistently describe their disagreement by characterizing the statements which theists affirm. Provided merely that atheists' ontology countenances linguistic forms or at least concrete inscriptions and utterances, atheists can talk about theistic sentences."*

For example, the atheists can argue that the Christian conception of god is contradictory, as this simple logic below illustrates. Christians claim their god is love, but logic tells us otherwise. The following verses are analyzed logically to illustrate their contradictory nature. They also prove that Yahweh is NOT love:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," Exodus 20:5

In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:

If god is love, then god is not jealous.

God is jealous.

Therefore god is not love. 
 

This conclusion is catastrophic for Christians, as it negates their entire philosophy of “God is Love.” God cannot be love, if God is jealous, but God IS jealous. Therefore, God cannot be love.

The fact that the atheist is carrying on this discussion with a Christian does not prove or disprove that a god exists, but it does prove that the Christian conception of god as being love is "false," based on their own claims and ontology. When I, as an Ignostic Atheist, make the claim that there is as much evidence for the Christian god as there is for unicorns, it is merely as a reminder to Christians that their claims amount to nothing more than the the claims made by others who believe in unicorns, or leprechauns or Santa Claus or any other entity that has no proof of existence. The unicorn argument is not to show that god does not exist, it is merely to remind Christians that their lofty claims of "knowing" god exists, has no foundation or support, as there is as much evidence for their god, as there is for unicorns. As far as I know, unicorns and leprechauns and even Santa Claus, might exist!

*Analytic philosophy: an anthology By Aloysius Martinich, David Sosa, "On What There Is" Quine, p. 141

Addendum:  I let JW Wartick know about this post, and here is his reply, and my response:

JW Wartick: I appreciate your interest in my post. I think the whole case really boils down to this statement you make in your response:
“The correlation between the two [God and unicorns] is the fact that there is no evidence for either.”
This is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Have you examined every piece of evidence brought to the table to defend theism? Have you explored every corner of the galaxy? Have you read every philosophical work presenting logical evidence for the existence of God?
You’re making an assertion of a universal negative. You must support that claim somehow, yet in the whole post you don’t. And that’s the problem with statements like the ‘unicorn’ phrase: they are mere assumptions.

A is for Atheist: Exactly! That’s my whole point! Christians claim to “know” god exists, is not a claim of knowledge, it is a mere assumption. How does a Christian know that Brahman is not god, or Zeus is not god, or that unicorns do not exist? Have they been to every corner of the galaxy? Now do you see the correlation?
The theist is the one that is making the claim they know something exists. Where is the evidence? Just like the unicorn may actually exist, but where is the evidence? The fact that you cannot present evidence, does not mean that the unicorn does not exist. Likewise, with Brahman, Zeus, or any other god or goddess.

William Lane Craig Defeated Part 3--The Kalam Cosmological Argument

First, ironically, the Kalam Cosmological argument has Islamic roots, so  one of WL Craig favorite arguments that he uses as a defense for Yahweh, is also a defense of Allah. However, the argument is weak in either case. The argument as stated below "presumes too much."

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

Many Christians believe the universe came from nothing, and that their god created everything from nothing, but they do not agree that the universe could come from nothing on its own without their god, or that the universe has always existed. Did the universe begin to exist? Not necessarily. As Stephen Hawking points out in "A Brief History of Time":

"...the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. Once could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." (A Brief History of Time, p. 175)

Thus, we have another plausible explanation for the existence of the universe , which makes P1 questionable, and makes this a very weak argument for the existence of any god. The universe did not necessarily begin, and therefore, does not necessarily require a cause.

In any case, if we assume it was caused by a god, that god would not necessarily be the Christian god, or the Islamic god, or the Jewish god--even though they ARE the same god! If this argument was a good argument, it would only prove that some gods and goddesses may have caused the universe. It could apply to Zeus, or Jupiter, or Brahman or any number of the thousands of gods and goddesses created by humanity. Via Ockham's razor, and quantum mechanics, the BEST plausible explanation in this case would be via science and the H-D method, in which case no gods or goddesses need apply.

* Diagram taken from: http://everythingforever.com/st_order.htm
 

William Lane Craig's Best Explanation Move for the Existence of God is Impotent

  Let us examine the "Best Explanation Move."  The Best Explanation Move is a scientific move.  It is founded on having a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations. This is known as the scientific method or the "Hypothetico-Deductive" method. We pose a series of hypotheses and then see if the predicted consequences actually follow. If they do, we conclude that a hypothesis is confirmed. Two conditions must be met for the best explanation move: 1. The first condition to be met is that you must  have a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations, and 2. The second condition is that a hypothesis has to do a better job than any of its existing rivals.  I will use two examples to illustrate:

For example, we now think that infectious diseases are the result of microorganisms.  In the past, people used to think that disease was the result of bad air, usually the night air--or the result of being inhabited by evil spirits.  A simplified discussion of this is revealed in the following argument, with:

h = germ theory of disease

O1 = when we examine the blood and lungs of those who have an infectious disease (such as tuberculosis) we find a microorganism ( in the case of tuberculosis, the mycobacterium tubuerculosis)

O2 = the observation that when this microorganism is injected into animals who can contract the disease, and they do contract 

O3= those who have never been exposed to the disease do not have the microorganism

h' = infectious disease is caused either by bad night air or by evil spirits. 

P1.  If h, then O1, O2, O3

P2. O1, O2, O3

P3. h does a better job in explaining the disease phenomena than h'.

P4. h fits in with other related h's that are themselves confirmed.

C. Therefore, h. 

 

Against JW Wartick--Why Arguments are so Important

Recently, I made comments on the Christian blogger, JW Wartick's blog concerning the debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss-- he refused to post my last comment which illustrated that my argument against Craig was successful, and that he had not provided any counter argument to that point otherwise.  JW Wartick also read my blog posting on  The Existence of Contingent Beings. and referred to my post on his blog.  I kept a record of the entire conversation.  JW Wartick resorted to ad hominem, by asking for my credentials, and claiming that I am not a professor of philosophy and religion--which is neither here nor there, as it is the arguments that count--not whether or not I have a diploma on the wall.  When I consider an argument, I judge it by whether it is valid and sound.  In the course of our discussion, JW Wartick would not stick to the argument at hand, so I continued to call him out on it, and asked him for his counter arguments, but all he did was circumvent the issue.  Instead of sticking to my arguments, and offering counter arguments, he merely continued to say "You cannot say that"--without providing any arguments to back it up.

The "Fear of Atheism"--according to Dr. William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Sam Harris

-->

I recently read a post by the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight," who quoted Dr. William Lane Craig after the April 7, 2011 debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame University. Dr. Craig is apparently trying to do the old "switcheroo" by claiming that the "new atheists" are "blue collar, and uneducated." I had to lol.....

This is what Dr. Craig said:

"I wonder is something culturally significant is going on here. Several years ago, I asked the Warden at Tyndale House in Cambridge why it is that British society is so secular when Britain has such a rich legacy of great Christian scholars. He replied, “Oh, Christianity is not underrepresented among the intelligentsia. It’s the working classes which are so secular.” He explained that these folks are never exposed to Christian scholarship because of their lack of education. As a result there is a sort of pervasive, uninformed, village atheism among them. I wonder if something like this could be happening in the States. I was surprised to see the number of blue collar folks from the community buying Harris’ book and thanking him for all he has done. They didn’t seem to have any inkling that his views had just been systematically exposed as logically incoherent. The intelligentsia have almost universally panned Harris’ recent book (read the reviews!). Yet it is lapped up in popular culture. Wouldn’t it be amazing if unbelief became the possession mainly of the uneducated?"

The reason why I began this blog, and I go to conferences, and write papers, and talk to people in general at Socrates cafes, book stores, or to anyone anywhere interested in religion and philosophy, is to give everyone the opportunity to learn what religion, and Christianity in particular, is all about--the educated and the uneducated alike.  Note, that I am offended that Dr. Craig implies that the uneducated are too ignorant to understand what is going on.  Oh, quite the contrary.  Once, on the way to a conference, I was invited to stay at a bishop's home, and I did.  It was a beautiful home, and he took me around to show me all the beautiful things in it--from marble floors to exquisite art work.  He tried to enlist me to join his ranks, as I would have much more power, money, and influence to change society in the direction that I was working towards, such as equality, and rights for women.  I told him that it was my duty and goal to inform as many people that I could of all the arguments and explanations as they relate to religion, and Christianity in particular, and philosophy in general, to invoke reflectivity, with the hope that people would choose the truth for themselves once they heard all the arguments and explanations.  The bishop said to me, "Oh, the poor ignorant peasants don't need to know too much.--and that is is why the Bible was translated into Latin in the first place, and was not translated into other languages, so that less people could read and understand it.  The poor ignorant peasants would be too confused, and it is for their own good not to know."  He offered me the opportunity to earn a PhD of theology at their seminary, and said I could choose ANY church in his domain, including Jamaica!!--lol.  Of course, I rejected this, and told him that he should be ashamed of himself for deceiving the masses.  The so-called "uneducated peasants" ARE able to understand and choose the best arguments and explanations when they are provided with all the information.  This is my goal, and I have converted many educated and uneducated people. 

Besides the fact I have already exposed some of Dr. Craig's arguments as being fallacious in this blog (and I will continue to do so as time allows) Dr. Craig obviously did not read Ravi Zacharias' book "Beyond Opinion" as another prominent theist, Alister McGrath, said quite the opposite. Mr. McGrath made the comment that the increased atheism in the West is due to the "Enlightenment" i.e. EDUCATION and knowledge. It is only in oppressed nations such as those in Africa, where Christianity is gaining new converts by giving followers what I claim is "false hope":

""Interestingly, atheism has very limited influence outside Western culture. The only African nation in which it has any significant presence is South Africa, predominantly among the white population. This is a telling indicator of its Western roots, and therefor its predominantly Western appeal. But there is more to this observation than at first seems to be the case. It is not simply that atheism is a Western product/ It is actually a product of one specific area in Western culture: The Enlightenment, or modernity."

(Beyond Opinion, Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)

In fact, I was a theist myself, until I went to college and took every religion course offered. I also took philosophy, where I learned logic, and how to think critically and reflectively, and I believe small children should be taught this skill as well. Today, children and adults go by the rote method, and most do not have the skills to think reflectively or critically, which is why people believe and do things without questioning why--which is dangerous.

While in college, I also learned multiple explanations for biblical text, and the inconsistencies, interpolations, and contradictions, led to the realization that it is nothing but badly written mythology--plagiarized mythology at that. According to Wintery Knight's blog, theists would like their mythology taught as fact in schools, and are encouraging educated Christians to become part of the system to create a "theocracy" in the US:

"It seems that if we had a individuals …with full-on Christian worldviews who have risen to the highest levels of authority in places like the educational system, that they could make just as much impact as what is happening now."

--We cannot allow that to happen if we wish to continue to "evolve."

Christianity became mainstream due to "the sword, or the noose, or various methods of torture" around the world in areas such as Africa*, South America, and of course North America** and Europe***; but now we have a different methodology--education.  Education is a factor that can lead to atheism--I am living proof of that. Western culture and the "Enlightenment" is also showing this to be true. Keep it up people.  Let's put the "fear of atheism" into them....lolol.....

*"European Christianity and the Atlantic Slave Trade: A Black Hermeneutical Study," By Robinson A. Milwood, p.30

**"Introduction to Christianity" By Mary Jo Weaver, David Brakke p. 164
***"The dark side of Christian History" - Helen Ellerbie 


 Addendum--Wintery Knight has not published the comment I made to his posting--I don't wonder why.....