Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[HitchSlap]

...or if you can't conceive of it, then it must not be so, ay?

Given the misery of human evolution and survival, would a conception of a benevolent god be warranted?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Out of nothing? I may be god then if I could do that?

Given unlimited power, could you create a square circle?

There are categories of concepts. God and Universe would be in the fundamental category. Quarks and North Korea would be in derivative.

Because why?

Maybe for your worldview. But I find it very limiting personally.

Yes. It limits the amount of nonsense brought into conversations. I allow you to assume *anything you like*, but if you can't show me something interesting with your assumptions, then I stop paying attention to you. I think this is as fair as you can hope for.

 

[devolved]

I really don't understand what you're trying to convey, here.

If you have hard time understanding the concept, I'll leave a lengthy explanation for another day.

Me: It's like asking for evidence that Universe exist. It's a nonsensical demand.
You: So, it could be a firmament, and not a universe?

No. People can be false about their structural understanding of concepts. The concept of Universe existing doesn't require structural accuracy. The same goes for the concept of God.

We assume it exists, because we've been able to observe it. Before this, we assumed it was a firmament.

Who is that all-inclusive "we" who were able to observe the entire Universe? That's news.

Sounds like an argument from incredulity.

Sounds like you don't understand the limits of informal fallacies and what these are for.

For over 200k years, humans had no clue of our origins, so god/s and myths became that placeholder to quench our curiosity and desire to make sense of the world around us.

Well, to me it communicates our disposition to project transcendent nature of our origin, independent of culture, era, or geolocation. I'm sure you'd think otherwise, given the axiomatic framework you work with.

 

[devolved]

Given unlimited power, could you create a square circle?

Given unlimited power I would give you more information and understanding, so you could ask better questions.

Because why?

Because assumptions about the nature of existence are more fundamental than questions about labeling arrangements in that existence. That's why.

I allow you to assume *anything you like*, but if you can't show me something interesting with your assumptions, then I stop paying attention to you. I think this is as fair as you can hope for.

Well, thank you, your supreme majesty for allowing me to assume things... and allowing me the opportunity to entertain your interests.

Should I keep dancing for you? Or perhaps a poem would do instead?

 

[HitchSlap]

If you have hard time understanding the concept, I'll leave a lengthy explanation for another day.

I'm not convinced it will help, but if you feel so inclined, knock yourself out.

No. People can be false about their structural understanding of concepts.

Right. Which is why evidence is important.

The concept of Universe existing doesn't require structural accuracy.

Which is why a firmament was thought to exist.

The same goes for the concept of God.

Which is why evidence is important to constructing legitimate concepts. It allows one to hold ideas that comport with reality.

Who is that all-inclusive "we" who were able to observe the entire Universe?

You, me, us, mankind. It's available for anyone willing to look.

That's news.

No doubt.

Sounds like you don't understand the limits of informal fallacies and what these are for.

Which is what theists like to say when they realize their concept of god is based on logical fallacies.

Well, to me it communicates our disposition to project transcendent nature of our origin, independent of culture, era, or geolocation. I'm sure you'd think otherwise, given the axiomatic framework you work with.

My "axiomatic framework" is exactly like yours, minus one less assumption.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Given unlimited power I would give you more information and understanding, so you could ask better questions.

Is this an admission that you're doing a terrible job of it at the moment?

Because assumptions about the nature of existence are more fundamental than questions about labeling arrangements in that existence. That's why.

Fundamental to what?

Well, thank you, your supreme majesty for allowing me to assume things... and allowing me the opportunity to entertain your interests.



Should I keep dancing for you? Or perhaps a poem would do instead?

Dance for me, my jester.

 

[devolved]

Is this an admission that you're doing a terrible job of it at the moment?

Your education is not my job... So no.

Fundamental to what?

Fundamental to a coherent view of reality

Dance for me, my jester.

Sure, but first... It's...

https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.463931581.2609/raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.u7.jpg

 

[devolved]

Right. Which is why evidence is important.

Sure, but any given set of facts used as evidence will exist in a framework of certain interpretation of reality. Before you get to call and showcase some facts as evidence, you first have to know what that thing is and what it does and how it works and relates to other things in context of your perception. And that framework structures one's understanding of reality.

If one is to bring in something that's contrary to one's understanding of conceptual relationships and says that it really works differently in context of a different model of reality, then such idea is discounted as incoherent and not "evidence" by those who don't ascribe to that model. So evidence is always secondary to the fundamental assumptions you make.

For example, we can take something like simulation hypothesis and say that we are a momentary flicker of a Boltzman brain or the eventuality of technological progress that ends up with simulated realities that simulate other realities ... Etc. Such assumption is derived from facts we observe now that can be used as some line of evidence to derive such views.

If one makes a fundamental assumption that this reality is a simulation, then one's interpretation of facts would likewise change in some cases. Not all, but in some cases it would be attributed to the simulation context.

So, your view and interpretation of evidence will always be driven by pre-existing framework of assumptions you take on and utilize.

Which is why a firmament was thought to exist.

Firmament was thought to exist for the same reason 10 different interpretation of quantum phenomenon are thought to exist. It was not the only cosmological view in antiquity, neither it was the dominant one.

Which is why evidence is important to constructing legitimate concepts. It allows one to hold ideas that comport with reality.

Evidence is important in context of known factors. When you are exploring unknown, you have to make assumptions about how that unknown interacts with known. Any evidence you present would be a projection of your pre-existing assumptions about that.

You, me, us, mankind. It's available for anyone willing to look.

You can observe the entire Universe? Again, that'll be the news I was referring to. We call universe everything in existence, both observable and not.

Which is what theists like to say when they realize their concept of god is based on logical fallacies.

No. This is what any educated person should say to people who think informal logic is absolute.

So, please, educate yourself before you get into these kinds of discussions and invoke fallacies as some magic rules that make things untrue.

On the Misuse of Informal Logic

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your education is not my job... So no.

I'm already educated. If you were also, you'd have given a snarky response to my challenge of creating a square circle. Such a response is geometrically available, and you are pushing every big red button you can see. So clearly you aren't educated enough to describe a metric space in which a square circle could reside. You instead went with a joke about creatio ex nihilo which contradicts your actual beliefs, as I show below.

Fundamental to a coherent view of reality

devolved: There are categories of concepts. God and Universe would be in the fundamental category. Quarks and North Korea would be in derivative.

Nihilist Virus: Because why?

devolved: Because assumptions about the nature of existence are more fundamental than questions about labeling arrangements in that existence. That's why.

Nihilist Virus: Fundamental to what?

devolved: Fundamental to a coherent view of reality



Why is the assumption that God exists fundamental to a coherent view of reality?

Back in post #100 you implied that God is capable of creatio ex nihilo:

"Out of nothing? I may be god then if I could do that?"

But you haven't been serious for even one sentence on this thread. On another thread, however, you renounced creatio ex nihilo:

Term "nothing" in most religious settings generally means "chaos". Even in genesis you have God organizing the world out of chaos.

So, the idea of "nothing out of something" is more like a concept of order out of chaos. Fundamentalists tend to look at these terms literally, but the literal term of "nothing" is, of course nonsensical, because it refers to non-existing things, or negation of something.

Hence, it's not a causal relationship where God would conjure something up out of absolute "nothingness". Of course, semantically it's absurd and self-negating concept.

So in what way is God fundamental to reality? He was not necessary for creation according to you. Is it fine tuning? But you already said that "quarks and North Korea would be in derivative" which you absolutely distinguish from "fundamental."

So... no fine tuning, no creatio ex nihilo... where is this fundamental aspect of God?

Sure, but first... It's...

https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.463931581.2609/raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.u7.jpg

Right... I won't hold my breath for a serious response.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Given the misery of human evolution and survival, would a conception of a benevolent god be warranted?

...actually, the answer to this whole "Evil problem" will depend upon what kind of answer a person is willing to accept. Arriving at an answer on this topic isn't, and won't be, derived out of some kind of purely logical process. Why? Because there are Epistemological, Metaphysical AND Axiological factors (of both kinds) involved in any one person's assessment about just how good a job he/she thinks God has done. ....so, it's not a clear-cut conclusion.

 

[Uber Genius]

Pain of soul and sin are not created by God. How real they can be then??

So your children weren't created by God but they are real aren't they. There are certainly other intelligent agents that create things, and secondary causes like the formation of galaxies, and solar systems, planets, etc.

So I don't think we want to be in the place of saying if God didn't create it it therefore doesn't exist. Further, was Jesus' separation from his Father when he suffered for our sins painful to his soul?

"My God, my God why do you forsake me?"

 

[Uber Genius]

Your line of reasoning is simply a joke! That's however the typical trick of your kind.

We can do better than goading with sweeping generalizations. The point of this exercise on "Tricks," is to help us all think better. And to engage the good arguments on both sides of the debate.

You have done an adequate job of engaging the epistemic problem with your proof of eating example it seems.

 

[Uber Genius]

In the scope of axioms, the evidence is irrelevant. What's relevant is philosophical coherence of a concept that either holds up in your mind or not given what you observe in reality (your view of evidence).

Evidence is only relevant in a scope of our axiomatic agreement. If we disagree, then what good would evidence do?

Thanks for bringing us back to the topic of epistemology. We can say some things about axioms I suppose. Not all axioms are created equal. But axioms are determined often by what intuitively seems to necessarily be the case. Such as the principle of identity, law of the excluded middle, law of contradiction, etc. are axiomatic to the field of logic. We can prove these axioms it just appears that they are always the case.

My beliefs based on my senses are defeasible (seeing a stick appear to bend when it is placed in water) can initially present me with a false belief, but on further examination can produce the knowledge of the limits of that perception. So too my intuitions about the world are defeasible. So the discovery of inferences regarding questions like, "Does God Exist," seem to be an accumulation of arguments and evidence that tugs back and forth.

I have friends and family with such horrible a posteriori evidence from ridiculous amounts of evil and suffering across their lives than no a priori evidence would suffice to defeat their atheistic apprehensions.

Similarly on the theistic side of the equation we see a wide distribution of a priori and a posteriori justification for belief.

Anecdotally I would suggest that most of the justifications I have heard tend toward what Alvin Plantinga calls, "Sensus Divinitatus." They would say that they had a sense that God existed and was personal. They would say that when they prayed they experienced an uncommon experience of peace.

Again, recognizing on all sides that we are limited in our knowledge and not producing a definitive proof (as are Scholastic compartriates attempted), seems to be the beginning of wisdom.

My approach out on this particular series of topics is to expose fallacious arguments on both sides of the debate. There seems to be enough difficulty in gaining knowledge qua Gods existence, without muddling it up further with rhetorical flourish or fallacious tricks.

 

[Uber Genius]

It's like asking for evidence that Universe exist. It's a nonsensical demand.

Hmm, not sure what to make of this statement. Is this some Cartesian puzzle?

If you aren't going to grant the universe exists (an external world) then why think other minds exist or the reality or the reality of the past. Are you going to support solipsism?

That is strong skepticism a la Descartes. Not even Hume was this skeptical.

But if your comment was just a commitment to Enlightenment evidentialism then that is a discussion for another thread altogether.

Your comment about foundational beliefs being "circularly," connected to other beliefs seems to suggest evidentialism - A topic too dense for this particular thread.

It seems that those reacting to evidentialism have rejected it broadly for a century or so. Especially when it comes to what we can know about religious claims it seems we have other types of knowledge that are self-evident, or beliefs due to introspection and recall of experiences. Types of knowledge we utilize every day in our professional lives and knowledge every courtroom in modern society would except but evidentialism would reject. Further intuitions about moral duties would seem to always fail to meet the evidentialists test, yet how many want to defend the claim that Hitler's genocide of the Jews was necessarily morally neutral?

So my position would be that evidentialism just reduces what one can call "knowledge," into a smaller set that if applied equally to our knowledge base would similarly destructive of historical, sociological, psychological, legal, and even scientific claims such as theoretical physics, archeology, forensic science, paleontology, etc.

This method does take a page from scientism (verificationism) and one could ask what "Evidence" can be produced that evidentialism is the proper way of knowing, just as we can ask that of verificationism after inserting the word "empirical" in front of "Evidence."

So I could pose such a question but it seems that the audience on both sides of this debate are poorly informed on the subject out here at CF. So it may be a discussion between you and I and perhaps 2Philo and one or two others at most.

 

[devolved]

Hmm, not sure what to make of this statement. Is this some Cartesian puzzle?

No. It's a rather straightforward assumption, because the very definition of the Universe assumes existence.

One can assume some axiomatic view in which Universe doesn't exist, but such an axiom doesn't make the view of reality more coherent in terms of our everyday network of knowledge we share with the rest of humanity.

If you aren't going to grant the universe exists (an external world) then why think other minds exist or the reality or the reality of the past. Are you going to support solipsism?

That is strong skepticism a la Descartes. Not even Hume was this skeptical.

Not sure why you think I am questioning the existence of the Universe? Perhaps you've misread my intent of this?

I'm trying to point out that certain assumptions, like the Universe existing
... and God existing in some variation of that concept, are foundational to a coherent view of reality.

 

[devolved]

Your comment about foundational beliefs being "circularly," connected to other beliefs seems to suggest evidentialism - A topic too dense for this particular thread.

It seems that those reacting to evidentialism have rejected it broadly for a century or so. Especially when it comes to what we can know about religious claims it seems we have other types of knowledge that are self-evident, or beliefs due to introspection and recall of experiences. Types of knowledge we utilize every day in our professional lives and knowledge every courtroom in modern society would except but evidentialism would reject. Further intuitions about moral duties would seem to always fail to meet the evidentialists test, yet how many want to defend the claim that Hitler's genocide of the Jews was necessarily morally neutral?

Evidentialism approach is useful and even necessary in a scope of a framework built on some chain of axioms.

The large issue is that it doesn't work for fundamental assumptions without resorting back to axiomatic circularity.

Neither it exists to test inherent validity of any claim. Evidentialism assumes that there are sufficiently distinguishable causal consequences that can be presented as evidence for any given claim. But that simply doesn't work for events where multiple causal variables are in play, and many of which are hidden.

However, it doesn't mean that it's not useful or unreliable in a scope of the axiomatic assumptions that are made.

For example, there are plenty of theads on this forum that assume framework of Christian fundamentalism (the classic one based on 12 principles outlined at the turn of the century) , and these consequently resort to evidentialism to debate any given point, largely through prooftexting and historical data.

 

[devolved]

I'm already educated. If you were also, you'd have given a snarky response to my challenge of creating a square circle. Such a response is geometrically available, and you are pushing every big red button you can see. So clearly you aren't educated enough to describe a metric space in which a square circle could reside. You instead went with a joke about creatio ex nihilo which contradicts your actual beliefs, as I show below.

Now you will dictate which jokes I should respond with? And further you demand that my jokes should be consistent with my actual views in reality?

But you haven't been serious for even one sentence on this thread. On another thread, however, you renounced creatio ex nihilo:

I have been mostly serious on this thread, with few exceptions in your case, where I don't see a reason to take some of your attitudes seriously. Hence I can't really expect a productive conversation in that regard. Especially given your attitude toward keeping your attention as though I am knocking on your door and begging for a conversation with you.

If you don't want to respond or carry on a conversation... Then don't. If you are going to discuss, then discuss the issues instead of projecting your sense of overinflated importance.

He was not necessary for creation according to you. Is it fine tuning? But you already said that "quarks and North Korea would be in derivative" which you absolutely distinguish from "fundamental."

So... no fine tuning, no creatio ex nihilo... where is this fundamental aspect of God?

The fundamental aspect of God is in the core of fundamental assumptions one can make about reality. In terms of what we do observe in reality, there are a limited set of fundental assumptions one can make to keep a framework of knowledge coherent. God would be one of those assumptions.

You can leave the concept of God out as an assumption, but then you would be left to assume some alternatives about the nature of reality that makes the framework of knowledge less coherent IMO.

Just to add some semantic clarity. Fundamental means foundational. It's a concept that would drastically alter ones view of reality If added or removed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Now you will dictate which jokes I should respond with? And further you demand that my jokes should be consistent with my actual views in reality?

You seem to be confused. I'm not commanding you to do anything. Just pointing out your apparent ignorance based upon your obvious desire to be snarky at every opportunity while also not taking advantage of an opportunity. And yet you implied I lack education. Lol.

I have been mostly serious on this thread, with few exceptions in your case, where I don't see a reason to take some of your attitudes seriously. Hence I can't really expect a productive conversation in that regard. Especially given your attitude toward keeping your attention as though I am knocking on your door and begging for a conversation with you.

I was talking to someone else and you barged in on the conversation with sarcasm and insults. Now you say this? Absurd. I'm all for barging in and being blunt, but when you take that approach you lose the right to cry about how you're treated.

If you don't want to respond or carry on a conversation... Then don't. If you are going to discuss, then discuss the issues instead of projecting your sense of overinflated importance.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say. You've spent most of your energy being sarcastic and rude. I couldn't care less if you run away to your safe space or if you stand your ground.

The fundamental aspect of God is in the core of fundamental assumptions one can make about reality.

What is this actually saying? You're neither communicating useful information nor are you constructing some useful method for obtaining information.

In terms of what we do observe in reality, there are a limited set of fundental assumptions one can make to keep a framework of knowledge coherent. God would be one of those assumptions.

Why? Explain how a framework of knowledge is not coherent without God or how it is coherent with God.

You've accomplished *nothing*. You keep asserting that God is a fundamental assumption. In STEM fields and philosophy alike, assumptions are liabilities and if you do not leverage your assumption to do something useful then you drop the assumption. Assuming God's existence for no reason is the most worthless position possible to take. Put down the Plantinga and come back to reality.

You can leave the concept of God out as an assumption, but then you would be left to assume some alternatives about the nature of reality that makes the framework of knowledge less coherent IMO.

Wait... in your opinion? You have no reasons or arguments? This is just your personal opinion? What are these alternative assumptions about the nature of reality that are less coherent? Why are you dragging this on and on and on refusing to give *one single detail*?

Just to add some semantic clarity. Fundamental means foundational. It's a concept that would drastically alter ones view of reality If added or removed.

Explain to me one single thing about reality that would change if we both suddenly obtained absolute certainty that God either does or does not exist.

 

[devolved]

You seem to be confused. I'm not commanding you to do anything. Just pointing out your apparent ignorance based upon your obvious desire to be snarky at every opportunity while also not taking advantage of an opportunity. And yet you implied I lack education. Lol.

Education is not a single-dimensional concept. Everyone has education. And everyone lack education when it comes to understanding certain subject matter. I'm not implying that you are absolutely uneducated. I'm saying that the framework in which you are educated seems to lack the necessary disclaimers that such framework is only as good as the first principles that feed it.

I was talking to someone else and you barged in on the conversation with sarcasm and insults. Now you say this? Absurd. I'm all for barging in and being blunt, but when you take that approach you lose the right to cry about how you're treated...

I'll ignore these for the sake of discussion. I don't want this thread to be inflated to "you did that, I said that" type of discussion.

Why? Explain how a framework of knowledge is not coherent without God or how it is coherent with God.

You've accomplished *nothing*. You keep asserting that God is a fundamental assumption. In STEM fields and philosophy alike, assumptions are liabilities and if you do not leverage your assumption to do something useful then you drop the assumption. Assuming God's existence for no reason is the most worthless position possible to take. Put down the Plantinga and come back to reality.

I did not assume God for no reason. I would suggest that you need God to assume reason. You have no reason for reason. You just assume that reason exists and you run with it, but you have no ground to claim that my chemical reactions of absurd outcome are any less meaningful than yours.

So you have a few options here. Either all of this structure has no inherent meaning or purpose, in which case you reject any meaning or purpose beyond your own subjective... existential assumptions in which you attempt to find some agreement with other people.

Or there is inherent meaning and purpose due to structures that we observe being directed by conscious process that shapes the rules for behavior of these structures.

If you are going to assume the former, then everything is indeed existential absurd, and my absurd is not and can't be more absurd then yours. You have no ground for comparative reasoning of our collective subjective assumptions. You can go along with pluralism of consensus, but I don't care. There are plenty and always were plenty of pluralistic camps and schools of thoughts, and it seems to me that the present one is not much different in that regard.

If we are going to assume the latter, then we are assuming God in some shape or form, be it pantheism, panentheism, God outside of reality, etc, etc. In which case there are solid foundations for reason, because it's not arbitrary and it's not a matter of consensus. It's an inalienable part of reality that functions this way.

Now, you are free to assume the former... but in such case your appeals to reason become less coherent, because there are no basis for unreasonable matter to behave reasonably. And no matter how much you are appealing to "natural selection", you are essentially appealing to magical ability of matter to perform something it can't and shouldn't otherwise do - produce conscious structures that can project meaning and purpose on complex patterns of other chunks of matter in motion.

Wait... in your opinion? You have no reasons or arguments? This is just your personal opinion? What are these alternative assumptions about the nature of reality that are less coherent? Why are you dragging this on and on and on refusing to give *one single detail*?

All we have are opinions, but it doesn't mean that such opinion lacks certain parameters, like intuition, facts, and sourcing coherent framework of knowledge that produces such opinion.

Explain to me one single thing about reality that would change if we both suddenly obtained absolute certainty that God either does or does not exist.

I just did. In your specific case, your forum name would certainly be a subject to change along with your worldview.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Education is not a single-dimensional concept. Everyone has education. And everyone lack education when it comes to understanding certain subject matter. I'm not implying that you are absolutely uneducated. I'm saying that the framework in which you are educated seems to lack the necessary disclaimers that such framework is only as good as the first principles that feed it.

Having read your whole post and what you say below, you're clearly under educated on the topic of logic.

I'll ignore these for the sake of discussion. I don't want this thread to be inflated to "you did that, I said that" type of discussion.

A little late to take the high road after pages of sarcasm.

I did not assume God for no reason. I would suggest that you need God to assume reason. You have no reason for reason. You just assume that reason exists and you run with it, but you have no ground to claim that my chemical reactions of absurd outcome are any less meaningful than yours.

Logic is nothing more than assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. Nothing else is involved in the process. God is not involved either.

So you have a few options here. Either all of this structure has no inherent meaning or purpose, in which case you reject any meaning or purpose beyond your own subjective... existential assumptions in which you attempt to find some agreement with other people.

Or there is inherent meaning and purpose due to structures that we observe being directed by conscious process that shapes the rules for behavior of these structures.

God or no God, there's still no inherent meaning. Logic and mathematics is literally just pushing symbols which have no meaning. Everything in mathematics is defined in terms of primitive symbols. 2+2={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}, which is a string of symbols that have no meaning.

If you are going to assume the former, then everything is indeed existential absurd, and my absurd is not and can't be more absurd then yours. You have no ground for comparative reasoning of our collective subjective assumptions. You can go along with pluralism of consensus, but I don't care. There are plenty and always were plenty of pluralistic camps and schools of thoughts, and it seems to me that the present one is not much different in that regard.

If we are going to assume the latter, then we are assuming God in some shape or form, be it pantheism, panentheism, God outside of reality, etc, etc. In which case there are solid foundations for reason, because it's not arbitrary and it's not a matter of consensus. It's an inalienable part of reality that functions this way.

Now, you are free to assume the former... but in such case your appeals to reason become less coherent, because there are no basis for unreasonable matter to behave reasonably. And no matter how much you are appealing to "natural selection", you are essentially appealing to magical ability of matter to perform something it can't and shouldn't otherwise do - produce conscious structures that can project meaning and purpose on complex patterns of other chunks of matter in motion.



All we have are opinions, but it doesn't mean that such opinion lacks certain parameters, like intuition, facts, and sourcing coherent framework of knowledge that produces such opinion.



I just did. In your specific case, your forum name would certainly be a subject to change along with your worldview.

I really would like you to explain to me what is involved in logic or mathematics aside from assumptions and definitions. I see no need for a god in this process.

My "brain chemical processes" are better than yours if I'm able to use mine to predict future events and make computers. Your assumption of God does none of that. It does NOTHING.