tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post6003945571307999326..comments2023-10-17T05:01:42.650-04:00Comments on Abandoning Eden: Intermission: Why I don't believe in religion and godAbandoning Edenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-52163994319885989982012-04-26T16:24:45.783-04:002012-04-26T16:24:45.783-04:00Infinite regression is a logical fallacy in itself...Infinite regression is a logical fallacy in itself however, since an infinite amount of time would have to have passed to arrive at the present. Therefore, if infinite regression is true, then there would be no present per se, in other words, we'd have a paradox - and paradoxes do not exist in reality. Therefore infinite regression does not exist in reality, and is therefore not a realistic argument, and one whose logic ends at conclusion that there is a paradox. Hence, the watchmaker argument is not only logical, but when it arrives at G-d as being the creator, it posits a realistic conclusion that can exist in reality, and therefore offers a conclusion that can not be refuted with the argument of infinite regression since infinite regression is itself not logical, and has no basis in reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-28438015846670980472011-09-06T13:22:34.006-04:002011-09-06T13:22:34.006-04:00Once again JP demonstrates his complete lack of un...Once again JP demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the basics of Philosophy. The burden of proof is on the one making outlandish claims. An atheist does not posit gods. The theist does. Since the theist is adding something he has to demonstrate its existence. <br /><br />If I say "The street is full of <a href="http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/" rel="nofollow">Invisible Pink Unicorns</a> which can't be seen it's up to the believers in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn" rel="nofollow">IPU</a> to show that they exist, not doubters to prove a negative.Dan Gambierahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172075070150854447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-43066991497023923752011-09-06T13:16:51.538-04:002011-09-06T13:16:51.538-04:00HH, what you've fallen into is Creationist Tra...HH, what you've fallen into is Creationist Trap #4 - Irreducible Complexity with an added helping of infinite regress. <br /><br />The first warning sign here is that nobody ever defines "complexity" in a consistent, observable, testable fashion. And somehow animals, in particular animals just like us are the most "complex" and wonderful. <br /><br />Second, evolution often reduces complexity. Reduction of redundant body parts and loss of vestigial traits can be a hallmark of a species better adapted to a niche. Decided that it's easier to let some other organism do the heavy lifting? Jettison everything that doesn't produce food or more of you. Ta-da! You're a mitochondrion. <br /><br />Third, evolution doesn't generally take huge leaps. We mostly see an accumulation of stepwise changes. Consider insects. The highly "complex" body parts like antennae and mouth parts and legs are all slight modifications of the arthropod leg. A tiny developmental change here that have dramatic effects on shape, a few more chemosensors there, add a few around the mouth and you've got buttloads of "complexity" from a few tiny changes, most of which are slight alterations in the rate at which things happen in development.<br /><br />Fourth, all the evidence in the world against Evolution wouldn't be the tiniest jot in the ledger towards Jewish literalist creationism. That's the most pathetic part of the whole so-to-speak debate. If we were forced to abandon Modern Biology it wouldn't prove anything about your Bronze Age superstitions. Those would have to subject themselves to the same rigorous standards as Science had. And they'd have to be a better explanation than all competing contentions from Vedic Hinduism to Australian Dreamtime stories to the dozens of other theories of Evolution which existed before Darwin.Dan Gambierahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172075070150854447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-77914844590863038312011-08-29T18:26:49.130-04:002011-08-29T18:26:49.130-04:00The "Intelligent Design" and "Proof...The "Intelligent Design" and "Proof that my Invisible Sky Friend isn't imaginary because the world is just so spiffy" nonsense is barely worth refuting. But it has already been <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times" rel="nofollow">refuted a thousand times</a>.<br /><br />The thermodynamic "proofs", the arguments from complexity, the amazing Bible prophecies about Science that are completely accurate. All of it. There's any number of good guides for the intelligent layman. One of the oldest and still best is the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html" rel="nofollow">talk.origins FAQ</a>. <br /><br />Trust me, the classic lie AISH Discovery Seminar and its mindless sockpuppsets like JP keep repeating have been examined and demolished in great detail.Dan Gambierahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172075070150854447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-45572524704626397252011-08-29T17:10:52.362-04:002011-08-29T17:10:52.362-04:00Thanks for your answer HH!Thanks for your answer HH!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-56139194887032677202011-08-29T17:03:24.331-04:002011-08-29T17:03:24.331-04:00Hugo,
Personally, I do not see anything within de...Hugo,<br /><br />Personally, I do not see anything within design as a "proof" of a creator (at least I don't think I do. Since I believe in YHWH, I am at awe at his creations. Though, I do question the need for the universe being so big. I just don't get it. <br /><br />I have no personal favorite proofs for God's existence. There are none. All I can deduce is patterns. In my personal exploration, I simply looked at existence, then homed in to the Jewish people and saw a promise kept: to its existence, its teachings, its connection to the land and its return to its land. It is the bread and butter of all that is the Jewish people and I came to a realization that there is something to this tale.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-42013028818987543222011-08-29T16:32:50.139-04:002011-08-29T16:32:50.139-04:00@Philo
I really like your last comment. As I have...@Philo<br /><br />I really like your last comment. As I have written here I consider myself a "strong" atheist but at the same time, because I never had bad experiences with religion, I still find it interesting to participate in the cultural aspects of my childhood religion.<br /><br />Quick example... I went to a baptism no later than yesterday and it was a fun experience. A good reason to gather with friends and family. Oh, and the dad is himself an atheist ;)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-91788108321778564412011-08-29T16:28:51.928-04:002011-08-29T16:28:51.928-04:00Holy Hyrax said:
[...]What does complex mean when ...Holy Hyrax said:<br /><i>[...]What does complex mean when you are talking about a diety that its existence is not of this one? What does intellectual mean when talking about a diety that is not of this existence? You can't just make up your own definitions when rule one states you don't know anything about what God is. "Complexity" is a term that is only used for a physical existence. Question is, is God complex in the same way an engineer of a bridge is complex is? I would so absolutely not. They can't be compared.<br />[...]<br />btw, I think the watch maker theory is a horrible argument. I never use it. But I think the counter to that saying God is complex is just a made up assumption based on nothing. Or, at the most, its based upon a preconceived notion of what complexity is based on the phyiscal world.</i><br /><br />HH, I have read only a few things you wrote here and there so I am curious to know more... You don't believe that any argument from design can be used as proof of God's existence? Or am I extrapolating too much here? Do you believe that certain arguments from design are valid? Do you consider that we do see "non-man-made design" in the universe? Plus, what are your personal "favourite" proofs for God's existence?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-76569159781471457612011-08-29T16:24:04.447-04:002011-08-29T16:24:04.447-04:00I do believe in God, but a vague, spiritual versio...I do believe in God, but a vague, spiritual version of God. I'm not pinning Him/Her down to a specific religion or set of rules.<br /><br />Separately, I believe Judaism to be man-made by humans seeking out that spiritual spark of God. It's imperfect, but it's my heritage. That actually makes me value it more, not less, since it evolved (and continues to evolve) out of a long and deep history of our ancestors.<br /><br />I don't claim that Judaism is more "right" than any other religion, only that it's more meaningful to me. So although I don't believe that God specifically commanded me to put on tefillin or to practice shabbat or to keep kosher, I do these things because I enjoy them and feel connected to that long history.<br /><br />Despite this philosophizing, what it probably boils down to is emotion. AE, you & I both recognize that Judaism is man-made. But I associate it with warm & fuzzy feelings, so although I recognize that it's not the result of divine revelation, I keep the precepts anyway, because it makes me happy.<br /><br />Your experience seems to have been much more negative, so although many of our logical conclusions are the same, I can't blame you for feeling that you don't really feel a need to associate with Judaism. Bottom line, Judaism makes me happy, but it would make you miserable. You're happy now, so that's how you should live your life, and I respect that.Philohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02077376696343791699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-21962564304666920652011-08-29T16:22:44.836-04:002011-08-29T16:22:44.836-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Philohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02077376696343791699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-55212092444485462962011-08-29T15:56:47.686-04:002011-08-29T15:56:47.686-04:00a complex theory is one that's very complex an...a complex theory is one that's very complex and has a lot of aspects, etc. :) Like the theory of why behavior changes after you get married, it has like 15 different explanations that are all intertwined. Or demographic transition theory. :)Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-66259726885873876852011-08-29T15:54:56.745-04:002011-08-29T15:54:56.745-04:00>Are you really being intellectually honest her...>Are you really being intellectually honest here?<br /><br />I'm trying to be. <br /><br />What is a complex theory trying to discuss? It isen't exactly trying to come up with a theory of the spiritual world.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-28588892759413168402011-08-29T15:50:52.674-04:002011-08-29T15:50:52.674-04:00either way what you have here is an "argument...either way what you have here is an "argument from semantics" not an argument from logic.Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-22027642694308095332011-08-29T15:48:52.970-04:002011-08-29T15:48:52.970-04:00complexity is not only used for physical objects.....complexity is not only used for physical objects...since when is that the case? Otherwise how could you have complex theories? or complex systems? (systems are a concept, not a physical object). <br /><br />Are you really being intellectually honest here?Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-64753568453967852812011-08-29T15:08:30.783-04:002011-08-29T15:08:30.783-04:00>is a logical fallacy.
It's only a logical...>is a logical fallacy.<br /><br />It's only a logical fallacy if you are operating on noting more than a robotic mind on autopilot, unable to discern context.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-85429520323086857822011-08-29T15:03:38.829-04:002011-08-29T15:03:38.829-04:00btw, I think the watch maker theory is a horrible ...btw, I think the watch maker theory is a horrible argument. I never use it. But I think the counter to that saying God is complex is just a made up assumption based on nothing. Or, at the most, its based upon a preconceived notion of what complexity is based on the phyiscal world.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-51785848745403400222011-08-29T14:56:36.479-04:002011-08-29T14:56:36.479-04:00>sorry HH, but your argument is all apologetics...>sorry HH, but your argument is all apologetics.<br /><br />Sorry, it's not. What does complex mean when you are talking about a diety that its existence is not of this one? What does intellectual mean when talking about a diety that is not of this existence? You can't just make up your own definitions when rule one states you don't know anything about what God is. "Complexity" is a term that is only used for a physical existence. Question is, is God complex in the same way an engineer of a bridge is complex is? I would so absolutely not. They can't be compared.<br /><br />This is the fallacy that Dawkins hates when done the other way around when discussing evolution. Opponents will make up a new definition for what evolution is, then attack it. You are doing the same thing when discussing God.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-52264744661305597112011-08-29T14:13:27.696-04:002011-08-29T14:13:27.696-04:00sorry HH, but your argument is all apologetics. So...sorry HH, but your argument is all apologetics. Somehow it's a different complexity that's not physical and therefore doesn't need a maker unless it's physical vs. intellectual complexity? What now? Either things that are complex need a maker, or they don't, but the maker is always more complex than the object they make, and if you are going to argue that the world is so complex is needs a maker, then that maker needs to have a maker too. <br /><br />I don't presume to know anything about god if there is one, but I do know about logic, and if you are going to argue via logic that everything complex needs a maker as a "proof" of god, then saying that the maker isn't more complex than the object made, or saying the maker doesn't need a maker, is a logical fallacy.Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-54772278370377637082011-08-29T13:50:46.215-04:002011-08-29T13:50:46.215-04:00>And if therefore he is so complex, and if comp...>And if therefore he is so complex, and if complexity requires a maker (Which I don't think it does, but the watchmaker metaphor is used to try to prove their IS a god, which is why I'm pointing out the huge logical fallacies)<br /><br />But the watchmaker theory is talking about physical compexity within the definition of a physical existence. (ie, everything complex was created). Though it may be a copout, if one is to argue (which atheists do) that you cannot know anything about this diety, then stating he is complex (even intellectually) is wrong, because ultimately, you are making an assumption about Him. God, is on a whole different level than what we would typically call complex hereHoly Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-77616985764206672252011-08-29T13:03:59.733-04:002011-08-29T13:03:59.733-04:00I guess I'm a weak atheist, I think it's p...<i>I guess I'm a weak atheist, I think it's possible some god like thing created the world, although we have no evidence so no good reason to believe that. It's also possible a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn invented the world though, right? ...</i><br /><br />I would argue that no, it's not possible, so that's why I am a strong atheist. However, to reply to mOOm at the same time, I am not an atheist because I believe no god can exist, I was an atheist way before that, when I simply realized, just like AE, that the arguments and evidence "proving" God's existence are insufficient.<br /><br />HH wrote:<br /><i>Thats what argument that Dawkins makes and I always thought it was a poor one. Why is he assuming God is sophisticated in the same sense a watch, tv airplane or human are "sophisticated?" The argument stops there, and doesn't continue with God because the notion of a diety is not the same "sophisticated" that you can compare with physical entities.</i><br /><br />There is another way to refute the Watchmaker argument, or any design argument, in a way that I find even more efficient.<br /><br />Design arguments rest on the fact that we can spot design, like a watch lying on the beach. Now think about why we know it is designed. Isn't because it contrasts with the surrounding? Isn't because designed objects contrast with what is... not designed? i.e. nature?<br /><br />The problem is that the very next step of design arguments is to argue that what is not designed, nature, is designed!<br /><br />Therefore, at best, what the argument argues for is that there is one kind of design, which is "man-made", that contrasts with another kind of design, which is "natural". The problem is that it thus becomes illogical to argue that the "natural design" needs a designer since we just conceded that "natural design" is not the same as "man-made design"; one is actually designed, while the other is not.<br /><br />We identify "man-made design" because it contrasts with "natural design" and the argument would like us to accept the fact that both require a designer. It's really odd when you think about it...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-4553334344563227792011-08-29T12:38:42.629-04:002011-08-29T12:38:42.629-04:00Yes, god may not have PHYSICAL Complexity, but to ...Yes, god may not have PHYSICAL Complexity, but to be able to create the world, he must have had intellectual complexity, no? One that goes beyond what humans know? <br /><br />And if therefore he is so complex, and if complexity requires a maker (Which I don't think it does, but the watchmaker metaphor is used to try to prove their IS a god, which is why I'm pointing out the huge logical fallacies), who are gods parents? What came before god? Who created god? Who created that complex intelligence?Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-60663848367780290552011-08-29T12:22:47.744-04:002011-08-29T12:22:47.744-04:00>Is something that sophisticated MUST have a ma...>Is something that sophisticated MUST have a maker, then god MUST have a maker as well by that logic, since god is more sophisticated<br /><br />Thats what argument that Dawkins makes and I always thought it was a poor one. Why is he assuming God is sophisticated in the same sense a watch, tv airplane or human are "sophisticated?" The argument stops there, and doesn't continue with God because the notion of a diety is not the same "sophisticated" that you can compare with physical entities.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-30776267082625352392011-08-29T12:19:44.436-04:002011-08-29T12:19:44.436-04:00>Ezra "re-taught" the torah to the je...>Ezra "re-taught" the torah to the jews after they returned to israel from the babylonian exile, implying they did not know it already, implying that the whole idea of a mesorah going back to sinai is bullshit, <br /><br />Well two things. 1) Ezra clearly knew it, along with his entourage. 2) Not all Jews came from Babylon. There were Jews also in Israel at the time. Did they accept Ezra from Babylonian's new Torah? 3) The same Tenach that talks about Ezra makes equal claim that the children of Israel knew about a covenant with their fore-fathers which requires them to keep "Torah" (ie, laws given by God to Moses) That afterall is the spine of the Tanach. <br /><br />But, I do agree with you that saying that there is this perfect unbroken chain is not true, at least when talking about practical practice. <br /><br />>Many scholars believe ezra was the last author/editor of the tanach as we know it today.<br /><br />You mean of the Torah. Not the Tanach.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-16873375941030664622011-08-29T07:24:22.121-04:002011-08-29T07:24:22.121-04:00The torah is less well established than many thing...The torah is less well established than many things we know about ancient history through archeology. People may be lying about the holocaust (although why my grandfather would get a number tattooed on his arm makes no sense without it), and great job on godwining the thread, but we have photos and independent records of the holocaust rather than one non-independently verified book. The bible stands alone, with most of it's stories unconfirmed by outside reports and outside evidence, despite a LOT of people trying to find that evidence over the centuries. And even if some stuff in there is true (somewhat plausible, it was actually written down at one point so maybe there are some historically accurate details int here) that doesn't mean it'S ALL true either. I essentially look at it as a work of historical fiction. <br /><br />Also, maybe you are confused as to what counts as "empirical" evidence. We actually just went over this in one of my classes, so I can help you out. Empirical evidence is evidence based on direct observation, not evidence based on conjecture, speculation, logic, reasoning, or subjective morality. The "evidence" you present is based on reasoning (and based on flawed reasoning- each one of the classic "proofs" has a classic counter-argument to go with it which you fail to present), which is specifically one of the things that does NOT count as empirical evidence. <br /><br />As for your specific arguments- the watchmaker argument-something as sophisticated as a watch needs a maker. And the world is more sophisticated than a watch. Well the watch maker is always more sophisticated then the watch, right? So who made the maker? Who made god? The problem of infinite regression.Is something that sophisticated MUST have a maker, then god MUST have a maker as well by that logic, since god is more sophisticated. <br /><br />The kuzari "proof" that if a large number of people claim something it must have happened. Well, if you have ever actually LEARNED Tanach,you might learn that after the jews went back to israel after the babylonian exile(Ezra 7:10, Nechemia Chapter 8), Ezra "re-taught" the torah to the jews after they returned to israel from the babylonian exile, implying they did not know it already, implying that the whole idea of a mesorah going back to sinai is bullshit, because the chain WAS broken and ezra "taught" them about the mesorah and all those witnesses, it was not an unbroken chain of an oral tradition. Many scholars believe ezra was the last author/editor of the tanach as we know it today.Abandoning Edenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12696116071749613265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8552682727548828725.post-77828936342803722172011-08-28T22:16:13.290-04:002011-08-28T22:16:13.290-04:00"just declaring "I see no evidence"..."just declaring "I see no evidence", meaning "I deny all evidence", doesn't work for me."<br /><br />One of the funniest things i have read!<br /><br />Reminds me of fundy ortho jews denying science...evidence...for so many things,,,like EVOLUTION<br /><br />Lolksilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623382090942812327noreply@blogger.com