The Sloth
8th January 2005, 14:30
This could be, more or less, a quick little guide for atheists that are sometimes drawn into a game of logical fallacies with theists...make sure you understand the logical inconsistencies of the other person's argument (there are plenty), which are sometimes hard to spot.
Hmmm, this may take a while for me to write out (I have a bunch of papers in front of me with notes I have taken a few months back), so I would appreciate it if people here would tell me how useful they find this information.
The majority of this information is taken from philosophers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Some of it is taken from as far back as the middle ages from philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas.
First of all, before I continue, let me say that it is illogical for the atheists here to proclaim, "there is no god." Conversely, it would also be illogical to assume that "god exists." While there is no evidence for god, remember that it still is a possibility, as 1) absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, 2) "logic" is restrictive in a sense that it is not necessarily the "only" method of reasoning -- it is possible others will arise.
It is logical, however, to reject the belief in god because there is no "reasonable reason" to do otherwise. You cannot logically assume, "there are no invisible monsters under my bed," because, after all, you don't know that. It's a possibility.
The fact that it is "possible," however, does not give you justification for actually "believing" it to be true.
And that is, after all, one of the primary arguments for atheism.
Anyway, let's get on to the "arguments" regarding god...
1. GOD - as the "necessary being"
Premise -- it is "necessary" for a being to exist that was never "caused" to "cause" the existence of the universe.
This, however, conveniently allows god to be exempt from causation and such, appealing to our sympathy by requesting that this to be overlooked. There is also the fallacy of petitio principii; the conclusion that god owes existence to nothing is a premise, yet the conclusion repeats it without even substantiating such a claim in the first place.
Also...remember that the theists claim there is an "unknown" attribute that god has that allows him to bypass this kind of logic. Well, considering that absolutely no one knows "everything" about the universe, isn't safe to assume that the universe might have an "unknown attribute" that allows it to be, 1) caused without a "causer," 2) exist without ever being "caused" in the first place ?
2. GOD - the "absolute being"
The premise is simple -- since we can conceive of a "hottest," "longest," "best," or "perfect," there must be an "absolute" yardstick for this kind of measurement.
Obviously weak; there is no logical reason to assume that there has to be an "absolute" yardstick for such measurement, especially considering that many cultures find certain morality "subjective," among other things as "subjective."
Also...there is another premise that leads to an illogic conclusion: since we can conceive of something "perfect" or "best," it has to exist. But is this true? I can, for example, conceive of the "most yellow Internet smiley face" -- but does it make it real? I can also conceive of the "tallest and most vicious rabbit named Harry" -- but is he now real, simply because I can imagine him, and use him as an "absolute" yardstick to compare all other "inferior" rabbits to?
3. GOD - the "grand designer"
Self-explanatory; god designed the universe.
I will get into this one later on...but for now, let me just say this: life develops to adapt itself to the environment, not the other way around -- life does not, for example, determine the environment around it. Realistically, in terms of evolution and such, the development of "trait B" is dependent upon "trait A" that preceded it. Explanation will be given later on.
4. GOD - the "prime mover"
Premise -- god is necessary to set "stuff" in motion.
The fundamental principle here is that "anything that initiates change must have been initiated" -- but the principle, again, out of convenience, is not applied to the "Mover." This could go back to the "GOD - the 'necessary being,'" in terms of "unknown attributes" of the universe.
Also...Newton's First Law states a particle would stay at rest or move at a constant velocity if no external force is applied to it. What prevents us from assuming that the universe hasn't "always" been moving in the first place, meaning, why should we assume, instead, that the universe was at one point "not moving"? You cannot really determine either one of these ideas to be "true"; thus, it would be illogical to assume one over the other, but if the theist assumes "one" of them, you can simply claim to be able to assume the other -- and it cannot be refuted.
5. GOD - the "first cause"
This, basically, argues that "everything" needs a cause. David Hume concluded that by "cause" we are, in reality, looking for an "explanation" for the event -- thus, it remains an unfounded (and thus illogical) assumption that everything needs a "cause."
The earlier event is a "cause," the following event is an "effect" -- we can trace these events back to infinity, going back, back, back, baaack. The same is true in terms of tracing it forwards. You can use the example of numbers; n+1, n-1, etc. can go back or forward to infinity. There is not necessarily a "beginning" -- and why should we assume that the universe "needs" a beginning and a cause in the first place? After all, scientists now know of particles that appear "out of thin air" -- seemingly, without a cause. Thus, the idea of "causation" is not a universal phenomenon.
To go back to the example of numbers, it can be deduced that the "first cause" is just as significant and important as "the smallest negative number" -- and how tangible is something like that?
Primary flaw -- all series must have a beginning as well as an end when there is no logical reason to think so.
Also, the old fallacy returns again: petitio principii -- the unfounded conclusion that "god caused the universe" is used to secure the validity of one of its unfounded premises -- that everything must have a "cause."
On a final note...the idea of a "first cause" can ONLY be applied to a world that our senses can experience -- instead, however, it is applied to a "being" that is supposed to transcend it. The "first cause" is intangible anyway -- how can it be tangible when a principle is utilized outside of its uses in the first place?
The Categorical Imperative
Proposed by Immanuel Kant, and now the Church uses his ideas to somehow attach "god" to it.
Kant's argument -- there exists a sense of "ought," a definite "morality" which is called the "categorical imperative."
The church calls this "categorical imperative" a manifestation of god.
Science calls it a bunch of fundamental laws of behavior and social interaction.
Not much more explanation is necessary.
Also, it would help to learn a bit on the natural origins of morality. Here are a few useful links:
Kropotkin's "Anarchist Morality" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1897/morality.htm)
Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/moral/index.htm)
The Ontological Argument
A fancy name for an argument "from perfection," that since "perfection" can be conceived, so can a "perfect being" be conceived -- and must exist.
This was already discussed.
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Developed by Muslims in the Kalam School after taking the idea from a Christian philosopher in the sixth century.
The first idea of the argument is that the universe has a beginning, a cause, etc. Already refuted.
The second idea of the argument is that "infinity" is merely a property of math and not the "real world," thus attempting to refute the aforementioned idea of "counting backwards" to infinity.
The question must be asked -- why is infinity impossible in the real world, anyway? There is no reason why it cannot be a property of reality; it, thus, goes back to being another illogical assumption. After all, isn't god part of the "real world" -- and infinite?!
Teleological Argument
Quite simply...the famous argument "from design."
One of the ideas behind it is that humans create items that resemble nature -- due to god (?!?!). What it fails to take into consideration is that humans, regardless of god, would make items that resemble nature.
This argument also suggests that the "cause" must be proportional to the "effect" (because humans, lesser than nature, create items that somewhat but not completely emulate nature) -- and since the "effect" is not infinite and can be perceived, the same can be said about the "cause" (since the cause must be proportional to the effect) -- thus the cause -- god!!! -- cannot be logically infinite.
Of course, there are many more.
If anyone has refutations based on logic and/or philosophy, please add them.
I'm tired of typing.
Hmmm, this may take a while for me to write out (I have a bunch of papers in front of me with notes I have taken a few months back), so I would appreciate it if people here would tell me how useful they find this information.
The majority of this information is taken from philosophers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Some of it is taken from as far back as the middle ages from philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas.
First of all, before I continue, let me say that it is illogical for the atheists here to proclaim, "there is no god." Conversely, it would also be illogical to assume that "god exists." While there is no evidence for god, remember that it still is a possibility, as 1) absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, 2) "logic" is restrictive in a sense that it is not necessarily the "only" method of reasoning -- it is possible others will arise.
It is logical, however, to reject the belief in god because there is no "reasonable reason" to do otherwise. You cannot logically assume, "there are no invisible monsters under my bed," because, after all, you don't know that. It's a possibility.
The fact that it is "possible," however, does not give you justification for actually "believing" it to be true.
And that is, after all, one of the primary arguments for atheism.
Anyway, let's get on to the "arguments" regarding god...
1. GOD - as the "necessary being"
Premise -- it is "necessary" for a being to exist that was never "caused" to "cause" the existence of the universe.
This, however, conveniently allows god to be exempt from causation and such, appealing to our sympathy by requesting that this to be overlooked. There is also the fallacy of petitio principii; the conclusion that god owes existence to nothing is a premise, yet the conclusion repeats it without even substantiating such a claim in the first place.
Also...remember that the theists claim there is an "unknown" attribute that god has that allows him to bypass this kind of logic. Well, considering that absolutely no one knows "everything" about the universe, isn't safe to assume that the universe might have an "unknown attribute" that allows it to be, 1) caused without a "causer," 2) exist without ever being "caused" in the first place ?
2. GOD - the "absolute being"
The premise is simple -- since we can conceive of a "hottest," "longest," "best," or "perfect," there must be an "absolute" yardstick for this kind of measurement.
Obviously weak; there is no logical reason to assume that there has to be an "absolute" yardstick for such measurement, especially considering that many cultures find certain morality "subjective," among other things as "subjective."
Also...there is another premise that leads to an illogic conclusion: since we can conceive of something "perfect" or "best," it has to exist. But is this true? I can, for example, conceive of the "most yellow Internet smiley face" -- but does it make it real? I can also conceive of the "tallest and most vicious rabbit named Harry" -- but is he now real, simply because I can imagine him, and use him as an "absolute" yardstick to compare all other "inferior" rabbits to?
3. GOD - the "grand designer"
Self-explanatory; god designed the universe.
I will get into this one later on...but for now, let me just say this: life develops to adapt itself to the environment, not the other way around -- life does not, for example, determine the environment around it. Realistically, in terms of evolution and such, the development of "trait B" is dependent upon "trait A" that preceded it. Explanation will be given later on.
4. GOD - the "prime mover"
Premise -- god is necessary to set "stuff" in motion.
The fundamental principle here is that "anything that initiates change must have been initiated" -- but the principle, again, out of convenience, is not applied to the "Mover." This could go back to the "GOD - the 'necessary being,'" in terms of "unknown attributes" of the universe.
Also...Newton's First Law states a particle would stay at rest or move at a constant velocity if no external force is applied to it. What prevents us from assuming that the universe hasn't "always" been moving in the first place, meaning, why should we assume, instead, that the universe was at one point "not moving"? You cannot really determine either one of these ideas to be "true"; thus, it would be illogical to assume one over the other, but if the theist assumes "one" of them, you can simply claim to be able to assume the other -- and it cannot be refuted.
5. GOD - the "first cause"
This, basically, argues that "everything" needs a cause. David Hume concluded that by "cause" we are, in reality, looking for an "explanation" for the event -- thus, it remains an unfounded (and thus illogical) assumption that everything needs a "cause."
The earlier event is a "cause," the following event is an "effect" -- we can trace these events back to infinity, going back, back, back, baaack. The same is true in terms of tracing it forwards. You can use the example of numbers; n+1, n-1, etc. can go back or forward to infinity. There is not necessarily a "beginning" -- and why should we assume that the universe "needs" a beginning and a cause in the first place? After all, scientists now know of particles that appear "out of thin air" -- seemingly, without a cause. Thus, the idea of "causation" is not a universal phenomenon.
To go back to the example of numbers, it can be deduced that the "first cause" is just as significant and important as "the smallest negative number" -- and how tangible is something like that?
Primary flaw -- all series must have a beginning as well as an end when there is no logical reason to think so.
Also, the old fallacy returns again: petitio principii -- the unfounded conclusion that "god caused the universe" is used to secure the validity of one of its unfounded premises -- that everything must have a "cause."
On a final note...the idea of a "first cause" can ONLY be applied to a world that our senses can experience -- instead, however, it is applied to a "being" that is supposed to transcend it. The "first cause" is intangible anyway -- how can it be tangible when a principle is utilized outside of its uses in the first place?
The Categorical Imperative
Proposed by Immanuel Kant, and now the Church uses his ideas to somehow attach "god" to it.
Kant's argument -- there exists a sense of "ought," a definite "morality" which is called the "categorical imperative."
The church calls this "categorical imperative" a manifestation of god.
Science calls it a bunch of fundamental laws of behavior and social interaction.
Not much more explanation is necessary.
Also, it would help to learn a bit on the natural origins of morality. Here are a few useful links:
Kropotkin's "Anarchist Morality" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1897/morality.htm)
Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/moral/index.htm)
The Ontological Argument
A fancy name for an argument "from perfection," that since "perfection" can be conceived, so can a "perfect being" be conceived -- and must exist.
This was already discussed.
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Developed by Muslims in the Kalam School after taking the idea from a Christian philosopher in the sixth century.
The first idea of the argument is that the universe has a beginning, a cause, etc. Already refuted.
The second idea of the argument is that "infinity" is merely a property of math and not the "real world," thus attempting to refute the aforementioned idea of "counting backwards" to infinity.
The question must be asked -- why is infinity impossible in the real world, anyway? There is no reason why it cannot be a property of reality; it, thus, goes back to being another illogical assumption. After all, isn't god part of the "real world" -- and infinite?!
Teleological Argument
Quite simply...the famous argument "from design."
One of the ideas behind it is that humans create items that resemble nature -- due to god (?!?!). What it fails to take into consideration is that humans, regardless of god, would make items that resemble nature.
This argument also suggests that the "cause" must be proportional to the "effect" (because humans, lesser than nature, create items that somewhat but not completely emulate nature) -- and since the "effect" is not infinite and can be perceived, the same can be said about the "cause" (since the cause must be proportional to the effect) -- thus the cause -- god!!! -- cannot be logically infinite.
Of course, there are many more.
If anyone has refutations based on logic and/or philosophy, please add them.
I'm tired of typing.