This debate will have R. Soul arguing that atheism can logically refute theism, and Politically Correct arguing the contrary.
The debate will go five rounds, with possible extension if both sides agree. The maximum post length will be 1000 words. Each side has 36 hours in which to answer, with a 12 hour grace period. R. Soul will begin.
Again, my apologies for the delay in starting this; both unexpected and expected demands on my time have made my last few days extremely busy ones!
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
Can atheism refute theism? (Politically Correct vs. R. Soul)
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the admin and moderatorship of Secular Cafe for kindly hosting and moderating this debate. My opening arguments commence immediately.
Right. Lets get the logistics out of the way first.
1) PC is an idiot.
2) Since PC is an idiot, all theists are idiots.
3) Because all theists are idiots, ducks are purple.
4) Because ducks are purple, PC is an idiot.
5) I feel sorry for purple ducks, therefore PC ought not be an idiot. Think of the poor ducks!
6) No true politically correct person would disagree that purple ducks rights are being infringed on.
7) Therefore, PC feels sorry for purple ducks.
8) Hence, PC is not an idiot.
Whats that tally up to? Probably more than eight, guv!
Anyway, enough of that foolishness, onward to the meat of the discussion.
Can Atheism refute Theism?
Well, it's a bit of a silly question isnt it? Or rather, shall I say, poorly formulated. Atheism is a lack of belief in one or more gods, theism is holding a belief in one or more gods. So, the question has an equivalent form to the question, "Can a lack of belief in sausages refute a belief in sausages?," which is of course nonsensical. Nevertheless, harping on this would miss the point; the thrust of my interlocutor's question can likely be accurately stated as "Can an atheist refute a theist's claims about god being extant?".
I won't waste words attempting to define what a "god" is, it is clear that the concept revolves around positing some sort of entity or agency (or a plurality of same) responsible for creation and/or running of the cosmos, which may or not form part or all of said physical cosmos. Indeed, the precise definition of the idea of "God" is precisely as precise as the person holding it and I therefore consider the details to be irrelevant to the discussion; I will henceforth simply refer to these held beliefs, regardless of their precise definition, as "God".
Furthermore, I don't intend trying to refute it either, because the answer to the question is a resounding NO. One can refute specific claims-in-detail which piggyback upon the idea of God, e.g. "The earth is 6000 years old", but that is because these types of claims and their resolution have nothing to do with the existence of god and everything to do with the observable universe. The claim that "God exists" is purely axiomatic, whereas deductively and observationally it is straightforward to demonstrate that the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of whether God exists or not.
While the question "Can a lack of belief in sausages refute a belief in sausages" is meaningless, it does however have some use as a vehicle for demonstrating the marvelous disjoint in these types of discussions. To wit:
The sausageist has made a positive claim for sausages, and..... then what?
Well... then nothing. Sweet eff all. It is neither the asausageists job nor his /her responsibility to refute the claim. It is up to the sausageist to either a) produce sausages or b) get lost. In other words, the very challenge directed at the asausageist to refute the claim constitutes a clear shifting of the burden of proof.
Sausages either exist or they don't. Either the claim is true or its negation is true. Since a lack of belief in sausages constitutes a negative, it means that the challenge to refute sausages is a request to prove a negative, which is a logical absurdity. I cannot prove that there is no invisible, ephemeral pink unicorn under my desk, just as I cannot prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun halfway to Mars. The axiomatic presupposition that god exists is neither testable nor falsifiable, and isn't deserving of any real effort expended in such attempts except perhaps as an epistemological curiosity.
That being said. If I were presented with a claim of sausages, my response is rather pithy:
PROVE IT.
So please, dear, deluded theists: prove it or get the fuck out.
:tumbleweed:
Thank you.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the admin and moderatorship of Secular Cafe for kindly hosting and moderating this debate. My opening arguments commence immediately.
Right. Lets get the logistics out of the way first.
1) PC is an idiot.
2) Since PC is an idiot, all theists are idiots.
3) Because all theists are idiots, ducks are purple.
4) Because ducks are purple, PC is an idiot.
5) I feel sorry for purple ducks, therefore PC ought not be an idiot. Think of the poor ducks!
6) No true politically correct person would disagree that purple ducks rights are being infringed on.
7) Therefore, PC feels sorry for purple ducks.
8) Hence, PC is not an idiot.
Whats that tally up to? Probably more than eight, guv!
Anyway, enough of that foolishness, onward to the meat of the discussion.
Can Atheism refute Theism?
Well, it's a bit of a silly question isnt it? Or rather, shall I say, poorly formulated. Atheism is a lack of belief in one or more gods, theism is holding a belief in one or more gods. So, the question has an equivalent form to the question, "Can a lack of belief in sausages refute a belief in sausages?," which is of course nonsensical. Nevertheless, harping on this would miss the point; the thrust of my interlocutor's question can likely be accurately stated as "Can an atheist refute a theist's claims about god being extant?".
I won't waste words attempting to define what a "god" is, it is clear that the concept revolves around positing some sort of entity or agency (or a plurality of same) responsible for creation and/or running of the cosmos, which may or not form part or all of said physical cosmos. Indeed, the precise definition of the idea of "God" is precisely as precise as the person holding it and I therefore consider the details to be irrelevant to the discussion; I will henceforth simply refer to these held beliefs, regardless of their precise definition, as "God".
Furthermore, I don't intend trying to refute it either, because the answer to the question is a resounding NO. One can refute specific claims-in-detail which piggyback upon the idea of God, e.g. "The earth is 6000 years old", but that is because these types of claims and their resolution have nothing to do with the existence of god and everything to do with the observable universe. The claim that "God exists" is purely axiomatic, whereas deductively and observationally it is straightforward to demonstrate that the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of whether God exists or not.
While the question "Can a lack of belief in sausages refute a belief in sausages" is meaningless, it does however have some use as a vehicle for demonstrating the marvelous disjoint in these types of discussions. To wit:
The sausageist has made a positive claim for sausages, and..... then what?
Well... then nothing. Sweet eff all. It is neither the asausageists job nor his /her responsibility to refute the claim. It is up to the sausageist to either a) produce sausages or b) get lost. In other words, the very challenge directed at the asausageist to refute the claim constitutes a clear shifting of the burden of proof.
Sausages either exist or they don't. Either the claim is true or its negation is true. Since a lack of belief in sausages constitutes a negative, it means that the challenge to refute sausages is a request to prove a negative, which is a logical absurdity. I cannot prove that there is no invisible, ephemeral pink unicorn under my desk, just as I cannot prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun halfway to Mars. The axiomatic presupposition that god exists is neither testable nor falsifiable, and isn't deserving of any real effort expended in such attempts except perhaps as an epistemological curiosity.
That being said. If I were presented with a claim of sausages, my response is rather pithy:
PROVE IT.
So please, dear, deluded theists: prove it or get the fuck out.
:tumbleweed:
Thank you.
-
Politically Correct
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am
My OP - perhaps make this the opening post of the debate?
Disclaimer: this is purely an intellectual pursuit, in real life l would otherwise be incapable of representing God, it's not my lifestyle (l'm an ardent secularist), there are more religious people that l would defer to.
My Axiom of the Godhead:
------------------------
(A) Infinite potential = all quantity, from zero to infinity, and all ideas that arise therefrom. A world of pure concept, nothing under the laws of physics. [= Ahriman, primordial darkness, of Zoroastrianism]
(B) The mind of God which draws on (A) and actualises it into (C). This is the First Cause, or as the Bible says, "Ehieh" - "I am that I am".
(C) Infinite actual = an infinity of real phenomena, such as what physics would describe with its laws etc. The basis of this would be infinite energy. I would hesitate to say infinite potential energy as this has no way of becoming a phenomenon if that's all there is, seems like it belongs to the realm of (A). More like, the basis would be infinite photons of energy each in a state of motion. [= Ahura Mazda, being of Light, in Zoroastrianism]
Creation:
---------
From (C), we get our material universe (U).
I find it hard to contemplate (C) giving rise to another infinity, such that 2 infinities reside side by side, because Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. Therefore, l would say that (U) is finite.
Sort of like how matter as a whole is subject to increasing entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), we get the idea that everything in (U) perishes away while (C) does not, i.e. there's a sense that all order in (U) is finite, i.e. the finiteness of (U) applies on different levels, from raw quantity, to the aesthetic of order, structure.
How then, can infinity (C) as a block, interface with finite (U) as a block? It would be logically absurd for the interface to exist. If (C) = infinity, it would be infinite in infinite ways. Thus it would be light of infinite frequency. To create (U) then, (B) would step down the frequency of a finite amount of energy in (C). The finite amount would be purely conceptual, drawn from (A).
By E = mc^2 we have a relation between energy and matter. I believe then, that (B) steps down the frequency of a finite amount energy in (C), to create a buffer between (C) and (U).
This is the First Emanation (D), which Christians, Muslims and perhaps Jews too, call the Holy Spirit.
Add multiple patterns in the way (B) steps down the frequency of a finite amount of energy in (C) and you get a cascade of energy of different frequencies ("Light upon Light" as the Koran says in 24:35), which then would go to create a cascade of particles which would go to create (U).
By the above scheme, and by the way finitiness exists within (C), and by the way matter is a permutation of Energy, we may say that (U) is an illusion within (C).
Summary:
--------
God = First Cause
God is one, infinite, doesn't have kids (adjacent, separate, independent creations), rather, he creates an illusion within himself, contingent upon himself always.
The reason for creation may be just a thought of (B), perhaps self-appreciation.
Miracles:
---------
As an asides, there are a few phenomena, considered "miracles" (no known explanation, plus contradicts the zeitgeist of modern science), within our universe and within holy books of the Abrahamic faith, which support the existence of a God, e.g.:
---- I got the following off the net:
Koran 32:5 "(Allah) rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels to Him at a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count."
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
1,000 lunar years, that is, 12,000 lunar orbits per earth day = 2,583,630,3825 km / day = 299,031 km/s
Alternatively: 12,000 lunar orbits x 3682.07 km/hr (average orbital velocity of the moon) x 0.89157 (compensation factor for heliocentric gravitation) x 655.71986 hrs (hours per lunar orbit transit) / 86164.0906 [1 sidereal day] = 299,792.5 km/s
Actual speed of light = 299,792 km/s, but note that it would vary as it passes through different mediums, so either of the above figures might be spot on.
---- I got this from "Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life" by Drunvalo Melchizedek - figures replaced by my own pulled from Google:
Perimeter of a square around the Earth is almost equal to Perimeter of a circle around Earth+Moon when they are touching. The difference = 23.3km, which may become zero depending on how you measure Earth and Moon, as they are not perfect spheres, and they even wobble a bit.
Perimeter of square around Earth = 4 x Diameter (not equator) of Earth
Perimeter of circle around Earth+Moon when they're touching = Pi * (Diameter of Earth + Diameter of Moon)
---- Also: how come the moon fits so perfectly the disc of the sun, they seem identically sized in the sky, hence we're able to get total solar eclipses, and see the sun's corona (slight variations in the moon's closeness give slightly different eclipses).
---- Finally: Why do we only see one face of the moon? It's tidally locked, but do all tidally locked bodies have a synchronous orbit, or is it only the moon that is tidally locked in the manner of having a synchronous orbit (as opposed to tidally locked by only ever showing one face to the earth, not even rotating by itself)? This might just be common across tidally locked moons in our solar system.
[WORD COUNT: 1,000]
My Axiom of the Godhead:
------------------------
(A) Infinite potential = all quantity, from zero to infinity, and all ideas that arise therefrom. A world of pure concept, nothing under the laws of physics. [= Ahriman, primordial darkness, of Zoroastrianism]
(B) The mind of God which draws on (A) and actualises it into (C). This is the First Cause, or as the Bible says, "Ehieh" - "I am that I am".
(C) Infinite actual = an infinity of real phenomena, such as what physics would describe with its laws etc. The basis of this would be infinite energy. I would hesitate to say infinite potential energy as this has no way of becoming a phenomenon if that's all there is, seems like it belongs to the realm of (A). More like, the basis would be infinite photons of energy each in a state of motion. [= Ahura Mazda, being of Light, in Zoroastrianism]
Creation:
---------
From (C), we get our material universe (U).
I find it hard to contemplate (C) giving rise to another infinity, such that 2 infinities reside side by side, because Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. Therefore, l would say that (U) is finite.
Sort of like how matter as a whole is subject to increasing entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), we get the idea that everything in (U) perishes away while (C) does not, i.e. there's a sense that all order in (U) is finite, i.e. the finiteness of (U) applies on different levels, from raw quantity, to the aesthetic of order, structure.
How then, can infinity (C) as a block, interface with finite (U) as a block? It would be logically absurd for the interface to exist. If (C) = infinity, it would be infinite in infinite ways. Thus it would be light of infinite frequency. To create (U) then, (B) would step down the frequency of a finite amount of energy in (C). The finite amount would be purely conceptual, drawn from (A).
By E = mc^2 we have a relation between energy and matter. I believe then, that (B) steps down the frequency of a finite amount energy in (C), to create a buffer between (C) and (U).
This is the First Emanation (D), which Christians, Muslims and perhaps Jews too, call the Holy Spirit.
Add multiple patterns in the way (B) steps down the frequency of a finite amount of energy in (C) and you get a cascade of energy of different frequencies ("Light upon Light" as the Koran says in 24:35), which then would go to create a cascade of particles which would go to create (U).
By the above scheme, and by the way finitiness exists within (C), and by the way matter is a permutation of Energy, we may say that (U) is an illusion within (C).
Summary:
--------
God = First Cause
God is one, infinite, doesn't have kids (adjacent, separate, independent creations), rather, he creates an illusion within himself, contingent upon himself always.
The reason for creation may be just a thought of (B), perhaps self-appreciation.
Miracles:
---------
As an asides, there are a few phenomena, considered "miracles" (no known explanation, plus contradicts the zeitgeist of modern science), within our universe and within holy books of the Abrahamic faith, which support the existence of a God, e.g.:
---- I got the following off the net:
Koran 32:5 "(Allah) rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels to Him at a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count."
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
1,000 lunar years, that is, 12,000 lunar orbits per earth day = 2,583,630,3825 km / day = 299,031 km/s
Alternatively: 12,000 lunar orbits x 3682.07 km/hr (average orbital velocity of the moon) x 0.89157 (compensation factor for heliocentric gravitation) x 655.71986 hrs (hours per lunar orbit transit) / 86164.0906 [1 sidereal day] = 299,792.5 km/s
Actual speed of light = 299,792 km/s, but note that it would vary as it passes through different mediums, so either of the above figures might be spot on.
---- I got this from "Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life" by Drunvalo Melchizedek - figures replaced by my own pulled from Google:
Perimeter of a square around the Earth is almost equal to Perimeter of a circle around Earth+Moon when they are touching. The difference = 23.3km, which may become zero depending on how you measure Earth and Moon, as they are not perfect spheres, and they even wobble a bit.
Perimeter of square around Earth = 4 x Diameter (not equator) of Earth
Perimeter of circle around Earth+Moon when they're touching = Pi * (Diameter of Earth + Diameter of Moon)
---- Also: how come the moon fits so perfectly the disc of the sun, they seem identically sized in the sky, hence we're able to get total solar eclipses, and see the sun's corona (slight variations in the moon's closeness give slightly different eclipses).
---- Finally: Why do we only see one face of the moon? It's tidally locked, but do all tidally locked bodies have a synchronous orbit, or is it only the moon that is tidally locked in the manner of having a synchronous orbit (as opposed to tidally locked by only ever showing one face to the earth, not even rotating by itself)? This might just be common across tidally locked moons in our solar system.
[WORD COUNT: 1,000]
Guys and gals,
Let's unpack this crock of shit.
PC presents for our edification, the idea of an infinite "Godhead" (whatever that means - I will assume it's not where imaginary entities go to take a leak, but that said I will substitute the letter (P) for "Godhead" ) which consists of infinite logical possibilities (A), a infinite pool of real, physical resources (C), which are somehow combined by a homuncular, whimsical intelligence (B) to create the physical universe (U). U is described as being some sort of simulation which is:
i) finite compared to the infinity of (C),
ii) a whimsical result of B's mysterious machinations, and
ii) contained wholly within (C)
He attempts to explain the nature of A, B and C, while insisting that it's all the same thing really: (P). So what he's doing is equivocating (A), (B), (C) and (P) while painstakingly pointing out the distinct nature of each component, except for (P) because (P) is, err... everything. He is not only presupposing A, B and C but creating a circular ambiguity between B and P which he then contradicts by equating the two (and for that matter, A and C, but hey, who cares about the details?)
Anyway, the entire position is unwarranted. The logical gymnastics aside, this kind of axiomatic confabulation can be described, in highly technical terms, as "making shit up". If, for the sake of argument, holding such a belief is justifiable for the mere sake of it, then it is justifiable to posit anything your fertile mind can come up with. Pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Nazi lesbian Eskimos playing marbles with frozen polar bear testicles (each of which of course contain entire realities), you name it. I could go on but... well, you get the idea.
So what it essentially boils down to is that this detailed expose of the nature of P represents nothing more than a post hoc explanation of a presupposed idea: "God exists". It's a rather insipid offering if getting me to reject the position's null hypothesis is the aim - I find Nazi lesbian eskimos more interesting and heretically prefer fettuccine to spaghetti. It doesn't help that it's chokka with additional piss-poor reasoning tacked on, either. For example, PC finds it intolerable that infinite C could give rise to infinite U because, apparently, infinite C has a dick size insecurity and infinities can't reside simultaneously, but this restriction somehow does not apply to infinite A. Of course, he might enter a special plea that A and C have different natures therefore their infinity is somehow different-yet-compatible, but that would raise the question, why can't U be different-yet-compatible with C? Thusly does the demented merry-go-round of theist reasoning spin around its ridiculous self-center of gravitas going absolutely nowhere, dressed up with sprinkles of photons, e=mc^2 and other science-y stuff to try and make it look interesting and somehow worthy of discussion.
There's nothing more to it. Where are my fucking sausages!?
"Sausages?" I hear you ask, dear reader. Well, funny thing....
PC trots out some examples of "miracles" which he offers as evidences (I deliberately refrain from claiming that he regards them as proofs) for the existence of god. These are naturally all arguments from incredulity, design and/or beauty, but nevertheless they are precisely the types of arguments-in-detail which I mentioned in my original arguments and so they are eligible for unpacking (and as an added bonus, eminently worthy in of themselves for their stupendous lulz coefficient).
1) The speed of light is predicted by contemplating a kilomoonyear
This is of course that chestnut of Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby that the Q'uran predicts the speed of light. I will not go into much detail or put effort to debunk it, that has been ably accomplished by others, as a cursory Google search will show. In short, the argument depends upon injecting a "heliocentric gravity correction factor", which relies on using the sun as a frame of reference for the moon's absolute velocity (while conveniently ignoring: i) the sun's gravity as an empirical variable to begin with; ii) the fact that the solar system as a whole is moving through space as it orbits the center of the milky way, and iii) the fact that the milky way itself moves through space).
If PC was interested in divining the truth, he would have found both the argument and it's rebuttal, but of course his confirmation bias ensures that he only chooses the claim and ignores the rebuttal (as he will do with this post as a whole but that's the nature of the beast).
2) Moon/Earth perimeter rubbish
How's this for a wondrous revelation: Behold. The perimeter of a square touching the earth is four times the diameter of the earth. Well that's just.... I'm blown away. I think we should elevate primary school textbooks to Holy Book status, because you will find that this is exactly what elementary geometry had predicted all along!
I can't be arsed to do the sums so I'll assume the figures are correct. Even so.... what does that have to do with the existence of God? All you have is a funky coincidence. To be precise, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to posit the existence of a god for this coincidence to not be a coincidence, which means that this example of "sacred" geometry once again demonstrates an argument from incredulity, confirmation bias, a multiplication of entities and presupposition of a designer. "I don't understand why so GODDIDIT! It sounds too implausible therefor GODDIDIT!!"
Get real.
But... let's be gracious and assume for the sake of argument that a designer/creator did indeed do it. Why "almost equal?" Why discrepancies depending on how you measure it? I would have though that a perfect, omnimax creator could at least get his grade school geometry right and make the values exactly equal. Now THAT would have been impressive, and some serious material to chew on. But it's "close enough", which is "good enough" if you want to believe it, isn't it?
3) Apparent size of the moon
Note the statement that the moon "fits so perfectly the disc of the sun", yet the moon's orbit is elliptical yielding a 6% maximum difference in apparent size, giving us annular eclipses. Of course, this doesn't matter to the theist mind, which chooses to cherrypick the just-so instances that fits its theology.
PC, I wonder how your deity would respond if you were to tell it that it's perfect, give or take 6%... because that's essentially what you're implying.
4) Gravitational lock
By definition tidally locked bodies have a synchronous orbit and the mechanics are well understood and documented not only with the moon, but other bodies like Pluto and Charon. Learn to do some research, it's easy. Once again, a god isn't necessary for the phenomenon, and why would seeing the same face of the moon all even start to suggest that there is a god? Do you worship the moon? Given the lunacy trotted out by apologists, I suspect that is indeed the case.
Right, I've wasted quite enough time on this putrid abortion of a debate. PC wins, hallelujah, praise bebe haysoos, allahu mcfuckin akhbar and all that. I'll start going to church but those cunts are only getting 6% and not one kopeck more!
Thank you.
Let's unpack this crock of shit.
PC presents for our edification, the idea of an infinite "Godhead" (whatever that means - I will assume it's not where imaginary entities go to take a leak, but that said I will substitute the letter (P) for "Godhead" ) which consists of infinite logical possibilities (A), a infinite pool of real, physical resources (C), which are somehow combined by a homuncular, whimsical intelligence (B) to create the physical universe (U). U is described as being some sort of simulation which is:
i) finite compared to the infinity of (C),
ii) a whimsical result of B's mysterious machinations, and
ii) contained wholly within (C)
He attempts to explain the nature of A, B and C, while insisting that it's all the same thing really: (P). So what he's doing is equivocating (A), (B), (C) and (P) while painstakingly pointing out the distinct nature of each component, except for (P) because (P) is, err... everything. He is not only presupposing A, B and C but creating a circular ambiguity between B and P which he then contradicts by equating the two (and for that matter, A and C, but hey, who cares about the details?)
Anyway, the entire position is unwarranted. The logical gymnastics aside, this kind of axiomatic confabulation can be described, in highly technical terms, as "making shit up". If, for the sake of argument, holding such a belief is justifiable for the mere sake of it, then it is justifiable to posit anything your fertile mind can come up with. Pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Nazi lesbian Eskimos playing marbles with frozen polar bear testicles (each of which of course contain entire realities), you name it. I could go on but... well, you get the idea.
So what it essentially boils down to is that this detailed expose of the nature of P represents nothing more than a post hoc explanation of a presupposed idea: "God exists". It's a rather insipid offering if getting me to reject the position's null hypothesis is the aim - I find Nazi lesbian eskimos more interesting and heretically prefer fettuccine to spaghetti. It doesn't help that it's chokka with additional piss-poor reasoning tacked on, either. For example, PC finds it intolerable that infinite C could give rise to infinite U because, apparently, infinite C has a dick size insecurity and infinities can't reside simultaneously, but this restriction somehow does not apply to infinite A. Of course, he might enter a special plea that A and C have different natures therefore their infinity is somehow different-yet-compatible, but that would raise the question, why can't U be different-yet-compatible with C? Thusly does the demented merry-go-round of theist reasoning spin around its ridiculous self-center of gravitas going absolutely nowhere, dressed up with sprinkles of photons, e=mc^2 and other science-y stuff to try and make it look interesting and somehow worthy of discussion.
There's nothing more to it. Where are my fucking sausages!?
"Sausages?" I hear you ask, dear reader. Well, funny thing....
PC trots out some examples of "miracles" which he offers as evidences (I deliberately refrain from claiming that he regards them as proofs) for the existence of god. These are naturally all arguments from incredulity, design and/or beauty, but nevertheless they are precisely the types of arguments-in-detail which I mentioned in my original arguments and so they are eligible for unpacking (and as an added bonus, eminently worthy in of themselves for their stupendous lulz coefficient).
1) The speed of light is predicted by contemplating a kilomoonyear
This is of course that chestnut of Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby that the Q'uran predicts the speed of light. I will not go into much detail or put effort to debunk it, that has been ably accomplished by others, as a cursory Google search will show. In short, the argument depends upon injecting a "heliocentric gravity correction factor", which relies on using the sun as a frame of reference for the moon's absolute velocity (while conveniently ignoring: i) the sun's gravity as an empirical variable to begin with; ii) the fact that the solar system as a whole is moving through space as it orbits the center of the milky way, and iii) the fact that the milky way itself moves through space).
If PC was interested in divining the truth, he would have found both the argument and it's rebuttal, but of course his confirmation bias ensures that he only chooses the claim and ignores the rebuttal (as he will do with this post as a whole but that's the nature of the beast).
2) Moon/Earth perimeter rubbish
How's this for a wondrous revelation: Behold. The perimeter of a square touching the earth is four times the diameter of the earth. Well that's just.... I'm blown away. I think we should elevate primary school textbooks to Holy Book status, because you will find that this is exactly what elementary geometry had predicted all along!
I can't be arsed to do the sums so I'll assume the figures are correct. Even so.... what does that have to do with the existence of God? All you have is a funky coincidence. To be precise, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to posit the existence of a god for this coincidence to not be a coincidence, which means that this example of "sacred" geometry once again demonstrates an argument from incredulity, confirmation bias, a multiplication of entities and presupposition of a designer. "I don't understand why so GODDIDIT! It sounds too implausible therefor GODDIDIT!!"
Get real.
But... let's be gracious and assume for the sake of argument that a designer/creator did indeed do it. Why "almost equal?" Why discrepancies depending on how you measure it? I would have though that a perfect, omnimax creator could at least get his grade school geometry right and make the values exactly equal. Now THAT would have been impressive, and some serious material to chew on. But it's "close enough", which is "good enough" if you want to believe it, isn't it?
3) Apparent size of the moon
Note the statement that the moon "fits so perfectly the disc of the sun", yet the moon's orbit is elliptical yielding a 6% maximum difference in apparent size, giving us annular eclipses. Of course, this doesn't matter to the theist mind, which chooses to cherrypick the just-so instances that fits its theology.
PC, I wonder how your deity would respond if you were to tell it that it's perfect, give or take 6%... because that's essentially what you're implying.
4) Gravitational lock
By definition tidally locked bodies have a synchronous orbit and the mechanics are well understood and documented not only with the moon, but other bodies like Pluto and Charon. Learn to do some research, it's easy. Once again, a god isn't necessary for the phenomenon, and why would seeing the same face of the moon all even start to suggest that there is a god? Do you worship the moon? Given the lunacy trotted out by apologists, I suspect that is indeed the case.
Right, I've wasted quite enough time on this putrid abortion of a debate. PC wins, hallelujah, praise bebe haysoos, allahu mcfuckin akhbar and all that. I'll start going to church but those cunts are only getting 6% and not one kopeck more!
Thank you.
Last edited by Jobar on Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hold it, Val, it's PC's turn!
My apologies again, I seem to have given R. Soul unrestricted access to the thread instead of just OKing one post at a time. (I *said* I was a novice at this, didn't I?)
I did a 'soft delete' of your last substantive post, so if you want a copy of it just let me know and I'll PM it to you.
My apologies again, I seem to have given R. Soul unrestricted access to the thread instead of just OKing one post at a time. (I *said* I was a novice at this, didn't I?)
I did a 'soft delete' of your last substantive post, so if you want a copy of it just let me know and I'll PM it to you.
-
Politically Correct
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:33 am
I started the debate because the first draft of your OP was filled with hate and abuse, and thus disqualified you from the debate (only 8 logical fallacy demerits allowed). This would have disallowed my entry which l felt was unfair on me as your problems ought affect only you.
There then follows an incoherent rambling, then:
My Godhead incorporates with those religions followed by the vast majority of people in the world, with Polytheism being finite segments replacing (C) / amidst where infinite (C) is in my model.
It is clear that all numbers exist conceptually. Thus it is clear there is a world existing only in concept (A).
God is defined by Theists as a sentient being, thus there is that component (B).
God is defined in most religions as omnipotent and ever living, even in Polytheistic religions that have a supreme infinite deity ruling over the lesser ones, thus my definition of (C).
GOOD POINT AT LAST! But: No circular ambiguity, the Godhead is one, just as you in one person, have potential to draw on (A) - e.g. form of a kite, and thoughts to formulate that potential (B) - e.g. l will make a kite and do so NOW, and a body to realise thoughts (C) - e.g. the fait accomplis. I think this is basic Platonism.
By the way, it doesn't at all matter whether (U) is finite or infinite, it is still contingent upon the Godhead, Theos, which you needed to have defined by a dictionary, and which my model nonetheless encapsulates, even if (U) is infinite.
The HGCF exists because the sun acts as a gravity well which surely affects the earth-moon model. Sure, the centre of the milky way is also a gravity well, as is the galaxy supercluster the milky way is headed to.
However, the HGCF will be orders of magnitude greater than the wider influences. Proof: the moon doesn't rotate along the plane of the milky way, nor does it orbit it. It answers to the Sun. Anything else is negligible.
How is it that the figure of the Speed of Light (SOL) arrived at by using all these constants or barely-changing "constants" (do you really imagine the sun's change in mass - and hence HGCF - is appreciable over a millennium?), which are all relevant to the solar system, these numbers all crunched in line with a Koranic verse which mentions the work of beings of light called Angels whom are messengers, how is it that the number arrived at = 299,792.498884521 km/s, whilst the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792.458 km/s? More precise than l even originally stated. The verse implicitly mentions beings of light, and it encodes the SOL in vacuum, with a mere 40.8 metres/second discrepancy, which hey, might be the SOL in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or some other fundamental component of the universe.
The abstraction from the verse is purely mental, yet it gives us the SOL to a precision that not even Wikipedia or Google immediately gives us. Thus we have evidence of a higher intelligence at work, in fact it's beyond our comprehension given the time of revelation.
The fact is, square and circle are united by their commonness as basic shapes. They are also united here by the concept of their perimeters. I have demonstrated that using the diameter of Earth and its only moon (diameter in each case), we arrive at an abstraction which has a physical coherence, in the congruence of the perimeter of a square around the Earth, and the circumference of a circle around Earth+Moon when they're both touching. Thus we have mental abstraction equated with physical reality. This is the essence of intelligent design.
Also, a creator would be ineffable. Thus the best proof of his complexity would be the ineffable. Asking to see the ineffable is logically absurd. So you want something less than the max? How about the example already given to you. Slam dunk.
The fact remains, the Sun and Moon are the only sizeable heavenly bodies that we see. They both cast shadows, they both influence our weather etc. And ... they both appear the same size in the sky. Thus we have a mental abstraction (the relation between Earth, Moon and Sun) linked to a physical congruence (the relative sizes of Sun and Moon). Mental and physical connected = evidence for intelligent design. Slam dunk.
CONCLUSION: As you are insanely abusive, plus also because l've rebutted your counterarguments (which particularly for the evidences of creation that l pitched at you, were mere cavils) and you've not shown any initiative in attacking Theism, l'm happy to leave it there unless you have anything constructive to say.
You ought to have looked it up.PC presents for our edification, the idea of an infinite "Godhead" (whatever that means - I will assume
There then follows an incoherent rambling, then:
That is the Godhead in my definition, it is irreducible. Your job is to attack Theism any which way. You could have just explained why you are not a Theist. You could have used a dictionary definition.He is not only presupposing A, B and C
My Godhead incorporates with those religions followed by the vast majority of people in the world, with Polytheism being finite segments replacing (C) / amidst where infinite (C) is in my model.
It is clear that all numbers exist conceptually. Thus it is clear there is a world existing only in concept (A).
God is defined by Theists as a sentient being, thus there is that component (B).
God is defined in most religions as omnipotent and ever living, even in Polytheistic religions that have a supreme infinite deity ruling over the lesser ones, thus my definition of (C).
GOOD POINT AT LAST! But: No circular ambiguity, the Godhead is one, just as you in one person, have potential to draw on (A) - e.g. form of a kite, and thoughts to formulate that potential (B) - e.g. l will make a kite and do so NOW, and a body to realise thoughts (C) - e.g. the fait accomplis. I think this is basic Platonism.
Feel free to define Theos and Theism. Get a dictionary? You must have a concept of Theos in order to be Atheism, even if you claim Atheism is a lack of Theism. You know well enough the definition of the Abrahamic God, that covers most of the world's religion."making shit up".
GOOD POINT AT LAST! But: (A) does not have a positive existence. (B) does not have an existence under physical law, it is mind. (C) is explained. (C) & (U) would both essentially have overlap in their nature, (C) = energy, (U) = energy + matter. Thus infinite (C) and infinite (U) cannot co-exist as distinct entities, they are essentially the same substance, so it is 2 x infinity, which is infinity.infinities can't reside simultaneously, but this restriction somehow does not apply to infinite A ... Of course, he might enter a special plea that A and C have different natures therefore their infinity is somehow different-yet-compatible, but that would raise the question, why can't U be different-yet-compatible with C?
By the way, it doesn't at all matter whether (U) is finite or infinite, it is still contingent upon the Godhead, Theos, which you needed to have defined by a dictionary, and which my model nonetheless encapsulates, even if (U) is infinite.
You will note that l put "miracles" in speech marks, plus l made it known that it was an asides, an extra point of interest that l would like my opponent to disprove. Nowhere did l make it my argument that "this is proof of God". Quite the opposite, l believe that proving God would be to make the test of life void and make toil lose its virtues. Religions are faiths. This is a mainstream view.PC trots out some examples of "miracles" which he offers as evidences (I deliberately refrain from claiming that he regards them as proofs) for the existence of god. These are naturally all arguments from incredulity, design and/or beauty,
I've ignored your disparaging Reductio ad Absurdums so far but now l will call you out. This logical fallacy here is Appeal to Authority. You are saying that it has been debunked by others. These others are somehow automatically correct, yet there is no proof that they are automatically correct, nor even any evidence of their counterargument. However, l will ignore it, as you then attempt to offer a debunking:1) The speed of light is predicted by contemplating a kilomoonyear
This is of course that chestnut of Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby that the Q'uran predicts the speed of light. I will not go into much detail or put effort to debunk it, that has been ably accomplished by others, as a cursory Google search will show.
In short, the argument depends upon injecting a "heliocentric gravity correction factor", which relies on using the sun as a frame of reference for the moon's absolute velocity (while conveniently ignoring: i) the sun's gravity as an empirical variable to begin with; ii) the fact that the solar system as a whole is moving through space as it orbits the center of the milky way, and iii) the fact that the milky way itself moves through space).
The HGCF exists because the sun acts as a gravity well which surely affects the earth-moon model. Sure, the centre of the milky way is also a gravity well, as is the galaxy supercluster the milky way is headed to.
However, the HGCF will be orders of magnitude greater than the wider influences. Proof: the moon doesn't rotate along the plane of the milky way, nor does it orbit it. It answers to the Sun. Anything else is negligible.
How is it that the figure of the Speed of Light (SOL) arrived at by using all these constants or barely-changing "constants" (do you really imagine the sun's change in mass - and hence HGCF - is appreciable over a millennium?), which are all relevant to the solar system, these numbers all crunched in line with a Koranic verse which mentions the work of beings of light called Angels whom are messengers, how is it that the number arrived at = 299,792.498884521 km/s, whilst the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792.458 km/s? More precise than l even originally stated. The verse implicitly mentions beings of light, and it encodes the SOL in vacuum, with a mere 40.8 metres/second discrepancy, which hey, might be the SOL in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or some other fundamental component of the universe.
The abstraction from the verse is purely mental, yet it gives us the SOL to a precision that not even Wikipedia or Google immediately gives us. Thus we have evidence of a higher intelligence at work, in fact it's beyond our comprehension given the time of revelation.
I wasn't referring to the calculation of the perimeter of a square around the Earth.2) Moon/Earth perimeter rubbish
...
All you have is a funky coincidence. To be precise, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to posit the existence of a god for this coincidence to not be a coincidence, which means that this example of "sacred" geometry once again demonstrates an argument from incredulity, confirmation bias, a multiplication of entities and presupposition of a designer.
The fact is, square and circle are united by their commonness as basic shapes. They are also united here by the concept of their perimeters. I have demonstrated that using the diameter of Earth and its only moon (diameter in each case), we arrive at an abstraction which has a physical coherence, in the congruence of the perimeter of a square around the Earth, and the circumference of a circle around Earth+Moon when they're both touching. Thus we have mental abstraction equated with physical reality. This is the essence of intelligent design.
Explained already. Life must remain a test, that's why l'd like you to refute the evidences l offer and theism as a whole. Also explained is that the difference in perimeters might well be zero in some circumstances. It is indeed minute.Why "almost equal?" Why discrepancies depending on how you measure it? I would have though that a perfect, omnimax creator could at least get his grade school geometry right and make the values exactly equal. Now THAT would have been impressive
Also, a creator would be ineffable. Thus the best proof of his complexity would be the ineffable. Asking to see the ineffable is logically absurd. So you want something less than the max? How about the example already given to you. Slam dunk.
I have already explained that the size of the moon varies, so you are not adding to the original paradigm by adding the above. Also note that if you search Google for "why is the moon the same size as the sun" you will see that it is generally agreed that for everyday purposes (even on astronomy sites), they appear the same size, and certainly did so to the ancients, who count as audience as much as we do today. Back then the Light verse in scripture wouldn't have been as amazing as it is today, just as today you can find small discrepancy in the relative sizes of sun and moon in the sky.3) Apparent size of the moon
Note the statement that the moon "fits so perfectly the disc of the sun", yet the moon's orbit is elliptical yielding a 6% maximum difference in apparent size, giving us annular eclipses. Of course, this doesn't matter to the theist mind, which chooses to cherrypick the just-so instances that fits its theology.
The fact remains, the Sun and Moon are the only sizeable heavenly bodies that we see. They both cast shadows, they both influence our weather etc. And ... they both appear the same size in the sky. Thus we have a mental abstraction (the relation between Earth, Moon and Sun) linked to a physical congruence (the relative sizes of Sun and Moon). Mental and physical connected = evidence for intelligent design. Slam dunk.
This example had very little certainty even with me, l was merely asking - look at the wording - I was not actually giving that out as a definite example. I mistakenly thought that the dark side of the moon faced us during a new moon but Google tells me even then it's the same face.4) Gravitational lock
By definition tidally locked bodies have a synchronous orbit
CONCLUSION: As you are insanely abusive, plus also because l've rebutted your counterarguments (which particularly for the evidences of creation that l pitched at you, were mere cavils) and you've not shown any initiative in attacking Theism, l'm happy to leave it there unless you have anything constructive to say.
Given the snafu which this has turned into- for which I accept my own fair share of the blame- I'm going to lock this thread at least temporarily. If both participants can agree to carry on in a more decorous fashion, we'll let it continue.
Okay, I think I have figured out my own error- I was seeing posts to this thread which were not yet publicly visible, while I was thinking they only should show up in the moderation queue in the moderator's control panel.
Gentlemen, if you both want to continue with this, I require it to be carried on less rudely and crudely; cut out the blatant and veiled insults, and try to respond to each other's points in a halfway reasonable manner. If you both are still willing, send me a PM- and then have patience for a while, because I am NOT online all the time!
Okay, I think I have figured out my own error- I was seeing posts to this thread which were not yet publicly visible, while I was thinking they only should show up in the moderation queue in the moderator's control panel.
Gentlemen, if you both want to continue with this, I require it to be carried on less rudely and crudely; cut out the blatant and veiled insults, and try to respond to each other's points in a halfway reasonable manner. If you both are still willing, send me a PM- and then have patience for a while, because I am NOT online all the time!
Last edited by Jobar on Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.