Matt Slick of carm.org is a Christian Apologist whose claim to fame is that no atheist on the planet has refuted his TAG Argument which proves the existence of God. His TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes exist and were ultimately authored by God. Here is a link to his argument:
The term “Logical Absolutes” is an oxymoron invented by Matt Slick. This terminology is nowhere to be found in academia, including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Because logic is not absolute! Here is a reference from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
“Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense, as for instance a metaphysician does. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system.”
Logic is always systemic, i.e. within the context of a pre-defined system of rules (axioms). Logic has its limitations. Axiomatic rules are pre-defined by humans for use in a specific context and can never be absolute. There are hundreds of systems of logic which are independent of each other and not absolute, like: Classical, Fuzzy, Intuitionist, Quantum, Mathematics, etc.
NO ATHEIST HAS EVER REFUTED SLICK’S TAG ARGUMENT
Matt Slick is correct in stating that no atheist has been able to debunk his argument. And I am willing to go the extra mile and state that no atheist will ever be able to debunk Matt Slick’s argument. Atheism is an irrational Religion. There is no difference between a theist, an atheist and an agnostic. All three are divorced from reality. The three believe in the existence, nonexistence, or that it’s not possible to know the existence/nonexistence of X, or they claim to “lack belief” in X. Some go even as far as saying that they can prove or disprove the existence of X, or that they have “truth” about the existence/nonexistence of X.
In nature’s reality, these are ridiculous positions. One’s beliefs, disbeliefs, lack of beliefs, proofs or truths have nothing to do with reality. Reality is observer-independent. The existence of X (i.e. moon, God, star, Big Foot, etc.) does NOT depend on a human’s feelings, emotions, beliefs or lack thereof, intuition, wisdom, knowledge, truth, proof, experiment or testimony. X either exists or not, irrespective of these observer-dependent positions.
Existence falls exclusively in the field of study we call Physics. Physics is the study of existence via the Scientific Method. In Physics, we take the existence of God at face value as an actor (i.e. a Hypothesis). Then we try to rationally explain our Theory of Creation using God as the actor of the creation event. If the Theory of Creation is rational, then we conclude that it is POSSIBLE that God exists. If our critical analysis shows the Theory of Creation to be contradictory, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist. It’s that simple. There is no other option.
Here's how a rational human can use their critical thinking skills to explain why it is impossible for a God to exist:
If the so-called atheist is of the LACK OF BELIEF position, then he is no different than a Religionist who has belief. Lack of belief is a meaningless negative predicate which has nothing to do with existence. Lack of belief is not even a coherent position. It is lame. It’s no different than Negative Theology where God is purported to have negative attributes (incorporeal, timeless, spaceless, etc.). This stuff is the Hallmark of Religion....NOT of an intelligent human being. Atheism is a Religion that has nothing to offer humanity. It cannot explain anything. It has no intellectual foundation to answer any questions regarding reality.
I had the privilege to have a short debate with Matt Slick in Oct. 2011 in the comments section of my article on Absolute Truth:
Matt Slick is known for never losing any debate with an atheist. And I applaud him for that because he is several notches higher on the intelligence scale than any atheist out there. I mean, he ate Matt Dillahunty for lunch on live TV on the Atheist Experience Show. But Matt Slick was not as fortunate when he came here to argue. In the end, he abandoned his argument on Logical Absolutes because he had no rational argument to defend or justify his claims. I actually still encourage him to come back if he has any new argument to offer.
DEBATE BETWEEN MATT SLICK AND FATFIST
MATT SLICK Posts ---------------------------------------------------------------
I would assert that the following is absolute truth.
"It is always morally wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.” (TBMP: Torture Babies Merely for personal Pleasure)
The statement is either true or it is not true – which itself implies an absolute truth.
If it is not true that ‘the statement is either true or not true’, then how would you demonstrate that the statement is or is not true?
If you say that it is not true that ‘the statement is either true or not true’, then you are asserting an absolute truth about the statement.
If you assert that the statement is not absolutely true, then you would need to demonstrate that it is not true.
To do this, you would need to provide an absolute truth to the contrary where it would be morally right for you to torture babies merely for his personal pleasure. But to do this is to assert an absolute truth.
If you do try to prove the statement false, you are advocating the torture of babies merely you’re your personal pleasure. Are you absolutely sure this what you want to do in order to deny absolute truth?
If, however, you provide a statement that proves the TBMP is false, then you are establishing an absolute truth; namely, that it is absolutely true that there is a condition in which it is morally right for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.
However, if you cannot provide a falsification for the statement, then the statement stands as being an absolute truth.
If you say that there are no moral truths by which the assertion can be validated or falsified, then you are offering an absolute truth that there are no moral truths by which the assertion can be validated or falsified and this refutes your position.
If you say that the statement is ridiculous, illogical, stupid, or isn’t a proper subject of examination, then you are admitting you cannot refute it…because if you could, you would.
FATFIST Responds ---------------------------------------------------------------
"It is always morally wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure”
Morals are opinions. They are subject to one’s personal taste...i.e. YOU are judging the behavior of another..hence subjective..i.e. opinion. What is morally RIGHT for you,..is morally WRONG for your neighbor. Morality is resolved through consensus of opinion.
“The statement is either true or it is not true”
So you are qualifying opinions/morals as either ‘true’ or ‘not true’??
In that case your definition of the word “truth” (which you have yet to provide) would be subjective, as it resolves to nothing but OPINION. Your use of the concept of “truth” requires an observer to make a decision based upon their personal taste on the issue at hand.
But Matt, you are welcome to provide an OBJECTIVE definition for the word “truth” so the audience understands what YOU are talking about whenever you invoke this crucial term which makes or breaks your argument.
“which itself implies an absolute truth.”
No. It implies an ABSOLUTE OPINION, as per your statements above. All you’ve said so far is that “truth” and “morals” are synonyms for “opinion”.
But please feel free to enlighten the audience by providing an objective definition for “truth”. This would allow you to instantly resolve this issue.
“If you say that the statement is ridiculous, illogical, stupid, or isn’t a proper subject of examination, then you are admitting you cannot refute it…”
Nahhh....haven’t said any of that, and they are irrelevant to the instant issue. Your argument for “absolute truth” is self-refuting because it is predicated on truth = opinion.
But you are welcome to show otherwise.....just define the term which makes or breaks your argument, ok?
MATT SLICK Responds ---------------------------------------------------------------
If you say that morals are just opinions, then you are only giving your opinion that morals are just opinions which is the fallacy of begging the questions and does not refute TBMP. In addition, to say that morals are just opinions, is an absolute statement since it must mean that all morals are just opinions and this would imply a universal truth (which against refutes the idea that there are not absolute truths). If it were not true that morals were opinions, then TBMP is true (unless you can prove it false) and refutes the idea that there are not truth absolutes. Furthermore, to state that morals are just opinions is to say that the morality of TBMP is only up to someone’s opinion and you’d be supporting the idea that due to a person’s subjective moral code, it would be morally good for him to torture babies merely for his personal pleasure. Is this what you want to advocate?
As far as what truth is, there are different appeals: coherence theory, correspondence theory, concensus theory, liguistic theory. So, instead of debating what truth really is (Red Herring), tells us all what YOU believe truth is and I will work with that.
FATFIST Responds ---------------------------------------------------------------
“If you say that morals are just opinions....”
No! It is YOU and YOUR argument which is saying that morals are opinions. What is morally “right” to you, is morally “wrong” to somebody else. Which part don’t you understand?
All I have to do is find one person who disagrees with your TBMP statement; one whose tastes are different than yours; one whose morals are different than yours. And since his morals are DIFFERENT than yours, then who is right and who is wrong?
Q: What objective means do you use to resolve this?
A: There are no objective means....everyone’s morals are different. This means that your TBMP statement can only possibly be resolved to that of one’s OPINION, and nothing else.
If you disagree, then please DEFINE this crucial term (morals) which makes or breaks your argument. Then we’ll BOTH know whether your definition resolves to opinion or not, ok? Here you go.....
“then you are only giving your opinion that morals are just opinions which is the fallacy of begging the questions”
No. This is your fallacy. You are using “circular reasoning” and surreptitiously making an “argument from ignorance” in the hopes that the audience won’t notice. But you fool no one. Whether the concept of MORALS resolves to OPINION or not, is objectively settled when the proponent of the argument (i.e. YOU) DEFINES this crucial term to show that morals are resolved without injecting the opinion/subjectivity of a human observer....got it? I already explained to you that your TBMP statement may be morally right for you, but completely rejected as wrong by another person. This means that YOUR use (i.e. operational definition) of the term “morals” in YOUR argument is predicated upon OPINION, and OPINION alone! Which part are you having trouble with? Tell me and I’ll explain it to you with the luxury of detail.
“to say that morals are just opinions, is an absolute statement”
No. This is your strawman. Circular reasoning and fancy logical sophistry ain’t gonna help you here. This has nothing to do with what I say. This issue is resolved objectively. This is an issue of DEFINITIONS, and DEFINITIONS only!! The term “morals” is a concept. All concepts are defined. This is the only objective criterion by which you can resolve this issue right here and right now.
READ MY LIPS: Whether morals = opinions or not, is an issue that is objectively settled by DEFINING the key term which makes or breaks YOUR argument. This term which YOU must define is “morals”.....and the onus is on YOU to show the audience that YOUR definition of morals does NOT resolve to one’s personal taste/subjectivity/opinion/etc. So here you go.....
“since it must mean that all morals are just opinions and this would imply a universal truth”
No. You are missing the boat. This is NOT an issue of truth, lies, beliefs, etc. This is an issue that falls squarely on the DEFINITION of the key term which makes or breaks your argument: morals.
And btw....your operational definition of the term TRUTH also resolves to OPINION, as I explained to you in my last post. And you have yet to objectively define “truth”.
“Furthermore, to state that morals are just opinions is to say that the morality of TBMP is only up to someone’s opinion”
Exactly! This is exactly what YOUR argument resolves to. If you would like YOUR argument to state otherwise, all you have to do is DEFINE “morals” objectively, where this term does NOT resolve to someone’s personal taste/subjectivity/opinion/etc. So here you go.....
“and you’d be supporting the idea that due to a person’s subjective moral code, it would be morally good for him to torture babies merely for his personal pleasure. Is this what you want to advocate?”
What I support and what I advocate is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this argument. Subjectivity plays no role here. Arguments should be objective and not invoke the opinions of observers. Arguments from opinion, authority, popularity, red herrings, you toos or me toos, etc....shall not divert the proponent’s responsibility from demonstrating to the audience that their DEFINITION of their key term (morals) does not resolve to one’s opinion.....especially since their operational use of this term thus far has demonstrated the opposite.
Matt: “As far as what truth is, there are different appeals: coherence theory, correspondence theory, concensus theory, liguistic theory.”
Matt: “tells us all what YOU believe truth is and I will work with that.”
So you don’t know what “truth” is, huh? How can somebody make an argument which is predicated on this crucial term (truth, absolute truth, etc.) and not be able to objectively define it?
And asking me what I BELIEVE truth is....is irrelevant to this argument. This is not an issue of belief or opinion. This is an objective issue....an issue of objective DEFINITIONS. Otherwise, how is the audience supposed to understand what you are talking about whenever you invoke this crucial term which makes or breaks your argument?
I will stick with your original use of this term “truth”, which resolves to opinion. What is “true” for you, is a “lie” to someone else. Truth is observer-dependent. You cannot demonstrate otherwise.
TRUTH = OPINION.
But you are free to show the audience otherwise....here you go...objectively define the crucial terms which make or break your argument:
MATT SLICK Responds ---------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious that you don't have the money to pony up. Therefore, you're going to continue to ignore the facts, ignore absolute truth, and say whatever you have to say in order to bolster your opinion.
It is YOUR argument that says morals are opinions. Not mine. I don't believe that all morals are opinions. Now, if you want to call me on my radio show sometime so we can have a live discussion on this, I would be quite happy to engage you, www.carm.org/radio
Finding someone who disagrees with TBMP isn't the issue. It'd be like someone disagreeing with the concept that 2+2=4 and saying "See, I proved you wrong!
Someone disagrees with you." Finding a hypothetical individual doesn't refute the argument. But, if you think it does, then produce such an individual. Back it up.
Of course, you assume absolute truths in your arguments at various points in order to try and make logical statements. You assume the validity of logical inference, the axiomatic truth of the law of identity, and you presuppose the validity of to the law of non-contradiction, etc..Of course, the law of excluded middle is something you probably don't realize you are validating over and over again.
NOW...In order for you to argue rationally, logically, you have to assume the validity of the absolute truths of logic by which proper discourse can occur: 1) The Law of Identity, 2) The Law of Non-Contradiction, 3) The Law of Excluded Middle, and 4) The Law of Proper Inference. If you want to argue that these laws are not absolute truths, then I have two things for you. First, if you deny the absolute truth of the logical axioms upon which proper discourse is based, then upon what non-absolute/relative principles do you base your attempt at logical discourse? Second, if you were to deny the absolute truths of the logical absolutes upon which proper logical discourse is made, then I offer following sentence for your viewing pleasure, "Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."
Of course absolute truth exists. You have presupposed the absolutes of logical truths upon which logical discourse is built when you've tried to argue against absolute truth! You are self refuting! If you want to deny the logical absolutes exist, then...well.... again, "Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."
Where's my money?
FATFIST Responds ---------------------------------------------------------------
“ignore absolute truth.... you assume absolute truths.....absolute truth........absolute truth........absolute truth.....blah blah “
Ummmm.....what do you mean by “truth”. Unless you define this crucial term which makes or breaks YOUR argument, you’ve said nothing! All you’ve said so far is...”absolute X”....totally meaningless without a definition, agree?
“It is YOUR argument that says morals are opinions.”
No! It is YOUR argument on your INITIAL POST....you are on the record....go and re-read it....I have explained it to you many times. You gloss over the fine points and then end up chasing strawmen....and round and round in circles you go!
But YES, I concede that I AGREE with YOUR operational use of morals as opinions. You have not shown otherwise in any of your posts. You CANNOT even define this simple term. No wonder you haven’t the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
Morals is a concept that was conceived by religionists – i.e. human observers.
Whenever a human observer, like a theist (and a stupid atheist too) renders a decision regarding their PERSONAL standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is, and is not acceptable for THEM to do in their lives....they will attribute this to their “morals”. What is personal to each person is SUBJECTIVE. What is morally right for you, is morally wrong for your neighbour. Ergo.....MORALS = OPINION!!!
Please cut and paste here ANY definition of “morals” from any source, your BIBLES, even from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy....you will instantly see that morals resolves to an individual’s OPINION. Please....be my guest....
READ MY LIPS: It is impossible to objectively decide who is right and who is wrong in one’s personal choice for a standard of behavior/beliefs (i.e. morals)....got it?
Which part are you having trouble understanding??
Morality was invented by religion. Morality is an OPINION! Raping a baby and killing it is NOT immoral. It simply IS! It's an event that happened. It's an objective fact. Mother Nature cleans her ass with our opinions about the event. All she sees is some atoms that are no longer struggling against gravity (i.e. dead body). You put too much emphasis on the 'opinion' side and assign little weight to the 'fact' side.
“I don't believe that all morals are opinions”
Who gives a rat’s behind what you or anyone else BELIEVES or doesn’t believe? This is an OBJECTIVE issue...not an OPINION (i.e. belief) as you constantly gravitate towards.
This is not an issue of belief or knowledge, faith or wisdom, truth or lies, observers or experiments, opinions or proof, testimony or evidence, like or dislike. This is an issue of rational definitions. I have already defined “morals” for you. If you don’t like my rational definition, then you are free to offer YOUR rational definition, ok?
I have already explained to you what morals are......you haven’t offered anything to support your counter-argument. All you’ve said so far is:
“Duh...well....I don’t like it when you say that morals are subjective to an individual.....I don’t want them to be the same as opinions.....and therefore what I say stands....so says I”.
“if you want to call me on my radio show sometime so we can have a live discussion on this”
Why? Are you too ashamed to put your responses on the record here on HP, where they are instantly accessible by Google and its affiliates? A radio show comes and goes. Here, our conversation is instantly and permanently accessible via search engines.....it even gets prioritized to the top of search hits because of Google adsense.
I am not embarrassed by what I post here on the record.....are you?
“It'd be like someone disagreeing with the concept that 2+2=4 and saying "See, I proved you wrong!”
Nonsense to the N-th degree!!! Argument from ignorance.
2+2=4, NOT because of what someone believes or agrees or opines....beliefs/opinions are irrelevant.
2+2=4 because it is tautologically derived from the DEFINED axioms/rules of base-10 arithmetic. It is within the context of a system.....the rule-based axiomatic system that is DEFINED in base-10 arithmetic.
And btw....2+2=11 in base-3 arithmetic, and not 4 as you allege....so your sweeping statement above, is WRONG....again, because it is within a different system of rules encompassing digits, operands, and derivations.
You see, my dear Matt.....you cannot avoid DEFINITIONS. It is irrelevant who agrees or who disagrees with the pre-DEFINED rules of Arithmetic. And by disagreeing, you are NOT proving anything wrong (as you allege).....you are simply proving your IGNORANCE of concepts. These rules are not opinions.....they are tautologically objective within their defined context of usage...outside that realm, they are inapplicable...got it?
“But, if you think it does, then produce such an individual. Back it up.”
Ummmm....have you ever heard of this nice search engine called Google? Read the instructions on how to use it to produce a list of baby torturers in your local area....ok? Perhaps you can get one to call your radio show.
“1) The Law of Identity, 2) The Law of Non-Contradiction, 3) The Law of Excluded Middle, and 4) The Law of Proper Inference. “
There are no laws in reality. Apparently, you confuse reality with the legal profession. Law is a discipline that is full of liars... I mean lawyers. In reality, we have explanations, not laws. 'Laws' means that YOU adopted a statement as being dear in YOUR heart. That doesn't concern reality in the least.
Reality does not enact laws, which are human concepts. There is no legislature, no Parliament, Matt. There are no lawyers in Mother Nature’s realm. She doesn’t take people to trial or ask them for their testimonies. She just moves atoms from one location to another.
“If you want to argue that these laws are not absolute truths,...”
Ummmm.....what do you mean by “truth” ....define it! Are you SCARED that I will instantly rip it to shreds before your very eyes???
Indeed....they are axioms...rules DEFINED by man.
“upon which proper discourse is based”
Only within the context of Classical Logic!! They are NOT applicable in many other logical systems which humans use, like Quantum Logic, for example. This means that they are without question, NOT absolute....got it? Your whole argument is self-refuting because it is an argument from IGNORANCE.
“Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."
Indeed my Blue does!!! You see, my dear Matt.....Blue is one of my dogs. My other dog is Wednesday. Blue always falls asleep faster than Wednesday. If you don’t “believe” me, please come here and time them for yourself, ok?
You don’t have the slightest clue of what you are trying to argue. You are attacking strawmen at every turn. You are chasing your tail in circles because you don’t understand the basics of concepts, grammar (context and syntax), and most importantly....you don’t understand that ALL concepts are DEFINED!
“Of course absolute truth exists”
Ummmm....what do you mean by this formidable term “exist”?? You’ve said nothing, my dear Matt.
Physics IS the discipline that studies existence - Physics IS the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Anyone claiming the existence of an entity (object) has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. He will be met head on.
Therefore, the crucial words that anyone discussing matters of reality (existence) must be able to define are the words ‘object’ and ‘exist’. If you cannot define these two words, you are NOT talking about reality. You are talking about Religion. So here goes...
Please fill in the blanks, Matt.
Here, let me help you....here are the scientific (i.e. rational, consistent, unambiguous) definitions.
Object: that which has shape
Exist: physical presence
The 'physical' part alludes to an object. The 'presence' part invokes location. An object exists if in addition it has location. Superman is an object (has shape, can be illustrated). Superman is an object that does not exist. So is an ideal cube or a tribar.
I mean, if you don't agree with the scientific definition of 'object' or 'exist', your job is to point out what is wrong with them and propose alternatives. So far you just made unsubstantiated statements about a concept (absolute truth) existing, because you don’t understand that all concepts presuppose the presence of objects. Objects precede concepts. A sentient observer (object) is necessary to conceive of a concept. Also, the definition of the word object precedes the definition of the word concept.
In the absence of a sentient being, no concepts can be conceived. Concepts do NOT exist! But, you are free to argue otherwise with YOUR definitions.
Q: In your Religion, is “absolute truth” an entity/object, or a concept?
Matt: “You have presupposed the absolutes of logical X upon which logical discourse is built when you've tried to argue against absolute X!”
Ummmm......what do you mean by X, Matt? Where is your DEFINITION of X? You’ve said NOTHING! But please, keep on evading the issue.....it’s quite amusing to see you dance while your shoes are on fire!
“If you want to deny the logical absolutes exist, then...well.... again, "Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday."
That my dog Blue sleeps faster than my dog Wednesday (as explained above) is not an absolute, and neither it is a truth.....it is a CONSUMMATED EVENT of reality. Do you understand the difference? Perhaps you should take an introductory course in Reality 101. Reality has objects which perform events. An event (i.e., motion) takes up two or more locations of an object. For instance, the explosion of a star, the single beat of a drum, my dog sleeping, a car collision, etc.... without exception take up no less than two frames in a film.
Where do truths, lies, morals, beliefs, absolutes and opinions fit in Mother Nature’s realm?
Reality has NO concepts like beliefs, absolutes, opinions, morals, truths and lies. Only human apes invent such nonsense.
“Where's my money?”
Oh, you didn’t know? I have it right here.....$5000 USD in my PayPal account. I will gladly TRANSFER it to the account of YOUR CHOICE if you can rationally define the following terms which make or break your argument....and I expect nothing from you if you can’t define them. Losing your argument is good enough for me.
Are these 4 petty terms too much for you to swallow? Ok, then please tell me how much money you would like after you define all 4 of them, ok? I mean, what more incentive do you want for taking 4 minutes of your time to define these simple terms (WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND..nudge nudge...wink wink) for our audience?
I am on the RECORD with this offer.....everyone take note!!! I can’t turn back now, for if I default on the payment to Matt Slick, then I will have to delete this article and remove my account from HP out of sheer embarrassment.
fatfist (author) on June 27, 2014:
“Logical absolutes were not invented by Matt Slick”
Never said they were. But the terminology was probably invented by him (if not by another Religionist) as there is no such terminology as “logical absolutes” in Academia. Now Atheists are parroting this "logical absolutes" nonsense like it's Gospel.
“A is A…..These actually are absolutes”
The term absolute is contradictory as it refers to a concept that has no relations; i.e. the antithesis of Relative.
Concept: a relation between objects
All concepts have relations. So to assert that the concept of “absolute” has no relations is a contradiction in terms.
That’s why there are no absolutes.
Besides, the law of identity isn’t even a law and has nothing to do with Aristotle’s laws of logic. It's erroneously attributed to him. Aristotle wasn't that stupid to assert a meaningless rhetorical tautology as having anything to do with logic. It is in fact contradictory as explained here:
“A is A” was decreed into Law by the Religionists in order prove the existence of God. The numbskull Atheists swallowed it hook, line and sinker. That’s why these parrots belong to a religion called Atheism that predicates existence on belief. Can you believe these clowns?
michael3ov on June 27, 2014:
A is A; A cannot be B
For any proposition, either A is true or A is not true
A cannot be true and false at the same time in the same sense.
These actually are absolutes. They always hold logically and they are also used extensively in the foundation of mathematics which is as close to absolute as our knowledge can get.
michael3ov on June 27, 2014:
Logical absolutes were not invented by Matt Slick. They have been called different things, 3 laws of thought being another. They have been around since Plato and are often talked about in academia. The law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, and the law of identity are all axiomatic rules in which much, if not all, of rational discourse and logic are based off of.
Slick engages in an enormous amount of sophistry when using them though.
fatfist (author) on June 26, 2014:
"makes me want to go live alone on a mountain sometimes"
Moses tried that...and he found God!
"Is there no desire to understand reality among the masses?"
No there isn't, Alan. Most people on this planet don't give a rat's arse about understanding anything, much less reality. You can see it in the comments of all my articles. PhD's from all disciplines come here to argue that words can have multiple meanings within their presentation, that 'nothing' can self-create into 'something', that an 'absolute' is an actual concept even though they cannot give a non-contradictory example of one, etc. etc.
Face it....there is no hope for the human ape.
Alan on June 26, 2014:
My problem with the whole God hypothesis is that it makes no damn since. All "god" concepts are contradictory to begin with . It drives me crazy when theists and atheist want to talk to me about it. I can't get away from it sometimes. I notice it everywhere and it makes me want to go live alone on a mountain sometimes. Why is this so hard for people to "get"? This is something I am having difficulty with. Am I becoming ignorant as to how people can be so ignorant? Is there no desire to understand reality among the masses? These questions keeps me awake at night.
fatfist (author) on April 17, 2014:
Thank you, Big Pharma.
Pharmd842 on April 12, 2014:
Definitely, what a fantastic website and informative posts, I definitely will bookmark your blog.All the Best! effebfc
Pharme863 on April 12, 2014:
Hello, I desire to subscribe for this blog to obtain most recent updates, thus where can i do it please help. eccdfdg
fatfist (author) on May 04, 2013:
We were all affiliated with atheism at one point, weren't we, Jeth? Even though I was never a theist, I tried very hard to be a good atheist....until I couldn't take it anymore with all the creationist Big Bang BS and Quantum Magic. Something is rotten in Denmark. Paradigm shifts are good when reason and rationality is employed. An atheist can never know if God really exists or not. A rational human can explain in detail exactly WHY a creator God is impossible....and without contradictions.
Contrary to Atheists, we are not here to be right or to win pissing contests. We are here to talk rationally....something that Atheists don't want to do.
Jethu262 from Cincinatti on May 04, 2013:
I just want to tell you that after reading several of your articles, I have had a near-complete paradigm shift, and am starting to realize that perhaps you are right about the religion/atheist connection. I never truly accepted the big bang theory, but I left the possibility open that it could be accurate. I now see the folly of my ways and completely concede that it is absolutely irrational to consider that faith based position to even be possible by any means.
I'm really glad I came across your articles, and feel that I've now had my second liberation, the first of which was when I turned from believing in the biblical god. Thank you.
fatfist (author) on May 03, 2013:
“How can we come to the conclusion that our brain is interpreting the signals it receives from our senses, and use that interpretation to explain the state of reality accurately?”
Interpreting sensory stimuli, and explaining reality are two activities that are divorced from each other. In science we don’t gawk at a robed bearded man with long hair walk on water, raise the dead, etc. and conclude its Jesus. This is the Religious Method. In science we use the SM to hypothesize that Jesus exists (without even seeing Him). Then in our various theories we explain whatever phenomena Jesus is purported to perform. If our explanation is rational without contradictions, then Jesus may indeed exist even if He is purposely hiding from us. If the explanation is irrational, then it is impossible for Jesus to exist.
No observations….no interpretations….no nonsense. Again….you gotta divorce yourself from the Religious Method and learn the Scientific Method. This is where you are struggling and allowing Sye Ten to pull you in different directions.
BTW….Sye Ten was invited in our science group to showcase his reasoning powers. He read my article on absolute truth and ran off.
“our senses can be deceived, so how can we be sure that what we are observing is indeed reality”
Easy. Our senses are deceived when a woman gets sawed in half….when one walks on water…..when we see God as a burning bush talking to us….when we see ghosts, etc. Our intellect and ability to reason is unlimited and a distinct ability from sensory interpretation.
Jethu262 from Cincinatti on May 03, 2013:
"Again, his beliefs are irrelevant and have nothing to do with reality."
Correct. I was simply using him as an example of a self described atheist who thinks that it is impossible for god to exist by definition.
"There is no provision belief or confidence is the sci method"
Agreed. Sye Ten Bruggencate has a compelling question which I asked in the previous post in some way or another, but I will rephrase it for clarity: How can we come to the conclusion that our brain is interpreting the signals it receives from our senses, and use that interpretation to explain the state of reality accurately?
My position is that at some point, regardless of what the actual state of reality is, we must believe, or trust, or have confidence in our interpretation of the observations we are making. We both know that our senses can be deceived, so how can we be sure that what we are observing is indeed reality?
fatfist (author) on May 03, 2013:
“AronRa, who from my understanding, believes it to be impossible for god to exist under any circumstances.”
Again, his beliefs are irrelevant and have nothing to do with reality. Science is about rationally explaining why God is impossible. Believing it is not an argument. It’s justifying your position with a non-contradictory argument that counts.
“you have to BELIEVE (you could also use trust, or have confidence) that you are accurately interpreting what your senses are perceiving as reality.”
Science is the study of reality using the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory). There is no provision belief or confidence is the sci method…it’s either objective and rational or it isn’t. In science we define “reality” and away we go.
Real/exist: an object with location
There is no provision for belief or interpretation or observers in the definition of what’s real. It’s either rational or it isn’t. Those who think it isn’t, should have no problem showcasing the contradiction. In that case, the proponent of the definition needs to go back to the drawing board. Only in Religion do they believe. Don’t confuse Science with Religion.
“The question is, how do we determine that our opinions are the best, or most accurate, description of reality?”
Easy. We throw all opinions out the window. We never invoke opinions in Hypotheses & Theories…we only explain phenomena rationally using the objects of our hypothesis. We don't even invoke opinions and observers in our scientific definitions, as is the case for 'real/exist'. No opinion…no belief,..no nonsense.
Jethu262 from Cincinatti on May 03, 2013:
"And if you didn’t put this Atheist label on your forehead, you think you’d be treated less than a human?.....If a God is impossible to exist, then what good is this label? What is the purpose of it? "
Of course not, as I stated before, I label myself as such (when the conversation is of this very nature), to give a very basic description of my position. I dislike labels as much as anyone else, but oftentimes, it is useful to use them to quickly establish a base position. I do not just go around telling everyone I meet that I am an atheist, THAT serves no purpose.
"You need to stop living a life in fear of a possible God."
That statement is a strawman, I never said that I believe that god can possibly exist. I will clarify this for you: I do not believe it is possible for god to exist, and I certainly do not have a fear of punishment after death. In fact, reading your articles only hardened my position further, so thank you for that.
"Irrelevant what they’re willing to admit to. But when cornered, the Atheist always admits that a God may possibly exist"
I will concede that a great many do leave open a very minute possibility, but there are some who do not- a pretty well known example is AronRa, who from my understanding, believes it to be impossible for god to exist under any circumstances. I do not know his stance on big bang theory- I have never heard him discuss it.
" Belief has nothing to do with reality."
I agree with this statement, but you have to BELIEVE (you could also use trust, or have confidence) that you are accurately interpreting what your senses are perceiving as reality. I agree with you that reality is the only state, regardless of anyone's opinion of it. The question is, how do we determine that our opinions are the best, or most accurate, description of reality?
fatfist (author) on May 03, 2013:
“I define myself as an atheist in order to instantly set myself apart from those who believe that fairies, magic skymen, and invisible dragons exist, in whatever form they think is possible.”
And if you didn’t put this Atheist label on your forehead, you think you’d be treated less than a human? There are no atheists, theists or agnostics….only humans. These labels are for the deluded of the human ape species who haven’t fully evolved yet. It may take another 500 million years for them to do so…..but I seriously doubt it…..it would be more like Trillions of years.
“Atheist- does not hold a belief or reverence in a god or gods, or supreme creator of the universe.”
If a God is impossible to exist, then what good is this label? What is the purpose of it? Will it get you ahead of the line at a Dance Club on Saturday night? Will more women approach you on the dance floor?
You need to stop living a life in fear of a possible God. It’s not good for your health to wonder whether God will punish you or not after you die. A human can use his brain to rationally explain WHY a God is impossible. End game for God. He dies an instant death:
“Atheism: the belief that a divine God can possibly exist."
“I have to tell you, I don't know anyone who would call themselves an atheist and define it the way you just did.”
Irrelevant what they’re willing to admit to. But when cornered, the Atheist always admits that a God may possibly exist, but they don’t know or have evidence for the Almighty. If they obtain evidence, they will BELIEVE in the Good Lord. What morons!
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Richard Dawkins
“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible.” – Pastor Lawrence Krauss
“It is possible for a God to exist. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang…nothing! Do you understand that? To say that there was not a God BEFORE the Big Bang is to claim something that you cannot KNOW!” -- Tim Brooks, Professional Atheist
See video @ 1:00:00
Atheism is obviously the belief that a God is possible…..but, they’ll just wait it out and ridicule Theists until such evidence arrives. If atheists claim not to know or prove otherwise, then they already dug their own grave on this issue. They shouldn’t complain when they get embarrassed when I point out the obvious.
“ALL atheists think that the universe spontaneously exploded into existence from nothing, i.e. big bang, singularity speculation. ALL atheists think it is possible for a divine, transcendental god to exist. ALL atheists worship scientists such as Hawking, Dawkins, Kaku, etc.”
Yes they do! Just try going into any Atheist convention or question any of the Priests of Atheism, like Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, etc. and they will chew your head off and ridicule you out the door if you don’t believe in the above. Just try it and see.
“ there are plenty of us out there who willingly wear the A-tag and do not adhere to these assertions.”
Then you are part of the extreme minority who are outcasts or heretics. You’re lucky you don’t live in the Dark Ages, because the Atheists of that era would burn you alive at the stake for such heresy.
“Getting a group of atheists to agree on many things is like trying to herd cats, it just doesn't work-we do our own thing.”
This is exactly what Religions do, like Christianity, for example. That’s why there are over 20,000 sects of Christianity which disagree with each other. Any wonder why the Catholics and Orthodox split up? When a group resorts to entertaining people’s OPINIONS instead of their rationally-justified arguments, then you have the making of a Religion. And Atheism is no different in that respect. Atheism is a Religion by every possible interpretation of the word, bar none!
“Heck our senses can even be deliberately fooled”
Always…..and without us even knowing it! That’s why we critically reason our arguments without contradictions, instead of observing God, angels, black holes, Big Bang, 0D particles, etc. and proving these contradictory entities to exist.
“EVERYONE has some sort of belief system by which they make sense of their observations, whether they like it or not, and that includes you.”
Speak for yourself, Jethu. You are obviously living under the paradigm of the Dark Ages, where people were scared of the unknown, couldn’t define their terms, nor could they reason simple arguments (like God)….and hence forced by their Priests to believe. Belief has nothing to do with reality. A human with a brain can use the Scientific Method to draw rational conclusions about reality without contradictions. Belief plays no role in science nor do we partake in belief when we explain any phenomenon in nature….including Creation and God’s good or evil works.
Jethu262 from Cincinatti on May 03, 2013:
I enjoy reading your hubs- they are thought provoking, well written, and informative. Having said that, I want to point out that you always lump atheists ("nothing more than a FANATICAL RELIGION") into the same category as religious nuts, which by definition is inaccurate. I define myself as an atheist in order to instantly set myself apart from those who believe that fairies, magic skymen, and invisible dragons exist, in whatever form they think is possible. I understand you like terms to be well defined in a discussion, so here you go:
Atheist- does not hold a belief or reverence in a god or gods, or supreme creator of the universe.
Theist- holds a belief and reverence in a god or gods, particularly a supreme creator of the universe.
One of the above definitions are true for everyone.
"Here's the definition of ATHEISM consistently espoused by all Atheists out there...
Atheism: the belief that a divine God can possibly exist."
I have to tell you, I don't know anyone who would call themselves an atheist and define it the way you just did, so I'm not sure if that statement was satirical or you actually think its true. So which is it?
I've also seen you make assertions in your hubs that (to paraphrase);
ALL atheists think that the universe spontaneously exploded into existence from nothing, i.e. big bang, singularity speculation.
ALL atheists think it is possible for a divine, transcendental god to exist.
ALL atheists worship scientists such as Hawking, Dawkins, Kaku, etc.
This is false, there are plenty of us out there who willingly wear the A-tag and do not adhere to these assertions. In fact, the only thing most atheists have in common is our stand on religion- we see no reason to believe it, and hence, we do not. There are atheists who claim to have seen ghosts, or other things or events of that nature (I am not one of them), and there are certainly many who leave open the possibility that some form of god can exist, but to each their own, they are free to think whatever they want. Getting a group of atheists to agree on many things is like trying to herd cats, it just doesn't work-we do our own thing.
Now, you may not like the use of the word "belief", but as humans, we rely on our senses and the way our brain interprets them, which often gives us an incorrect representation of reality. Heck our senses can even be deliberately fooled, just watch the show Brain Games. So, on some level at least, we have to "believe" everything we perceive in order to reach a conclusion, whether accurate or not. EVERYONE has some sort of belief system by which they make sense of their observations, whether they like it or not, and that includes you.
All in all though, great articles, keep up the good work! :D
fatfist (author) on April 28, 2013:
“what your theory of "Truth" is”
You will find that I don’t use loose language here. A Theory is a rational explanation. To Theorize means to explain. Truth is not a phenomenon amenable to explanation. Truth is simply a concept, a relation which is defined....and not "theorized".
"Snow is White is true"
Not the snow that I saw. It was grey with some yellow patches. But definitely not white. So, what’s true for you is not for me…..and not for countless of others either.
“ your definition of truth “
This has nothing to do with my definition, this has to do with what makes sense and can be justified.
Truth: a concept of validation for propositional statements.
Truth is an abstract concept that necessarily embodies 2 relations: proposition & validation. Without a proposition that is validated (i.e. proven) by someone, you cannot attach a label of “truth” to a proposition. All truth is empirical (validated by the sensory system). As such, truth is subjective….it always resolves to one’s opinion. What is true for you….is a LIE to your neighbor, and vice versa.
“[Slick] his argument for logic being conceptual by nature is fallacious”
Well, if Systems of Logic are not concepts, then what do you propose they are….objects?
Object: that which has shape
Concept: a relation between two or more objects
Logic embodies relations. Logic is indeed a concept. You can’t find logic under a rock or in outer space. Logic has no shape.
“One reason very simply why substances cannot be effects is because they don't occur”
Substance is a synonym for ‘object’.
Object: that which has shape (Synonyms: substance, exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, material, structure, architecture, medium, particle, figure, item, it)
Effects are concepts….relations between objects. Effects occur because an effect is a phenomenon that is mediated by an object. Only objects can perform these verbs we call “effects”. Concepts can’t mediate effects (i.e. fallacy of reification).
“the Kalam in it's present form doesn't work”
I have dissected the Kalam in extreme detail here…..
Christopher A. Powell on April 28, 2013:
Good day, Fatfist. I have to ask what your theory of "Truth" is. I hold to a deflationary theory of truth where "Truth" is nothing but a meta-linguistic device. It can be understood in the Tarskian sense of semantic theory, the Quinean Disquotational sense, the minimalist sense, or whatever. so "Snow is White is true" = "Snow is white". So, I would be interested to hear your definition of truth or account of it. I think Matt Slick's Tag argument isn't good at all. First, it commits a standard equivocation fallacy by conflating token-instances of logical abstractions with the type of logical laws, i.e., states of affairs consisting of instances of ~(P^P) or P=P. Therefore, his argument for logic being conceptual by nature is fallacious. I also think his TAG argument is committed to a theistic-concept nominalist view of abstracta which is deficient. In regards to William Lane Craig (Who I think is one of the most brilliant Philosophers of time we have in the Anglo-American world) I think there can be a very good sound argument for the origin of the universe. But I think the Kalam in it's present form doesn't work because premise 1 entails that individuals and substances can stand in causal relations which is false. Even Agent Causal theorists reject the view that substances can be effects. One reason very simply why substances cannot be effects is because they don't occur, we have evidence from natural language of causal claims that those entities which we characteristically take to be causal relata are picked out by perfect nominals, and imperfect nominals (and sometimes a few other linguistic types). Such expressions denote events or facts, not individual substances (cf. Bennett (1988), Mackie (1974) and Schaffer (2008 sect. 1)).
Can't wait for further discussion. Cheers.
Mklow1 on April 12, 2013:
fatfist (author) on March 05, 2013:
Here's the definition of ATHEISM consistently espoused by all Atheists out there...
Atheism: the belief that a divine God can possibly exist.
fatfist (author) on March 04, 2013:
Atheism is nothing more than a FANATICAL RELIGION. That's why they lose all their arguments against theists.
Matt Slick, William Lane Craig and Sye Ten Bruggencate are forces to be reckoned with. They are very dangerous. Not one atheist can refute their core arguments:
Matt Slick: God created Logical Absolutes.
WLC: Kalam Cosmological Argument for Big Bang.
Sye Ten Bruggencate: Reasoning & Knowledge comes from God.
Monk E Mind from My Tree House on March 04, 2013:
"the skeptical lack of belief that there are gods until someone can prove that there are. "
Then you are an Atheist in waiting. An Agnostic, sitting on the fence, Andrew!
I'm an AAthesist: I don't believe there are any Atheists!
fatfist (author) on March 03, 2013:
“Atheism …is it the skeptical lack of belief that there are gods”
You’ve said nothing, Andrew…..nada! I can say that Arabbitism is the skeptical lack of belief there are rabbits. And there are idiots out there who are skeptical and lack belief about rabbits....no different that what Atheists do with God. So what? All you've said to the audience is that your Religion which YOU call Atheism, is based on the EXACT SAME reasoning as all the other fanatical Religions on the planet.
You can believe/disbelieve anything you want….nobody gives a rat’s behind about your OPINIONS, Andrew. What you need to do is answer only ONE question for the audience….
Q: Does God exist, YES or NO?
Existence has nothing to do with a stupid human ape’s skeptic beliefs, disbelieves, truths, proofs, or any other subjectivities. Existence is OBJECTIVE. Either God exists or doesn’t…..which is it?
Andrew’s answer to the Q is:____________
Please answer the Q so the audience can see whether your Religion of Atheism has anything to do with reality (OBJECTIVITY) or is just a belief/skeptical based OPINION (i.e. subjectivity).
Andrew on March 03, 2013:
Are you an idiot? Atheism is not a religion, and neither is theism. Atheism is not the assertion that there are no gods, is it the skeptical lack of belief that there are gods until someone can prove that there are. Everyone on the planet is by definition either an atheist or a theist. It is an exclusive and exhaustive dichotomy. You either believe that there is a god or you do not believe that there is a god.
El Dude on October 17, 2012:
Yeah I have to hand it to WL Craig, he's a brilliant debater, much better than any atheist out there that I know of. In fact, the top theists in debates I've seen blow away the poor atheists because they're so well read on the irrationalities of Big Bang, Quantum, et al.
So when you pull that magic rug from under them and everyone can see through the same paradigm of thinking that both atheists and theists (and to some degree agnostics) are all working from, they've nowhere to hide!
fatfist (author) on October 17, 2012:
Craig is a very smart cookie as far as mainstream Mathematical Physics is concerned. For the past few years he has integrated lots of Math Physics into his debates. Just watch him blow away the ignorant atheists he debates who don't even know how to defend the Big Bang. Craig takes the Big Bang, applies some Math Phyz to it and shows that only a God can make all these quantum fluctuations, singularities, expansions, etc. happen. And he is 100% correct....only an object can perform the action/verb of create. This object must be an intelligent being....God! There is no other option for Creation.
If Craig perused a few of my hubs, he'd quickly realize that Math Phyz will not work in a debate with me. He won't even get past the definition of OBJECT.
El Dude w/ Guinness on October 17, 2012:
Actually I'd speculate its more to do with celebrity. I mean he's a Big Shot, who only debates other celebrity Big Shots & Kahunas like TV atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins). They likely thought, 'oh this Fatfist guy will be a synch', then after realising you had actual arguments thought, 'er... well, he has a rude name and he's never been on TV, just some random internet guy, he clearly doesn't have a Phd in Bla Bla, and so isn't worth our time.'
fatfist (author) on October 17, 2012:
He did because I sent several emails and I raised a big stink asking him to come and respond to my hub page.
I'm sure his security guards told him what's going on. They had to. I never got any response though. Besides, if you google "kalam leibnizian argument" my hub is the THIRD from the top of the list. He can't miss it even if he wanted to.
PrometheusKid from Heaven on October 17, 2012:
Fatfist how do you know that Craig actually read Kalam argument? Can you actually check who views your pages using hub pages, or are you assuming he check you're kalam argument?
Stay irrational fatfist.
fatfist (author) on October 17, 2012:
“Did you ever call his radio show?”
I was going to, but when I listened to one of his shows, he hung up on people who contradicted his Bible. If Slick has anything to say, he would have said it here. He chose to run instead.
“I would love to see a debate between you and William-Lane Craig”
I’ve already sent Craig several emails asking for a debate. After he read my hub on his Kalam argument, he decided it would be in his best interests to forego a debate with me.
Monk E Mind from My Tree House on October 17, 2012:
Craig would never debate anyone outside of the Kalam Cosmo Argument.
Jonas James from Adelaide, South Australia on October 16, 2012:
"It is obvious that you don't have the money to pony up. Therefore, you're going to continue to ignore the facts, ignore absolute truth, and say whatever you have to say in order to bolster your opinion."
What a pathetic cop out! I notice that people quite often take this path when debating with you Fat. Matt obviously had no rational argument against your position and decided to go with an argument against character. Did you ever call his radio show?
I would love to see a debate between you and William-Lane Craig, now that would be entertaining!
fatfist (author) on October 12, 2012:
Most humans will never understand what logic is or in what specific context it's used for....irrespective of whether they have a PhD in Logic & Philosophy. More so, they will never understand that there are hundreds if not thousands of Systems of Logic invented by humans to solve tautological problems which can't be solved by mere Classical Logic alone.
So yeah, whatever makes them happy is what they will have faith in.
jomine on October 11, 2012:
But humans never want to be logical. They want to be happy, irrespective of reality. Anybody who can cater to their fantasies are the best, irrespective of what they say. If logic ever made man happy, alcohol, drugs and such would never be here. After being bipedal will not make him 'not an animal'.
gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on August 04, 2012:
Matt Slick is right ..there are absolutes, as I find he is absolutely obnoxious. He is casting his net for lost souls and that's all he will find in his net. He puts forth his own rules for Jesus which just happen to be the age old line of Jesus incorporated...as in murder incorporated. He haS THE NERVE TO SAY..THIS IS HOW YOU HAVE TO SEE HIM...OR ELSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW HIM AT ALL. mATT sLICK oWNS jESUS!!!! OR AT LEAST HE THINKS HE DOES. he is hoping your brain is malfunctioning. He is also a baby..he gets upset when people don't treat him with the utmost respect..which he doesn't actually deserve..to gain brownie points from his flock. I challenged him and a similar Jesus web site to debate on condition that no edits will take place and the debate must be published on his site in full. Well Im still waiting for any reply. by the way if you happen to believe that the babies you are killing are the devils spawn like the Nazi's did or the errant Christians did to the Jews I''d say these are exceptions to that baby rule no? Matt are you there?
fatfist (author) on August 03, 2012:
I was looking at your video on Slick's TAG refutation. Sorry my friend, but you failed miserably. You did not refute his argument. Did you read what I said in this article here:
Fatfist: “Matt Slick is correct in stating that no atheist has been able to debunk his argument. And I am willing to go the extra mile and state that no atheist will ever be able to debunk Matt Slick’s argument.”
Because most atheists are divorced from reality! They have FAITH in absolutes, where it is easily shown that absolutes are a clear IMPOSSIBILITY.
You started your argument by faithfully accepting Slick’s claim of Logical Absolutes. Did you even read this article here? The laws of logic are pre-defined axioms (rules) which are assumed in order to use the Classical System of Logic. They are not true. And they certainly aren’t absolute as there are hundreds of systems of logic where they are inapplicable.
Anyway....do yourself a huge favor and read this article which explains in detail why absolutes are impossible.
fatfist (author) on August 03, 2012:
Thanks for dropping by, I hope you don't mind if I critique just a majorly HUGE showstopper I found while quickly glancing over your webpage.
You say: “There is no evidence to support the existence of any God. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, it only means that it would be irrational to believe in them until such time as incontrovertible evidence is found. “
What if I tell you: “There is no evidence to support the existence of any pill that makes you live forever. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, it only means that it would be irrational to believe in them until such time as incontrovertible evidence is found. “
And this: “There is no evidence to support the existence of any Flying Macaroni & Cheese Monster. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, it only means that it would be irrational to believe in them until such time as incontrovertible evidence is found. “
Wouldn’t you say that we both have EQUALLY VALID arguments?
Just as you claim it is rational for you to be in the atheist group of people, wouldn’t you say that it is equally rational for people to create new groups which lack belief in Flying Mac & Cheese Monsters and Eternal Life Pills, and groups lacking belief in billions of other claims?
Why or why not? What is your critical reasoning to this obvious showstopper?
Monk E Mind from My Tree House on August 03, 2012:
Oh and a Big Bang Creationist I see by the Video.
Monk E Mind from My Tree House on August 03, 2012:
Sounds like a religion to me Neo.
"Rationalists only accept as true, that which has been proven to be true, through the application of the scientific method. "
Yep, you said the 'T' word, and the 'P' word of religion.
You have a bible: Atheist Manifesto
A Church: American Humanist Association
A Congregational Creed:....subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance, a consensus of what we do believe...
A Dogma: Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
Yeah, definitely a religion, Neo.
Monk E Mind from My Tree House on August 03, 2012:
NEO@selfpromotion.com: "Like the vast majority of Atheists, I was raised as a Christian"
So, you traded one religion for another, eh?
neo@theskepticarena on August 03, 2012:
You might be interested in a 17-minute video:
Neo vs. Matt Slick's Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.
ScienceOfLife on July 18, 2012:
So in a sense, he's right that...*IF* you accept UPB logic, *THEN* it is immoral (non-UPB) to murder. But for someone who doesn't care about UPB, it's not moral or immoral.
This is how he attempts to solve the "problem" of is/ought. Which is not a problem anyway, it was just that Hume was an idiot. I mean, you CAN get an ought from an is. E.g. it IS sunny outside, therefore we OUGHT to have a picnic. What the hell's "wrong" with that?
Well of course the entire problem is that we didn't define our terms like: ought, should, moral, must, rights, ethics, bla bla.
ScienceOfLife on July 18, 2012:
Stefan uses "optional but objective", when actually he means "subjective and (more or less) internally consistent" regarding morals. UPB is just another optional logic system – in this case, blended ambiguously with empiricism, i.e. you "input" behavioural rules (e.g. murder, theft) into the UPB system and see if it "checks out", that is, it can be UPB (simultaneous/reciprocal, universal, etc). Hence, preferABLE (able to be preferred). Possible as a workable universal social rule, basically.
So, murdering is not UPB ('cos we all die!), but not murdering is ('cos we don't all die!). A man in a coma cannot murder (amazing!). These become his "proofs".
An atheist confuses proof/prediction with explanation (past). I.e. Why did we *generally* prefer to co-operate rather than kill and rape? Answer: Because it was required in order to build societies, etc. So, in retrospect, clearly ONCE we achievED society, it was because (most) people acted in mutually beneficial ways and didn't randomly pillage or murder on a sudden whim.
fatfist (author) on July 17, 2012:
"Universally Preferable Behaviour"
What is Preferable Behavior to one stupid human ape....is Unpreferable Behavior to another. Humans can never agree on any dogmatic concept, especially one which is DEPENDENT on an observer's personal biases and rituals.
Subjectivity means just that...subject to an individual.
There are no universals, no absolutes.... or whatever other fancy words human apes want to label an observer-dependent concept.
Pastor Molyneux has been brainwashed by Religion so bad, that he cannot even see or think clearly. And of course, Stefan's God, the Big Bang gave him the UPB I bet.
Humans behave the way the generally do (i.e. morals, rules, laws, etc.) because it helps in the cooperation and advancement of societies, nations, wealth, etc. If the economy collapses tomorrow morning, and your money is worth shit, and people empty what is left in the supermarkets.....then all this moral BS goes in the trash.
The only agenda in a person's mind in this scenario is: food. Your fat neighbor next door will be able to sustain and nourish you for a few weeks. These will be the new laws of survival.
ScienceOfLife on July 17, 2012:
Stefan Molyneux apparently defines morals as: Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB). He at least comes up with 'the goods' (i.e. an attempt at a consistent definition). But he doesn't define truth, nor absolute (e.g. your 'absolutes' article that he made a video response to).
fatfist (author) on July 17, 2012:
“Slick tells us we need to *assume* (that is, BELIEVE) the validity of the holy "laws."”
Yes, he will tell you what you need to do in order to set the path with his argument and have his way with you. This is why no atheist on the planet can refute this guy. Once these idiots swallow Logical Absolutes, that’s it....they shot themselves in the face. It is impossible to refute Slick’s argument at this point.
The only rational option is to BELIEVE in the axioms is because logic....any logic, is systemic. It forms a system of rules (axioms), along with a derivational inference tree from a valid starting point. The 3 axioms of Classical Logic only apply within that system....the Classical context. Outside of that, they are not applicable. In the system of Quantum Logic, an object exists AND doesn’t exist at the same time. Classical Logic or Logical Absolutes are NOT applicable here because all 3 axioms fail, according to the Quantum system of logic (Copenhagen Principle). Also, light is purported to be a particle AND a wave at the same time (wavicle), which kills the LNC.
Consider Intuitionist Logic. In this system of logic, the law of excluded middle is not applicable.
And in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus system of logic, there is no law of Identity.
And there you have some of the many examples where Logic in NOT absolute....where the Classical A=A, LNC and excluded-middle FAIL.
So which system of logic is the correct one to apply to Mother Nature’s reality? What STANDARD do we use to decide this? Should we ask an authority or a priest? Should we vote on it? Should we ask God?
And this is what kills all arguments of logic and truth. Logic and truth cannot be used as a basis for critical thought, objective reasoning and rational explanations in the context of reality!
Logic is limited in scope in that it can only be used to DESCRIBE a human’s subjective view of reality and DERIVE conclusions from that. Logic has no explanatory power because it is descriptive. Logic is not a synonym for REASONING or RATIONALITY. Logic is a synonym for “DERIVATIONAL INFERENCE”. And to do that....you necessarily need to assume on FAITH, a pre-defined starting point.... the axiomatic rules. We call such systems: TAUTOLOGICAL.
Mathematics is a great example of a tautology. What is funny, is that idiot mathematicians have been spending centuries to prove this equation or that expression.....when the friggin’ answer is right in front of them. The axioms of math and the expression in question contain the answer. All these idiots have to do is figure out which branches of the DERIVATIONAL INFERENCE tree to traverse to find the answer. And when they do, we give them Nobel Prizes. The human ape species is soooooo stupid!
All systems of logic have the answer “built into” any expressed logical statement within that context. This is why they have man-made laws/axioms....for the purposes of DERIVATIONAL INFERENCE within that context only!
When systems of logic are used outside their intended contextual scope, like in reality, which has no rules or laws..... the proponent is committing at minimum these Fallacies: Ignorance, Begging the Question, Straw Man, Equivocation.
That’s the fallacies that openairatheist committed when he asked me: “Is it TRUE that your statements have no truths?”
The typical atheist will fall victim to this Sophistry, because they doesn’t understand that a system of logic is nothing but a derivational tautology which is limited in application context.
“He seems completely oblivious to what he’s saying.”
Seems...yes....but Slick is a very good Sophist. Slick knows what he is doing. Atheists otoh, have the intelligence of a snail. I am finding more and more atheists using the same tactics as Apologists do because they have no brains to reason out their own arguments. And this is why they believe in TRUTH as some magical non-physical spirit floating in the universe which gives them answers to their questions.
If I were to rate Slick as a 9 on the intelligence scale of 10.....I would have to rate his atheist opponents a 1....and that’s the top ones.
““law of non-contradiction” is self-evident and without presupposition.”
Ha ha...yeah, it was actually the Atheist Mathematical Fyzzicysts who killed this notion with their wavicle and Quantum Logic.....a cat is dead and alive at the same time.....a logical absolute, LOL!
A rational human does not need any human-invented laws, like the LNC. A rational human can reason that the universe is binary....either something or nothing (space). Without the nothingness of space, motion would be impossible. Objects have shape, whereas space lacks shape. An object cannot lose its shape or its border and blend into space (nothing). Space cannot acquire shape and become an object. We don’t need any laws to reason this. We just need a brain and critical thinking skills.
“emotional tirades, obfuscation, attempts toward distraction,”
I get that all the time when the troll knows that the question I ask of him will destroy his religion, no matter how he answers it. Avoiding questions and misdirection is in the best interests of any troll. Only the very few are brave enough to step up to the plate and see if they can defend their religion.
Allen on July 17, 2012:
I love the way Slick tells us we need to *assume* (that is, BELIEVE) the validity of the holy "laws." He seems completely oblivious to what he’s saying. Of course, as you tirelessly point out, this state of affairs is hardly applicable only to overt theists, like Slick. Atheists idolize these same “laws” every bit as much as Slick and his crew. No matter if it’s MrPatrickHenryCheryl, Fiesta, Openairathiest, or Matt Slick, the believers cannot stand it when their opinions are met by others who will not assent to their religion.
One of my favorite passages about the logical process comes from Nietzsche’s notes (found primaril in as WP 516)* where he questions Aristotle’s contention (and that of most self-proclaimed “logicians” since) that the “law of non-contradiction” is self-evident and without presupposition.
1. The LNC asserts that opposite attributes *cannot* be ascribed to reality,
2. The LNC means that we *should not* ascribe opposite attributes to reality.
If #1 is the case, then it’s presupposed by our Holy Warriors of Truth that the beloved LNC is based in some source of “knowledge,” or “process,” of validation OUTSIDE that which they hold themselves to be THE VERY PROCESS OF VALIDATION!!!
#2 is no more than an “imperative concerning that which *should* count as true.”
Basically, all these people are telling us is “It’s true cuz it’s true!” But Nietzsche, for reasons he lays out in this and other notes, (as well as his published work) concludes, that “truth” is an imperative, a “should,” or a “shalt,” no matter how it's justified in terms of its usefulness to us.
The funny thing is, even while Nietzsche uses the very process of logic on logic itself, Theists (of Slick’s ilk) and idiot Atheist philosophers (ie. Habermas) alike, constantly invoke the tired charge of Nietzsche’s “irrationality.” Like we’ve seen in your hub-threads and on YT, name-calling, emotional tirades, obfuscation, attempts toward distraction, are the weapons of choice used by our chivalrous Knights of Truth ; the same “truth” which has never learned to stand on her own two feet!
*Can be found in the German @:
fatfist (author) on July 16, 2012:
Matt Slick has the smarts to understand this stuff, gconey. He knows that we are just a bunch of space monkeys, like all the other space monkeys that have been evolving for all of eternity. Morals and sins are nothing more than opinions.
When the sh*t hits the fan and the global economy collapses, you will see the human ape species feast on each other in order to survive. This is what mother nature is all about. Religionists just paint pretty pictures to indoctrinate you into their corporation and suck as much money as they can from your bank accounts. The cycle of life...
gconeyhiden from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A on July 16, 2012:
wow. well i don't know about torturing babies for personal pleasure but i did make friends with some Toba people in Sumatra and over a hundred years ago they used to kill AND eat their very elderly parents when they were too weak to pull a blade of grass out. On two separate ocassions two members of this tribe confirmed this to me without a trace of shame at all. So maybe you should change your example from killing babies for personal pleasure to killing your elderly parents and having them supper.