Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Prove it.

Sorry, that was a question. You said your atheism was compatible with Spinoza's pantheism, and that's what Spinoza believed. I was asking if you believed that.

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry, that was a question. You said your atheism was compatible with Spinoza's pantheism, and that's what Spinoza believed. I was asking if you believed that.

Spinoza's god demands no faith, has no measurable impact on the universe and is not theist. It is an irrelevant god. Whether it exists or not makes no difference.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't have to prove the existence of an immaterial being, I just have to address the "proof" as you asked.

And to do so you need a counter example - which you do not have.

It suffices to note that the proof rests on an a equivocation fallacy, but I chose to go further into the problems it contains. Regardless, in order to show an argument is wrong, I need not show that the converse is true. Were this the case, and it is in mathematics and logic, then I could say that there exists a non-physical god named YHWH, because in order for this to be false it must be true that there exists a non-physical god whose name is not YHWH.

scanned and cropped from Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms by Hubbard and Hubbard.



I would need that to prove such a being, not to show that a proof that no such being exists is flawed and proves nothing.



That won't work well for you:

(ibid)

Any examples that relate to beings? As opposed to concepts, abstracts etc...math, logic...you know an example of a being.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Spinoza's god demands no faith

His God is the cause of everything and determines all things. I think belief in such an entity requires faith.

 

[Bunyip]

His God is the cause of everything and determines all things. I think belief in such an entity requires faith.

Yes, I call him 'nature'. Some people call him 'the universe'.
The NA are not really concerned with Spinoza's god, it is not a significant factor in their target market.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And to do so you need a counter example - which you do not have.

That was the point of my scans. By your logic, if I assert that all non-physical gods are named Yahweh, this is true, because for it to be false there must exist AT LEAST ONE non-physical god whose name IS NOT Yahweh. If you disagree, I can "retort, 'find me a counter-example."

I need find a counter-example to prove Stenger's argument wrong as much I need a counter-example with 11-legged alligators.

Any examples that relate to beings?

All proofs of anything and logic. You argue that in order to show Stenger's argument wrong, I need to find a counter-example, not just show it's wrong or that it doesn't prove anything. This logic only holds if. for any universal existentially qualified statement (or it's negation), I need show that a counter-example exists. This is called logic. Unfortunately, as the authors show, it doesn't work very well when applied to real life, for I can define anything into existence and you can must find a counter-example to show that I am wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, I call him 'nature'.

You believe nature has an infinite intellect?

 

[Bunyip]

That was the point of my scans. By your logic, if I assert that there is a non-physical god named Yahweh, this is true, because for it to be false there must exist AT LEAST ONE non-physical god whose name IS NOT Yahweh. If you disagree, I can "retort, 'find me a counter-example."

LOL Cool. My counter example is; Banana banana, three strawberries in contemplation smell of hippos. That was not my logic, it was a deliberately silly invention of your own.

I need find a counter-example to prove Stenger's argument wrong as much I need a counter-example with 11-legged alligators.



All proofs of anything and logic. You argue that in order to show Stenger's argument wrong, I need to find a counter-example, not just show it's wrong or that it doesn't prove anything. This logic only holds if. for any universal existentially qualified statement (or it's negation), I need show that a counter-example exists. This is called logic. Unfortunately, as the authors show, it doesn't work very well when applied to real life, for I can define anything into existence and you can must find a counter-example to show that I am wrong.

You first.

 

[Bunyip]

You believe nature has an infinite intellect?

Well yes, the sum of all the universe's intellects is infinite.

We were discussing the immaterial god of Abraham by the way, you seem to have forgotten.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That was not my logic

That's true. After all, the argument you are using is the one I quoted from Stenger that he quoted from another. You haven't used logic at all. As for what I have said, are you arguing that the authors of the book the scans are taken from do not understand logic, or that I am not understanding them, or that they are wrong, or what?

However, we can also look to what Stenger's source says of this selfsame proof:
"premise 3 has been advocated by Kai Nielsen, who wrote: "we have no understanding of 'a person' without 'a body' and it is only persons that in the last analysis can act or do things."[6] But not all nontheists would accept 3. One who does not is J. L. Mackie.[7] This argument turns on the issue of whether the idea of a "bodiless person" is consistent and coherent. That is a difficult and highly controversial issue, and I shall not pursue it here in this survey.[8]"

So, you need not believe me, you can check Stenger's source to show that the argument is not only arguably flawed with respect to line 3, but that the entire argument about whether a "bodiless person" can exist (or is "consistent and coherent") is a "difficult and highly controversial issue", not something to simply be assumed unless a counter-example found. Those of us who wish to use logic and apply it to the real world must relax the stringent rules of inference and deduction of formal/mathematical logic, because it leads to absurdities.

it was a deliberately silly invention of your own.

Note the exact syntactic parallelism:
"All seven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots"
"All non-physical gods are named Yahweh"

 

[Bunyip]

That's true. After all, the argument you are using is the one I quoted from Stenger that he quoted from another. You haven't used logic at all. As for what I have said, are you arguing that the authors of the book the scans are taken from do not understand logic, or that I am not understanding them, or that they are wrong, or what?

However, we can also look to what Stenger's source says of this selfsame proof:
"premise 3 has been advocated by Kai Nielsen, who wrote: "we have no understanding of 'a person' without 'a body' and it is only persons that in the last analysis can act or do things."[6] But not all nontheists would accept 3. One who does not is J. L. Mackie.[7] This argument turns on the issue of whether the idea of a "bodiless person" is consistent and coherent. That is a difficult and highly controversial issue, and I shall not pursue it here in this survey.[8]"

So, you need not believe me, you can check Stenger's source to show that the argument is not only arguably flawed with respect to line 3, but that the entire argument about whether a "bodiless person" can exist (or is "consistent and coherent") is a "difficult and highly controversial issue", not something to simply be assumed unless a counter-example found. Those of us who wish to use logic and apply it to the real world must relax the stringent rules of inference and deduction of formal/mathematical logic, because it leads to absurdities.


Note the exact syntactic parallelism:
"All seven-legged alligators are orange with blue spots"
"All non-physical gods are named Yahweh"

I didn't make that assertion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well yes, the sum of all the universe's intellects is infinite.

The universe has no intellect.

We were discussing the immaterial god of Abraham by the way, you seem to have forgotten.

As Stenger and other new atheists specifically state otherwise, why are we doing this? If I recall (and I do), you offered no basis for this claim, I quoted and cited several counter-examples, and you ended up claiming some contradictory things regarding names, gods, and who or what the new atheists are concerned with. I do not wish to once again have to show you what the new atheists actually say in their arguments just so you can finally state you "clarified" the multiple blatantly false assertions you made. If you wish to make assertions about what the new atheists say, and as you have been shown undeniably to have made incorrect claims about what they do or do not do/say, then please provide evidence, or we can stop now. I am not interested in representing the new atheists for you just so I can then argue against the positions they actually hold rather than the one's you have falsely ascribed to them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I didn't make that assertion.

Which one?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It might be helpful if you reviewed some intro logic material, and luckily all but one of the links in my thread from ages past are still live:

I often say that logic is mathematics. Some would argue the other way around, but that's just because they hate me and are clearly aliens from the planet Wrong. Ok, I'm lying. I do that. But I equate logic with a subset of mathematics only to make a point: formal logic is mathematical and the reason that we use proofs in logic and proofs in mathematics is because proofs are part of formal systems. Here, however, I wish not only to illustrate what proofs are, but to stress how useful it is to understand what it means to prove. So, here are some free texts I've reviewed:
The Art of Proof: Basic Training for Deeper Mathematics (also here).
Proof, Logic, And Formalization
Language Proof And Logic
Proofs and Concepts. the fundamentals of abstract mathematics

I can also add to that the freely available Book of Proof.

However, these texts aren't necessarily accessible for one who has no background in math or formal logic, or who has perhaps forgotten what background she or he had, so just in case there is an excellent resource here:
Teach Yourself Logic
complete with the e-book Teach Yourself Logic 2015: A Study Guide and other resources.
It would help if we were speaking the same language when it comes to logic, proof, etc.

 

[Bunyip]

Which one?

The one you were mocking. If it were, you would be quoting me, not 'paraphrasing'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The one you were mocking. If it were, you would be quoting me, not 'paraphrasing'.

I didn't attend to mock any assertion you made (at least not in that post). I honestly do not know what assertion I am claiming you made that you are saying you didn't.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Leonard Susskind (a physicist who supports the multiverse theory and is not a believer) on fine-tuning:

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't attend to mock any assertion you made (at least not in that post). I honestly do not know what assertion I am claiming you made that you are saying you didn't.

The ones I quoted, and were from your post #590.Gosh you have an unbelievably short memory.

I'll even give you a clue - one of them mentioned alligators. You will I'm quite sure find that you are the only one who has mentioned alligators. The other posited the non-physical existence of YHWH, you will find that it was your invention, along with the alligator example - the shortness of your memory is going to be an insurmountable challenge I'm afraid.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The ones I quoted, and were from your post #590.Gosh you have an unbelievably short memory.

No, as usual you have misunderstood what I have said.

I'll even give you a clue - one of them mentioned alligators.

Which was an example I used from an advanced mathematics text, in order to illustrate how seemingly obvious logic actually entails bizarre things. I stated you have used no logic not because of that- that was the use of logic. I said you used no logic because the argument you presented was one I quoted from Stenger's book which he quoted from another source that I again provided you.

You will I'm quite sure find that you are the only one who has mentioned alligators.

That's true. As I said (i.e., when I said "That's true" in 590 I meant the the logic you were mocking was not anything you had suggested to be true). That's the problem. That alligator example is how logic actually works. It's a central reason I say "proof is for mathematics." It's also why I asked "are you arguing that the authors of the book the scans are taken from do not understand logic, or that I am not understanding them, or that they are wrong, or what?"

I realized you were mocking the alligator example, and I also realize that the only reason you could have for doing so is because you haven't studied logic. This will be a serious problem if you are going to try to make logical claims, which is why I provided you with sources you can use rather than rely on my scans or quotes.

The other posited the non-physical existence of YHWH, you will find that it was your invention

And is completely logical. If you would like, I can express it formally (i.e., using symbols and logical operators and quantifiers).

 

[Bunyip]

No, as usual you have misunderstood what I have said.


Which was an example I used from an advanced mathematics text, in order to illustrate how seemingly obvious logic actually entails bizarre things. I stated you have used no logic not because of that- that was the use of logic. I said you used no logic because the argument you presented was one I quoted from Stenger's book which he quoted from another source that I again provided you.


That's true. As I said (i.e., when I said "That's true" in 590 I meant the the logic you were mocking was not anything you had suggested to be true). That's the problem. That alligator example is how logic actually works. It's a central reason I say "proof is for mathematics." It's also why I asked "are you arguing that the authors of the book the scans are taken from do not understand logic, or that I am not understanding them, or that they are wrong, or what?"

I realized you were mocking the alligator example, and I also realize that the only reason you could have for doing so is because you haven't studied logic. This will be a serious problem if you are going to try to make logical claims, which is why I provided you with sources you can use rather than rely on my scans or quotes.


And is completely logical. If you would like, I can express it formally (i.e., using symbols and logical operators and quantifiers).

Sure, but it remains your invention, logical or not. And thus a diversion.