The Last Word

If you are a regular visitor to this blog, it’s a pretty safe assumption that you have an interest in at least one of the two most polarizing topics of conversation--religion or politics. Really, the only way to heat up a conversation faster is with sincere “yo’ mamma” jokes. I try to keep the dialogue civil and keep up the appearances of a meeting of open minds...but let’s not kid ourselves. Arguments are battles. It’s perfectly natural for us to want to win. It’s a desire that, at times, even clouds our judgement.

Simply being aware of this aspect of the human conditon can offset it, but only to a point. To get me the rest of the way to fairly assessing my opponents’ points, I’ve started ending debates with an admission of sorts. If I’ve learned anything new, I let them know. Not only that, I let them know in the order that they would want to hear it. For example, if they actually offered an argument that makes me think the possibility of a deity is just a little more likely then before, I’ll point that out. If they corrected a flaw in an argument I use, I’ll admit to it and assure them I will no longer use the faulty argument. If they bring to light a novel way of looking at things, even if this way doesn't change my mind about anything, I will still offer whatever praise I can for originality. And if all I can commend is my opponent’s friendly disposition, then I will do so.

Examples of general phrases to end a positive exchange with another human being:

Thanks for the conversation, you are a congenial voice for your worldview. I hope to chat with you again.

I feel better about Christianity/Islam/Hinduism/Magic: The Gathering now than I did prior to our talk.

Gosh, you're swell.

You get the picture. Truth be told, I get to use these closers more often than not. Many religions pride themselves on brotherhood and non-confrontational missionary work and it shows. Your results may very, especially if you tend to engage trolls.

Still, they can't all be winners. Some people are too passionate about their faith to have a calm conversation with someone who isn't seeing things as they do. Others are going through a type of cognitive dissonance which makes them so uncomfortable they attempt to make it stop by sabotaging the debate. In poker, we call this going on tilt. A player gets mad about a bad beat and starts to play sloppy--this can quickly end a game by, most often, the tilted player losing all his money, or the tilted player gets lucky with their erratic behavior and hits big--taking the other player out of the game. The "tilted" debater can force the same two outcomes by either descending into irrational name calling or prompting a similar reaction from you. My advice? Don't return crazy with crazy. Diffuse the argument with a simple closer and move on. Atheists have a bad enough wrap as it is without more of us throwing around f-bomb laced ad hominems.

Examples of general phrases to end a negative exchange with another human being:

I understand your frustration. I'll think about what you've offered, please consider thinking about what I've offered. (this works even if you have no intention of thinking about their argument further.)

At least we can agree that one of us is right. (I like ending this with a winking emoticon.)

God bless. (Sure, you don't believe in God, but they do. This may or may not be said mockingly depending on your nature, and may or may not be taken as mocking depending on theirs.)

An Open Letter to Theists

Theists, we need to talk. I know your kneejerk reaction toward this blog and myself is dismissal. I do, after all, regularly attempt to disprove your one true God, but the fact that I just used the phrasing “attempt to” should be seen as an olive branch. I know I’m not always right, but I’m pretty damn sure the following is in all of our best interest. Please, humor me.

I’m prepared to let you keep on believing what you believe without constant badgering...as long as you try to understand. I don’t mean understand me, or understand atheists, I mean understand in general. You believe God created life, the universe and everything--fine, just don’t stop there. Try to understand how God did it. Supernatural explanations are dead ends in knowledge and poison to curiosity  As a member of humanity, you belong to an enormous team who has never given up searching for answers even when a wall is hit. Walls are temporary. We learned how cells work, but, wanting to learn more, we looked deeper. We found atoms and still strive to understand further. The discovery of protons, neutrons and electrons allowed for us to make our life and the life of others easier through invention and innovation, so it stood to reason that more could be gained by looking deeper. We did and continue to do so. Saying that Thor or Zeus brings the lightning is an explanation of sorts, but it wasn’t until we attempted to know how Thor brought it did we understand that lightning had a completely natural explanation. Consider that abiogenesis, the ultimate origin of the universe, and other gaps in the knowledge that divides us might have a natural explanation as well.

Einstein said “I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.” Do that! Seek to learn the mind of God by accepting science, learning it, and doing some of your own. It’s not playing God to be master of the reality He made us to have dominion over, if in fact He did. Maybe what you learn will shake the foundations of your prior beliefs or maybe it will reinforce them. Either way, you’ll be closer to the truth you claim to seek. The secular don't tend to believe that claim, let's say you prove it.

Grundy Disagrees #3

I've been disagreeing all over the Internet, so I figure it's time to post a couple more.

I argue against the Fine Tuning Argument to find the debate branched into a subject I've never heard of before--a Boltzmann Brain universe. The blogger claims it is a problem for positing a multiverse as an avenue for the anthropic principle to make sense of our life-friendly fundamental constants. I actually consider the apparent fine tuning of the universe the best evidence for a designed universe, but mostly because all the other arguments are just so bad. The blogger then turned the debate to a version of the cosmological argument, which anyone can tell from my recent posts, I consider intellectually bankrupt at his point. I said...

The cosmological argument is constantly subject to new forms in an effort to adjust for legitimate criticism, but ultimately they all rest on the same assumptions–that the universe needs a cause and that the cause must be God. If you define God as simply the thing that causes the universe, then I freely admit that God could exist, but most define God as an agent possessing will/intellect/personality/and the like, which is an assumption unwarranted by the Leibnizian cosmological argument or any other form. I find the fine tuning argument superior because it implies the cause (God) had an active role in deciding the nature of the effect (the universe.) This choice is enough to show agency, at least for me.

Ironically, while this disagreement continued, I debated with the atheist author of Somewhat Abnormal for the Fine Tuning Argument (kinda.) He tried turning the argument on it's head to make it an argument for atheism, which just didn't hold up. He basically admitted as much. I said to a commenter:

There is a fine tuning argument for life within our universe and a fine tuning argument for life within any possible universe. You seem to be referring to the argument that life on earth is fine tuned. This appears true in that life as we know it could only exist under parameters very similar to earth’s--we aren’t too close or too far away from a star that isn’t too hot or too cold; we have the right atmosphere; we have Jupiter to catch or redirect asteroids and comets away from us; ect. However, there are so many stars and planets in our universe that the odds of other earth-like situations existing somewhere in the universe is high. The original poster is taking into account the anthropic principle which makes the fine tuning argument for life within our universe a very weak one. 

I disagree that the anthropic principal can be applied to the fine tuning argument for life within any possible universe because we don’t have the required information to make this judgement. We know that there are a shitload of stars and planets, we only know that there is one universe. There could be more, but we can’t assume that. The fine tuning argument for naturalism as stated here just doesn’t work. It’s true an omnipotent being could maintain life where life shouldn’t exist, but this is beside the point.

Then the conversation turned to poker and probability, both of which I love.

Bonus quicky: I debated the Kalam over here and then again here where he posted an explanation to a straw man version of my originally stated problems with the Kalam.

Unequal Authority

The argument from authority is one of the most commonly used debate tactics for the simple reason that the debater, any debater, can’t know everything about all the topics a debate will inevitably spill into. Contrary to what many theists believe, omniscience doesn’t exist, so an appeal to experts is both useful and necessary...as long as they are in fact honest experts. Unfortunately, the argument from authority is also one of the most common fallacious debate tactics. Lately, I’ve been thinking about the difference.

An easy way of upping the authoritative worth of your given authority is by using consensus of unbiased individuals. A scientific consensus is among the strongest because the consensus centers around experimentation and evidence. You’d be right to ask if there is evidence available, then why is an authority even needed? If I needed to refer to basic principles of physics in my argument, I could easily demonstrate that the equations we learned in school that govern motion actually work. I don’t need to take my teacher’s word for it, I can run basic momentum/acceleration/gravity/whatever experiments myself and observe that the results match what is expected. Authority is only needed when the experimentation goes beyond what I can carry out. I could go gain a higher education and rent time on super computers or particle accelerator to run results that would convince me of such-and-such scientific principle, but I am either unwilling to do this or simply don’t have the resources. In this case, taking the word of a scientific consensus is an acceptable substitute. It is acceptable because the findings and results are repeated by other scientists who have a vested interest in accuracy. If something incorrect as accepted, then everything built on that something will also be incorrect. Things are peer-reviewed and double-blinded to eliminate biases. Competition breeds better science, a concept the often science illiterate free-market capitalists should appreciate, but I digress.

Let’s compare science to history. The evidence in this case are records which have a varying degree of authenticity. Video records are by far the best, followed by audio and the more easily ‘shopped photographic records. These both are only available in the modern age--which can often be backed up with other modern records, even living witnesses on occasion. Moving back in time we only have written records. Before the printing press, these records are subject to deterioration or else revised editions which could have been altered purposefully or incidentally. Remember the childhood game of telephone? Like that. Further back still, these written records are controlled only by the elite minority educated enough to read and write. It’s understood that the further back the records the less reliable they are. The historian with a focus on whatever time period in question surely knows more than I, but I will always remain more skeptical of him or her than a scientist reporting results. For all these reasons it becomes rarer and rarer that historians come to a consensus the older the age in question.

Appealing to a consensus among theologians is more problematic. Whereas science relies on gathering evidence without biases and history relies on interpretations of possibly biased records, theology (in most cases) relies on interpretations of possibly biased records with the intention to justify a bias. Catholics, for example, appeal to the authority of the Church, a group with a vested interest in maintaining their relevancy. Of course there is a consensus among Bishops that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ, but this is as meaningless to anyone outside the church as a consensus among high schoolers that they shouldn’t have homework on Fridays. Or as I analogize to Catholics, who are often Republicans due to their pro-life stance, a consensus among non tax payers that taxes should be raised isn’t exactly an unbiased consensus.

A motto of the freethinker is to "always question authority." It's a good motto. How do your trusted authorities hold up?

Sylogisming

I've been asking theists which argument for God they find most compelling. So far, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is leading the pack. I find this sad. I've already said why, then I said why again, but I'll try a different way of looking at it today.

Again, here is their argument.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Maybe apologists just like arguments formulated as obvious sylogisms. That's fine. Here's one.

1. Everything that exists is finite.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe is finite.

From this argument we can conclude that God, defined as an eternal being, doesn't exist.

Admittedly, this argument has a few problems. Apologist Glenn helped me hash them out in the comments of his blog. I'll post what is relevant, but you're welcome to view the original exchange here.

• The premise 1 is not demonstrated. You would have to show that it is true that everything in existence is indeed finite. One of the main points we are trying to demonstrate is whether or not all things are indeed finite, and this sylogism assumes it from the start.
• If this sylogism is trying to be used to conclude that an eternal creator cannot exist, then the conclusion is assumed in premise 1, and is therefore circular. It would then be saying, ’1: Everything in existence is finite, therefore a non-finite does not exist.’ A tautology at best.
• The conclusion 3 does not contain the conclusion that an uncaused effect can happen, nor that an infinite string of causes is possible, or that a creator cannot exist. 3 merely says that whatever is assumed in “universe” in 1 is finite.
• This sylogism does not negate the fact that everything that has a beginning is caused. Even if we call it valid, it merely concludes that the universe is finite, not that a finite thing does not need a cause.

Smart guy, Glenn, he just doesn't apply his keen mind to arguments he agrees with. His first and second points can be applied almost word-for-word to the Kalam. “Everything that has a beginning has a cause” is an assumption, exactly as “everything in existence is finite.” They are both somewhat justified assumptions. They are both generalizations taken from what we know about reality and applied to what we don’t know. How is “everything in existence is finite” any less demonstrated than “everything that has a beginning has a cause?”

Glenn's third and fourth points are valid, but my sylogism doesn't set out to disprove a creator or the Kalam, only an eternal creator, which it does. If God is not eternal, then he needs a cause according to the Kalam Argument. Either both arguments both work here or (as I show below) neither do.

The law of conservation of energy shows something is not finite. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed within a closed system, that implies it is eternal within the closed system. This only tells us that individual quantum particles could be eternal, while the chemistry or biology or whatever they eventually form can't be. I've already discussed how quantum mechanics breaks the classical logic that both these sylogisms really on. The second problem is that eternal in this case can only be defined as lasting as long as the universe. The law of conservation of energy only works for closed systems, in this case that's the universe. Just as causality only works in relation to our perception of time, this law only works in relation to a predefined space. Before the Big Bang, there is no time or space, so both arguments are void.

Thanks for reading, I wish you all a happy and healthy armageddon. I'll see you in hell.

...or more likely in a couple days.

The Argument Against Any Cosmological Argument

I’m convinced that the cosmological argument is the most convincing argument for God among the least skeptical people. This is speculation on my part, but it is informed speculation. Let’s look at the argument.

1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe exists.
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
   Therefore:
5. God exists.

This form of the argument is laughable. The conclusion of (5) makes God subject to (1) which begs the question who or what created God? It doesn’t answer the question of First Cause thereby making it pointless. Many theists realize this and have tweaked the argument to avoid criticism...or tried to.

Kalam cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This argument takes into account the Big Bang Theory, giving weight to premise (2). (I must say that it bothers me that many theists only find the science that could support their beliefs compelling while finding the rest somehow erroneous) I could argue that (1) is an assumption, but based on experience, it seems correct. William Lane Craig throws in his two cents with a sub argument.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

I imagine WLC is attempting to make the argument stronger in regards to God as First Cause, but claiming that an infinite can not exist makes God, who relies on infinities in a variety of ways, nonexistent. If God cannot exist infinitely into the past, he is not eternal and subject to the necessity of a cause according to this vary argument.

Then we have...
Thomistic cosmological argument

1. What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite

And...
Leibnizian cosmological argument

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Which can be tied together to be...

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If your cosmological argument of choice isn’t here, I’m not surprised. The apologist presents whichever form has help up the best under criticism, which speaks more to the quality of religious debates in their past than the quality of the argument. Ultimately they all rest on the same assumptions–that the universe needs a cause and that the cause must be God. If you define God as simply the thing that causes the universe, then I freely admit that God could exist, but most define God as an agent possessing will/intellect/personality/and the like, which is a definition unwarranted by every cosmological argument.

The arguments also suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe. The Big Bang Theory, which lends weight to the claim that the universe even had a beginning, involves space and time’s origin as well. Ask a layperson to describe the Big Bang and you’ll likely hear about an explosion in space from which all matter and energy came forth to eventually form stars, planets, etc. I would guess this misconception draws the ignorant to the First Cause arguments. The scientific consensus is that space/time exploded outward with the matter and energy that eventually formed the universe. Scientists determined this, in part, from observations of celestial bodies drifting apart, marking the predicted expansion of space. The repercussions of this accurate understanding of the Big Bang Theory means that time began at the moment of the effect (the Big Bang) leaving no time for the cause. This leaves the apologist with the task of weighing which counter-intuitive statement is more logical--that every effect must be preceded by a cause or that anything can precede the arrow of time. It’s quite the chronological conundrum...that somehow doesn’t bother theists that much.

I’m not sure “logical” is the operable word here. At the first moment of the Big Bang, and therefore time, everything that would become the universe was a singularity, or something close to it. At this size it was subject to the strangeness that is quantum mechanics. While scientists don’t yet have clear explanations for everything we observe at the quantum level, we have repeated and repeatable results that inform particle/wave duality, the uncertainty principle, super positioning and all kinds of other phenomenon that most everyone would say seems impossible if they don't see it with their own eyes and instruments. Some of these phenomenon even open possibilities that may violate causality and the arrow of time. I look forward to having my mind further blown as humanity hashes this all out.

The Pre-Debate Questionnaire

I’ve logged in more debate hours than I care to mention here on the Internet, and what I’ve learn most is that theists are all unique little snowflakes. There are so many stories and scriptures available to adopt and then to adapt to fit one's own level of credulity, I can't assume anything about what any believer believes. This ignorance leads to debates going off the rails from general confusion and unavoidable straw men arguments.  If I don't know my opponents position, how can I possibly accurately represent it? So, from now on, I'll be using this short questionnaire to get the debate off on the right, if not awkward, foot.

Pre-debate Theist Questionnaire

1. What specific religion best represents you?
   Churches have split over dogma differences so often that the label of “Christian” doesn’t tell me enough. To know what you believe, I want to know with which faith you most identify.
2. What doctrine(s) of your religion do you not subscribe to, if any?
   To know you as an individual, I recognize that every belief of your adopted religion may not apply. If so, I want to know where you deviate from your faith.
3. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
   This comes up surprisingly often no matter which argument for God we discuss. Give me a heads up in advance if it’s even worth bringing up this aspect of science.
4. Do you believe in hell and/or the devil?
   I should be able to surmise this from questions 1 & 2, but if the answers are vague or something is forgotten, this answer will prove useful.
5. Do you see your holy book as entirely literal, entirely allegory, or some of both? If both, how do you determine the interpretation?
6. How would you describe your level of belief toward the God in question?
   Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
   De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
   Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

I don't have a Pre-debate Atheist Questionnaire, seeing how we have less specifics to our atheism, but we should be able to answer the inverse of question six.

How would you describe your level of skepticism toward the God in question?

Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

(I don't include pure agnostics because I don't see any reason why they would engage in a debate without a position to argue.)

The “God in question,” from above, is an important distinction from just “God” for the atheist. I would tackle an argument for a vaguely defined creator very differently than I would for claims that Yahweh specifically is real. In fact, my assessment of personal belief would also vary. I’m a de-facto atheist in regards to Vishnu, but agnostic towards a god defined only as an agent existing outside our universe.

Grundy Disagrees! #2

Today’s Grundy Disagrees! is a twofold disagreement with the same Catholic. It began with a post on Randy’s blog detailing how the atheist worldview is necessarily inconsistent. He basically claims that an atheist’s ability to live by a moral code, feel emotions and form preferences proves a transcendent need for or acknowledgement of God. Needless to say, I voiced my problems with his assessment in the comments. Randy dedicated the next post to my comments with comments of his own. This shows Randy isn’t afraid to present the other side of the argument, a notion I wish more theists would follow.

I initially didn’t get into the morality argument because, frankly, I’ve covered that enough, but when Randy wrote yet another post about my Morality Challenge and my favorite drama on television (Breaking Bad) he drew me in. We traded opinions on moral judgement for a bit until I concluded his was a superposition of views I both agree with and those I do not. In the end, Randy was too much of a moving target to debate. I trust he is “one of the good ones,” however inconsistent. I will likely revisit his blog in the future, smile and possibly cringe.

Penguin Post: Can't Be Friends

I'd never want to rule out a friendship with anyone, but I have an honest question. Since friends are defined as people who care about each other and enjoy each other's company, can an atheist ever really be friends with a Christian who believes that anyone without faith will eventually go to hell? It seems to me that either conversion must always be a topic of conversation, making the Christian bad company, or the Christian doesn't care enough to try and save the atheist from their supposed fate, making him not care much for the atheist.

Argument Clinic

Recently I've been trying to spread the good word to a variety of theistic blogs and have hit a wall. It's a firewall of the mind. My comments are met with an equal and opposite response--regardless of my comment. Once I identify as an atheist, a point I agree with is suddenly morphed into something, anything, I don't. The author disagrees with his past self in order to disagree with me. While this opens up a world of reverse psychology, it's a frustrating trend.

I would guess the average Joe, like myself, skipped debate club in high school. Our arguing skills were first gleamed from our parents, and, depending on the family, this could be very bad thing. Let's ask Google what it means to argue.

ar·gue /ˈärgyo͞o/  verb:
Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

This is the first definition of argue from the big G. In terms of linguistic pagerank, that makes it credible. Notice that argue does not mean simply "to disagree." One can be a master debater (heh) and not a contrarian.

YouTube also has something to say on the subject. Below is a Monty Python sketch that illustrated exactly what I'm dealing with. Exhibit A: John Cleese.

Grundy Disagrees! #1

I think of Deity Shmeity as the home of Grundy, me, but what kind of internet citizen would I be if I never left the house? Taking my opinions on the road sometimes clash with fellow bloggers...and by sometimes I mean often. So, as an argumentative travel log, I introduce Grundy Disagrees! If you, kind readers, find value in my comments outside to DS proper, let me know. Grundy Disagrees! may become a regular thing.

Over at A-Unicornist, Mike D wrote a post pimping a comment about the Fine-Tuning Argument for God. I felt that the comment, which said that the unlikelihood of our universe being life-friendly is more meaningful without a deity than with, totally missed the point of the argument. Fine-tuning isn't about meaning, it's about probability. I'm on record as saying it is one of the very few, if not only, arguments for God that at least has the potential to be compelling. As usual, any comment not toeing the extreme atheist line drew comments painting me as an apologist. This urks me, but the other comments from Mike and Tony where mostly correct, yet still missed what I was initially trying to say.

Speaking of apologists, I found a duzy in Luke Nix. To his credit, he was perfectly nice throughout to exchange. If he believes I'm destined for hell, he didn't rub my face in it. However, I found his reasoning somewhat circular and very confusing. While the initial post was about the atheist question of "who created God," the comments went somewhere else entirely. He talked of logic like many theists talk of morality and claimed that the law of non-contradiction proves existence outside of our universe among other things.

If you have a chance, please check out the comments of these posts and let me know either here or there if I made good points or where I went wrong. If I'm missing something, I really want to know.

BTW, I recommend A-Unicornist and hope to have Mike D as an interview sometime soon.