God Argument Power Rankings

The following is my personal assessment of the validity of popular apologetic arguments. The list goes from most valid to least valid.

The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Could be valid, currently based on assumptions.

1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions. Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 and 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine- Tuner.
8. God exists.

This argument, had we just a little more supporting knowledge, could make me deist. It says that the physical laws and constants that allow for a life-sustaining universe lie in a very small fraction of the possible spectrum of values and the fact that our universe is within that unlikely range is evidence that it was designed with us in mind. Many atheists argue the anthropic principle here, which says that we can only come to this conclusion because we are, in fact, here. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t. Obvious, I know. The anthropic principle is worthwhile when arguing against the fine tuning of earth specifically, but we don't have enough information for it to be meaningful in terms of the fine tuning of the universe.

The difference is that the variables that can vary widely and affect the possibility of life on a planet (such as distance from a star, having a moon/asteroid belt to deflect impacts with space objects, the presence of water, etc.) are most likely all fulfilled throughout the universe. There are enough planets that one can say, “sure, we are alive on this planet because we couldn’t be alive elsewhere.” However, we can only account for one universe. If this universe is all there has ever been, and if the aforementioned laws and constants can vary to the degree apologists claim, then I agree that we are such a coincidence that a designer is a better explanation than chance. I’m just not convinced because those "if"s are not answered. I tend to think that the laws and constants can vary, but that enough other universes either have, will or currently exist to make the anthropic principle meaningful--but that’s just personal speculation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Invalid, only replaces one mystery with another.

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. (Implied) God is that cause.

This argument is at least based on something that is most likely true--the Big Bang Theory. So, I won't argue premise 2. As much as they like the Big Bang, apologists stop paying attention to the science after it can be used to support their beliefs. Traditional causation could very well not apply in general at the quantum level in which we find the singularity, and especially in the case of the universe with no prior time or space for a cause to occur or God to exist. The Big Bang, after all, isn't just the beginning of our universe, but also space and time as we understand it. To posit otherwise is merely an "of the gaps" argument. The implication of 4 is hasty now that there are more hypotheses than ever for possible causes of the universe and likely others that haven't occurred to us. In the end, the biggest weakness is that the argument establishes a rule because a lack of counter examples and then arbitrarily makes what they want to believe an exception. If we say that everything that begins to exist has a cause because we have no examples of things that exist without a cause, then we can also say everything that exists is within time and space because we have no examples of things that exist outside time and space. Since apologists require their God to be outside time and space for this argument to work, they would have to explain why the first statement is legitimate while the second it not.

The Ontological Argument: Invalid, basically it's just wordplay.

1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of “God”).
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of some-thing greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.

"Greater" is a value judgement that can vary from person to person, which is problematic to this argument. However, the real problem is that the argument works for any concept that includes the linguistic trick of including "must exist" in it's definition. For example, if one said the Fly Spaghetti Monster exists, by definition, then it exists. Somehow I doubt many Christian apologists would accept that definition. Nor should they, because existence isn't a property one can prescribe conceptually. Neither is "greatness" for that matter.

The Argument from Moral Truth. Invalid for a variety of reasons.

1. There exist objective moral truths. (Slavery and torture and genocide are not just distasteful to us, but are actually wrong.)
2. These objective moral truths are not grounded in the way the world is but, rather, in the way the world ought to be.
3. The world itself—the way it is, the laws of science that explain why it is that way—cannot account for the way the world ought to be.
4. The only way to account for morality is that God established morality (from 2 and 3).
5. God exists.

I don’t know if this is the worst argument for God in my book, but it is certainly the worst of those still popular in the apologetic community. Why? Because it has so many points of failure. There is Euthyphro’ Dilemma that shows that God is a redundant factor if objective morality is valid. There is the impossibility of ascertaining exactly what the objective morals are if they exist, unless. of course, they are defined by humans in relation to social interactions which would discount a need of a supernatural law giver. There is the question if morality is objective at all (I see morality as a broad concept including the possibility for a variety of moral codes--which may be applied objectively but are hardly transcendent.) There is evolutionary biology that suggests moral instincts are selected traits which are passed down genetically. I feel apologists over estimate the argument’s power because the opposition can seem scatter brained when refuting it because the number of ways to refute it makes one’s mind spin out. That, and it’s the one argument that allows them to both claim there is a god and take the moral high ground in one fallacious move.

Links Shminks #16

Where do you come down on the big questions that split atheists?

Six hundred some proofs for God that start off silly and get progressively more so.

In one of my new favorite blogs, Tjaart discusses the intellectual bankruptcy of Christian apologetics.

You'd think God could create the best of all possible worlds, right? There are problems with that.

Personal story time from Sheldon who came out as an atheist to his sister.

Theists often say infinite regression is impossible, but a single infinite deity is perfectly fine. If only we had a mathematician to weigh in...

Westboro Baptist church is going to picket the funeral of a Christian who died leaving his own charity event. True story. R.I.P. PaulWalker.*

*Is Rest In Peace a saying atheists should avoid? I mean, he isn't resting per se or at peace exactly. I guess it works metaphorically...

Alts, Poes, and Internet Anonymity

A catfish is someone who pretends to be someone they’re not using Facebook or other social media to create false identities, particularly to pursue deceptive online romances. ~Urban Dictionary

The popular MTV show and film of the same name, Catfish, has popularized the reality that people use the anonymity of the Internet to pose as someone they aren’t in order to become more appealing. A high school drop out poses to a potential mate as a Harvard grad. A homosexual boy poses to a heterosexual crush as a cute girl. An atheist poses to a Christian apologist as a curious theist.

...wait, what?

Hear me out. The second I engage a believer I’m immediately (and correctly) seen as an atheist by my publicly recorded post history. The problem with this is that their preconceptions of an atheist color everything I say. To them I’m just mad at God, close-minded, hindered by secular culture, parroting the words of the “horsemen,” or even influenced by demons. Although some of their preconceptions are clearly unfounded, it’s natural to apply a stereotype and I’ve seen the same crime committed by atheists. Allowing the message to be heard independent of the messenger’s perceived stigma I see as the central benefit of theological catfishing.

This is my confession. I have been impersonating a theist in a variety of Google+ communities. I’ve already told you why I do it. Now I throw myself at the mercy of my readers with the question: is what I’m doing ethical?

I feel it is or I wouldn’t be doing it. The ends justify the means in my mind and I feel no need to defend my actions further. However, I have thought about how I might take it too far. The following are ways in which I choose not to abuse the trust of my “fellow” theists.

1. I will not become a parody of fundamentalism in order to drive moderate theists away. Talking to coworkers I’ve concluded that the single biggest reason folks are less religious these days is the Westboro Baptist Church. No one wants to be associated with the likes of them. If the more interactions people have with WBC-like fundamentalism, the more they distance themselves from analogs in their life, it stands to reason that becoming a poe would encourage secularism. I think this logic is sound, but I still won’t do it on the off chance it encourages a single nut-case in any way.
2. I will not dishonestly convert to atheism. An eventual reveal of my atheism is likely, but to do it as if I was persuaded out of the white lie of theism makes the lie darker. I won’t muddy the power of authentic conversion stories.
3. I will not affirm theistic beliefs that I view are harmful just to maintain the illusion the I’m a believer. For example, I will never recommend faith healing knowing real medical attention is needed.
4. I will not promote or defend doctrine that promotes inequality like popularized biblical marriage or the notion that women should be subservient to men.

Considering all this, I would like to know your opinions. I respect my readers and fellow bloggers a great deal. If the majority of you say I should come clean, I will.

Diluvian Math

The following is a post by Google+ user Rick Rab in which he goes over what it might take if the biblical flood was be found in the nonfiction section. I didn't check the math, nor did I proofread. I barely practice journalism in any sense of the word.

Was it really possible to put the animals in the biblical ark?

Let’s start with a horse, say 1000lbs weight. It requires 17.5lb of hay and 10lb of grain per day per 1000lb of its weight. So for 40 days it requires 700lb of hay and 400lb of grain. Baled hay occupies about 10lb per cu ft. Oats (whole) occupy iro 26lb per cu ft. So its food alone required 85 cu ft. Modern rules require 350 cu ft space per horse, let’s say Noah gave it ½ that, 175 cu ft, so per horse he needed 260 cu ft. Let’s add a token 10 cu ft for its water. Total 270 cu ft per horse.

Now the big sums... Ok, not all animals are horse sized so let’s half that just to be nice…13.5 cu ft per animal, Oh sod it, let's be really nice, let’s half it again…. 7 cu ft per animal, inc its food & water.

There are (at present knowledge) about 8.7 million known types of animal. God of course would know the exact amount but let’s work on 8.7 million. Before you suggest there were less in those days, creationists don’t believe in evolution, so where could any extra have come from?? But ok, let’s be really nice, to please them, let’s half that figure too… 4.3million types. So if Noah packed in 2 of every animal, real tight, with no passageways and nowhere for humans to live, he would’ve needed 60,200,000 cu ft.

God spelt out to Noah the dimensions of the ark; 300 cubits by 50 by 30, approximately 137 x 23 x 14 metres (440 feet long, 73 ft wide, and 43 ft high). That’s 1,281,160 cu ft.  Oh dear, even with all those massive concessions, Noah would've still needed to have built 47 of those Arks! God’s not very good at maths, is he?

The ark has  1,281,160 cu ft. of space
There are 8,700,000 species.
So each specie (and remember some were more than the '2 by 2') would have had 0.147 cu ft of space.

So what about the flood itself? Was that possible?

The world was flooded by god, to a depth at least permitting the Ark to settle on top of Mt Ararat. That Mountain is 5,137 m in elevation. The surface area of the world is 510,072,000 km² (510,072,000, 000 m x 1m) so the water had to fill 2,620,239,864,000,000 m3. Wait, didn’t account for existing mountains etc I hear you say. OK, let’s ½ that to allow for everything; 1,310,119,932,000,000 m3 of water.

Let’s convert that to ice (so we can stack it, say on Africa). To convert  to ice, divide by 0.92… that makes 1,424,043,404,347,826 m3 of ice. The surface area of Africa is 30,221,532 km² (30,221,532,000 m2).

So to fit all that ice on Africa, we would have to stack it 47,120.16 m high. Mt Everest is 8,848 m, so the ice would be stacked, over the area of all of Africa, 5.3 times the height of Mt Everest!

Hmmmm.

• Where was that Ice before it thawed?
• Where did it go when it ‘ebbed away’?

Gen 7:11–12  & 7:17–20; Rain fell for 40 days, water covered the earth’s highest places by over 20 ft (15 cubits) .
The first 40 days and nights (3rd month, 27th day of month)

Gen 7:24–8:5; water rose to its highest level (covering the whole earth), and the Ark rested on Ararat. On the 150th day, the springs of the great deep were shut off, and the rain from above ceased, and the water began continually receding.
150 days (inc. the initial 40 days total so far) (7th month, 17th day of month)

Gen 8:5; tops of the mountains became visible on the 10th month, 1st day.
That’s 74 days more (= 224 so far) (10th month, 1st day of month)

Gen 8:6; After 40 more days, Noah sent out a raven.
That's 40 days more (= 264 so far) (11th month, 11th day of month)

Gen 8:6–12; The dove was sent out 7 days after the raven. It had no resting place and returned to Noah.
That's 7 days more (=271 so far) (11th month, 18th day of month)

Gen 8:10–11; After 7 more days, Noah sent out the dove again. It returned again, with an olive leaf in its beak.
That' 7 days mor e (= 278 so far) (11th month, 25th day of month)

Gen 8:12; After 7 more days, Noah sent out the dove again, and it did not return.
That's 7 days more (= 285 so far) (12th month, 2nd day of month)

Gen 8:13; Noah removed the cover of the Ark on the 1st day of the 1st month. The surface of the earth was dried up, and Noah could verify this to the extent of what he could see.
That’s 29 days more (=314 so far) (, 1st month, 1st day of month. NB; 601st year of Noah’s life)

Gen 8:14–17 & 7:11; the earth was dry, God commanded Noah’s family and the animals to come out of the Ark. From the 1st day of the year during the daylight portion there were 29.5 more days left in the month plus 26.5 more days left in the 2nd month until the exit, so that’s 56 days more (= 370 (371 if counting 1st day and last day as full days) (2nd month, 27th day of month).

So the flood was actually over a period of 370 days. The animals were in the ark all that time.  The maths in PART 1 only gave food for 40 days. But now we know it was in fact 370. Let’s see how that affects the ark...

Horse…..for  370 days it requires  6475 lb of hay and 3700 lb of grain..…food alone required 786 cu ft…..Total 961 cu ft per horse.…half that… 480.5 cu ft….half it again…. 240.25 cu ft per animal, inc its food & water.

8.7 million known types of animal ….half that…. 4.3million .....So Noah...would’ve needed 1033,075,000  cu ft.…..

Noah would've needed to have built at least 807 of those Arks!

What's the Meaning?

"Your life has no meaning without God."

Apologists often appeal to meaning when arguing for their deity. Let’s quickly look at what they mean by this claim.

Possible meaning #1

To have meaning you must have been created. Okay, then God has no meaning according to their own doctrine--which begs the question, how much meaning can we really have as the product of a meaningless being?

Possible meaning #2

To have meaning you must either have been created or create. This option gives meaning to God as well as us--but it also allows for our meaning without God. We create under our own power everything from art to life.

Possible meaning #3

To have meaning you must have a purpose ascribed by an authority higher than yourself. Again, this makes God meaningless which makes him a pretty weak authority and therefore us essentially meaningless by proxy. It also gives anyone meaning once they enter the workforce or are born into a family with defined expectations.

Possible meaning #4

To have meaning you must have a purpose ascribed by God. Ah, now we’re getting to the fallacious crux of the argument. By defining the word “meaning” as that which is prescribed by God, apologists guarantee a circular win via a linguistic trick only they accept. Atheists are confused because they get their definitions from dictionaries and /or common vernacular. Knowing what they mean by “meaning” in this case, we see what they are really appealing to is their own indoctrination.

The Carrot & the Stick vs. Socialization

Religion and Geography

The following is a syndicated post by the wise Ugo Cei.

"If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would have a 98% chance of being a Muslim."

You've heard that argument already, right? You have also probably heard the rebuttal that it's an example of the Genetic Fallacy: The fact that what you believe depends on where you were born does not mean that what you believe is false.

In a sense, those who object to the argument on those terms are right. When interpreted as an argument against god, it just doesn't hold. However, the true power of the argument is not as a tool to prove there is no god and I am not sure whether it is mostly the believers who like to interpret it as such, so they can have an easy job tearing it down, or the non believers, who didn't really think it through.

The fact that, exceedingly, religious affiliation depends on geography or family history, is only useful together with the fact that, for almost every believer, geography is the main reason why they choose to believe in a particular god. All other possible reasons play a very minor role. If this weren't true, we'd see much more of a patchwork in the map below.

The argument is not that, if your belief depends on geography and family history, your god is likely false. That would be an example of a genetic fallacy.

The argument is that, if your belief depends only on geography and family history, then it has no more chances of being true than the god of the muslim guy, or the hindu guy, or the christian guy who lives right across the border.

And this is not a genetic fallacy.