This has always been an odd argument for god. Basically it states that with out a moral law giver, there can be no objective morals. There are objective morals. Therefore there's a god.
Flaws with this argument:
1: The main flaw with this argument is that there does not have to be objective morals.
2: The moral law giver does not have to be a god. Evolution and/or society can function as the moral law giver. The drastic shifts in morality over time and in different societies indicates that this is the case.
3: This would not get you past deism. There is no way of knowing which, if any, of the roughly 150,000 known religions had it right.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Flaws in the Transcendental Argument for god
The Transcendental Argument for God, commonly known among apologists and anti-apologists as TAG, is a fairly simple argument at its core but can come in a variety of forms. I will simply address the general argument here. TAG goes as follows. With out god, we can not know anything. We can know things. Therefore, god exists.
The primary flaw is in the first assumption. Our brains are a function of evolution. This can be and has been demonstrated. Our ability to reason is also not unique to humans. Most animals can reason to varying degrees.
However, TAG does make a single valid point. We assume that we are able to learn about our environment; we assume that our group perceptions are a reliable predictor of reality. However, we believe this because that is what the evidence indicates. We do not need to assume that our ability to reason is accurate or even correct to notice that it is useful. Furthermore, to be able to use the TAG argument reasoning must be assumed to be correct to begin with. Hence this becomes a moot point.
Another error is the assumption that we can know things. We actually can not say definitively that we know anything. We make assumptions about knowledge based on our experiences. If I drop a rock I know that it will fall because all evidence indicates that is what will happen. However, could I be incorrect? Of course. As such, knowledge, in the definitive manner used in TAG, can never be achieved.
Since both assumptions that the conclusion is based upon do not hold up, the conclusion based on those assumptions is unsupported.
The primary flaw is in the first assumption. Our brains are a function of evolution. This can be and has been demonstrated. Our ability to reason is also not unique to humans. Most animals can reason to varying degrees.
However, TAG does make a single valid point. We assume that we are able to learn about our environment; we assume that our group perceptions are a reliable predictor of reality. However, we believe this because that is what the evidence indicates. We do not need to assume that our ability to reason is accurate or even correct to notice that it is useful. Furthermore, to be able to use the TAG argument reasoning must be assumed to be correct to begin with. Hence this becomes a moot point.
Another error is the assumption that we can know things. We actually can not say definitively that we know anything. We make assumptions about knowledge based on our experiences. If I drop a rock I know that it will fall because all evidence indicates that is what will happen. However, could I be incorrect? Of course. As such, knowledge, in the definitive manner used in TAG, can never be achieved.
Since both assumptions that the conclusion is based upon do not hold up, the conclusion based on those assumptions is unsupported.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Flaws in Pascal's Wager
Pascal's Wager is a very classic and widely used argument by both professional apologists and layman. It is based on 2 premises. You lose nothing by believing but risk losing everything by disbelieving.
1: Belief in a god costs you time and restricts your actions.
2: There are currently 41,000 active denominations of Christianity alone; most of these are exclusive. There are an additional 37,000 other active beliefs. There are also estimated to be over 70,000 extinct religions. This means that picking a religion at random would give you a 1/148,000 chance of being correct. That means choosing a religion at random would give you about a 99.9993% chance of being wrong.
3: It is possible that none of the religions today are correct. So by choosing a religion today you are suffering the consequences with no chance of reward.
4: It is possible that god would punish those who hold unwarranted beliefs.
5: There is no more evidence for god existing than there are leprechauns. Suggesting that you should act based on this is akin to suggesting you should chase the end of rainbows as there might be a pot of gold at the end.
We know we are alive today. We do not have any reason to believe that a god exists or that there is a punishment waiting for us for disbelieving. Even if you assume god does exist and some one has actually discovered the correct belief system, you are sacrificing the quality of life that we have now for a 0.0006% chance of being correct. The best case scenario is not much better than playing the lotto but rather than spending $3 for a ticket, you are altering your entire life style and beliefs.
Finally, being a believer of any particular faith or an atheist would place you in the exact same position under the logic of pascal's wager. Believers could choose the wrong belief, be punished for believing, or happen to be rewarded for their belief. An atheist could be punished for their disbelief or happen to be rewarded for their belief. So in the end, it is more rational to go with the stance that has no cost to the life that we know we have. It is only rational to disbelieve.
1: Belief in a god costs you time and restricts your actions.
2: There are currently 41,000 active denominations of Christianity alone; most of these are exclusive. There are an additional 37,000 other active beliefs. There are also estimated to be over 70,000 extinct religions. This means that picking a religion at random would give you a 1/148,000 chance of being correct. That means choosing a religion at random would give you about a 99.9993% chance of being wrong.
3: It is possible that none of the religions today are correct. So by choosing a religion today you are suffering the consequences with no chance of reward.
4: It is possible that god would punish those who hold unwarranted beliefs.
5: There is no more evidence for god existing than there are leprechauns. Suggesting that you should act based on this is akin to suggesting you should chase the end of rainbows as there might be a pot of gold at the end.
We know we are alive today. We do not have any reason to believe that a god exists or that there is a punishment waiting for us for disbelieving. Even if you assume god does exist and some one has actually discovered the correct belief system, you are sacrificing the quality of life that we have now for a 0.0006% chance of being correct. The best case scenario is not much better than playing the lotto but rather than spending $3 for a ticket, you are altering your entire life style and beliefs.
Finally, being a believer of any particular faith or an atheist would place you in the exact same position under the logic of pascal's wager. Believers could choose the wrong belief, be punished for believing, or happen to be rewarded for their belief. An atheist could be punished for their disbelief or happen to be rewarded for their belief. So in the end, it is more rational to go with the stance that has no cost to the life that we know we have. It is only rational to disbelieve.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Flaws of the cosmological argument
The first argument I will be addressing is the cosmological argument. It basically goes as follows. Everything must have a cause. The universe must have a cause. That cause is god. The Kalam argument simply adds in an assumed finite limit to time.
1: Quantum fluctuations do not have causes. They are created from nothing and go in to nothing. The first statement is demonstrably wrong.
2: There's no reason why time can not be infinite. The argument by theologians and philosophers are simply making the same err as the Zeno paradoxes.
3: We have no example of nothing as would be the case before existence; nothing can be concluded about the properties of preexistence.
4: The big bang was a singularity. We do not know what happened before the big bang.
Assuming the universe was caused:
1: There's no reason to believe that cause still exists.
2: There's no reason to believe that cause was conscious.
3: There's no reason to believe that cause was a being.
4: There's no reason to believe any specific characteristic about that cause.
Finaly, there's absolutely no rational connection between "the universe had a cause" to "the god of my particular religion exists".
1: Quantum fluctuations do not have causes. They are created from nothing and go in to nothing. The first statement is demonstrably wrong.
2: There's no reason why time can not be infinite. The argument by theologians and philosophers are simply making the same err as the Zeno paradoxes.
3: We have no example of nothing as would be the case before existence; nothing can be concluded about the properties of preexistence.
4: The big bang was a singularity. We do not know what happened before the big bang.
Assuming the universe was caused:
1: There's no reason to believe that cause still exists.
2: There's no reason to believe that cause was conscious.
3: There's no reason to believe that cause was a being.
4: There's no reason to believe any specific characteristic about that cause.
Finaly, there's absolutely no rational connection between "the universe had a cause" to "the god of my particular religion exists".
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Introduction
I am starting this blog primarily as a means to help me codify my arguments against the numerous theistic beliefs. The posts here are not intended for an audience or to be persuasive. However, I don't mind discussions/suggestions and the like.
I will be attempting to simply point out the inherent flaws in the arguments for god. I enjoy watching shows and debates where the theists are shown to be the philosophical dunces that they are. However, I fail to understand why people let them get away with as much as they do. Their arguments are, in my opinion, obviously irrational in numerous ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)