tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post5754042287718456576..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Universes and the equivocation fallacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87909215441695778672011-01-21T10:15:57.427-06:002011-01-21T10:15:57.427-06:00Yes yes, "Author Avatar," which is a ter...Yes yes, "Author Avatar," which is a term that I linked in the TV tropes site from the original post, means that sometimes authors write themselves as a character in their own books. But that's just what it is: an avatar, a character who shares your name and characteristics and thinks a lot like you. Still, no amount of writing will ever literally take YOU out of the world you're actually in and put you into the world you've invented.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53819861004922410472011-01-20T11:57:34.946-06:002011-01-20T11:57:34.946-06:00But wait! The Dark Tower universe, created by Ste...But wait! The Dark Tower universe, created by Stephen King, contains Stephen King as a character who is creating the Dark Tower universe... Ow, my head!JSughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10778194526445242891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7675937536898317012011-01-19T23:33:04.354-06:002011-01-19T23:33:04.354-06:00@מיכאל - I love the beaver worth of space idea. T...@מיכאל - I love the beaver worth of space idea. The next time I'm shopping for memory or a hard drive I'm going to use that. "I need at least 50 terra-beavers of space, what do you have that can handle that?" I can't wait to see their reaction. :)MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31498789142953658592011-01-19T18:17:53.888-06:002011-01-19T18:17:53.888-06:00Crazy random thoughts..
Maybe, god is an aggregia...Crazy random thoughts..<br /><br />Maybe, god is an aggregiate of all the matter and or radiation in our universe? The random radio noise that we find in our known universe is really part of god and that is what gives/progams life into biological creatures?<br /><br />Maybe, god can be everywhere and yet nowhere in our universe because our brains and eyes are like black box recorders with transmitters that god can observe in heaven(outside of spacetime) or gets uploaded to god when we die..the all seeing eye of god..but might not work on the blind.Gods_misled_children87110https://www.blogger.com/profile/11653377626574661051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7900256077985985852011-01-19T03:17:36.216-06:002011-01-19T03:17:36.216-06:00I think his problem was the thought experiment of ...I think his problem was the thought experiment of using computer programing logic to tackle the issue. His argument that God's knowledge of the universe requires so much space that it surpass the dimensions of the universe itself was problematic. First, God is claimed to be a consciousness without a physical mind - I can't fathom how this could be represented in the model he suggests. Perhaps more basic is the fact that in our world- Data does not equal matter. All the data of a beaver does not require a beaver worth of space. Perhaps he should have used a procedural generating universe analogy.<br />The use of programing logic is interesting, but one must be careful in it's use.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11896998401370897319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87798108607808400042011-01-18T15:39:54.241-06:002011-01-18T15:39:54.241-06:00@JT
Not bad. I can tell you get it. Why theists...@JT<br /><br />Not bad. I can tell you get it. Why theists remain baffled by this kind of example I fear I will never know.<br /><br />I don't think telling someone that their concept of god is like a treasure map that leads to a place that cannot be reached will go over well, though. This kind of reminds me of Harris' "gold boulder buried in the back yard" analogy.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72075792564489419292011-01-18T14:35:42.271-06:002011-01-18T14:35:42.271-06:00"The treasure doesn't spontaneously pop i..."The treasure doesn't spontaneously pop into existence because the map says so."<br /><br />But the particle can pop into existence if the quantum physicist says so.Dances_with_the_beasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12166734317886639473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65736345994240088482011-01-18T14:22:40.878-06:002011-01-18T14:22:40.878-06:00@Minus: "I think that anyone who claims that ...@Minus: "I think that anyone who claims that he/she can prove the existence or non-existence of a god should be first required to prove that they themselves exist."<br /><br />This is self-refuting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64715017173107274942011-01-18T13:41:32.653-06:002011-01-18T13:41:32.653-06:00@John K.
I wish I could describe better why evide...@John K.<br /><br /><i>I wish I could describe better why evidence is an important piece of why something should be considered true or not.</i><br /><br />Let me take a stab at an analogy.<br /><br />Ok, here it goes.<br /><br />Logic and reason is like a treasure map, with "X" marking the spot.<br /><br />Evidence is actually digging up and finding the treasure.<br /><br />The treasure doesn't spontaneously pop into existence because the map says so.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16294923820257553292011-01-18T12:09:03.957-06:002011-01-18T12:09:03.957-06:00I wish I could describe better why evidence is an ...I wish I could describe better why evidence is an important piece of why something should be considered true or not. Logic is an impressive and useful tool for discovering truth, but only if all the assertions are true and none of the logical rules are broken. With no possible observation, no accurate claim can be made about the truth of an assertion, so all the logic in the world cannot help.<br /><br />Of course when I tell the theist I have to put the untestable god in with all other untestable ideas, from Santa to invisible unicorns, he thinks I am making fun of him and misses the point entirely.<br /><br />Great post. It is at the heart of why I consider myself a skeptical atheist.John K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11579041716600940838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58483614862607386692011-01-18T08:48:13.544-06:002011-01-18T08:48:13.544-06:00arguments usually hinge on the notion that you can...<i>arguments usually hinge on the notion that you can "prove" or "disprove" the existence of physical things through pure reason</i><br /><br />This gets under my skin also. The arguments are so tenuous and one incorrect assumption or ill defined premise sends the whole thing skittering into pointless mind excercise oblivion. Despite this, people keep yammering away as if when the case is presented correctly god will appear in front of me (or the opposite). It's like they try to talk something into or out of existence in leiu of analyzing things that we can actually perceive literally.<br /><br />It's sometimes a fun little excercise, but far too easily fuffed up to take as any sort of evidence IMO.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56666755156196262672011-01-18T04:25:03.154-06:002011-01-18T04:25:03.154-06:00Sean, Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great ...Sean, Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. — Steve EleyIngersoll Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06164780998844903184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48194951800196451032011-01-18T00:59:53.576-06:002011-01-18T00:59:53.576-06:00I'd like to point out that some definitions of...I'd like to point out that some definitions of God may be vulnerable to logical disproof because they are self-contradictory (like our old friend the pink invisible unicorn: "pink" and "invisible" cannot simultaneously obtain about the same object in the same way).<br /><br />However, only definitions of God which are very specific or philosophically unusual are really vulnerable to this problem. A really generic and physically grounded definition like "an intelligent creator of the observable universe" is not vulnerable in this way, for precisely the reason you mention. Gods that are nothing but really powerful people (like Zeus) are especially not impossible.Sean (quantheory)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00094694851707164734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60151284306201943172011-01-18T00:36:50.177-06:002011-01-18T00:36:50.177-06:00Thanks, Russell...I wish I'd thought of the Bu...Thanks, Russell...I wish I'd thought of the Buffyverse-like analogies.<br /><br />I was telling Beth, as we left the show, that I'm no more impressed by clever attempts to prove the non-existence of gods (excluding god definitions that are clearly contradictory) than I am by clever attempts to prove the existence of a god.<br /><br />Glad I'm not alone. :)Matt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74380918283381135752011-01-17T23:29:39.518-06:002011-01-17T23:29:39.518-06:00I've got to disagree on a couple of points.
Fi...I've got to disagree on a couple of points.<br />First, while I accept that any proposed proof of the existence of something should make reference to observations about the physical world in order to be considered sound, I do not accept the equivalent claim about proposed proofs of nonexistence. After all, if an entity is sufficiently well-defined as to be provably logically contradictory, then there is no possible physical evidence which could ever indicate its existence, hence we can conclude it does not exist.<br />This is not to say anything specific about the caller's argument, as one should always be wary of defining the gods of others.<br /><br />Secondly, the only way we can take the implication "god created the universe(1) therefore god is not a part of the universe(1)" as valid is if we assume that closed timelike curves (colloquially referred to as a "predestination paradox" in scifi time-travel lingo) are impossible.<br />If you have a good reason for ruling out closed timelike curves, I'd be interested in hearing it, as the only thing I've heard about them from any scientific source is that Kurt Godel proved that relativity alone <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve" rel="nofollow">cannot rule them out</a>.Yiabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05378928298441512323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43444539146184003492011-01-17T19:55:26.278-06:002011-01-17T19:55:26.278-06:00Equivocation's a step up from having no defini...Equivocation's a step up from having no definitions at all. Proving god exists: the universe exists, god is the universe, therefore god exists. Easy.uzzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02494141255401096538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84888104253358123312011-01-17T17:52:12.194-06:002011-01-17T17:52:12.194-06:00I guess I'm not very liberal, because I just d...I guess I'm not very liberal, because I just don't think there's anything in "Dollhouse" that would lead us to believe that it takes place in the Buffyverse. I mean, c'mon, are you saying Echo is actually Faith? Don't be ridiculous. :)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03218766081192764530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13572374274810127672011-01-17T17:37:53.258-06:002011-01-17T17:37:53.258-06:00Eric: What I had in mind about theists using the s...Eric: What I had in mind about theists using the same "universe" equivocation is this:<br /><br />Theist: "Where did the universe(ambiguous) come from?"<br />Atheist: "Unknown. There are many possibilities, including X, Y, Z, and the universe(4) always existed.'"<br />Theist: "Gotcha! Big bang theory means scientists all believe that the universe(1) had a beginning!"<br /><br />The theist is technically correct, but equivocating. If there is a metaverse, or other, parallel universes, or an oscillating universe, then it could be that this universe had a beginning, while the universe (the set of all things that exist) didn't have a beginning.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56830234026243974772011-01-17T17:34:37.375-06:002011-01-17T17:34:37.375-06:00Eric: Thanks for that Francis Bacon quote. it'...Eric: Thanks for that Francis Bacon quote. it's a point which I have struggled to express. I figured someone must have been able to state it clearly. I am always very irritated by these arguments from definition.<br /><br />I think that anyone who claims that he/she can prove the existence or non-existence of a god should be first required to prove that they themselves exist.minushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08753445398306415857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20251392077747463112011-01-17T17:32:22.038-06:002011-01-17T17:32:22.038-06:00These dicussions require some heavy lifting, techn...<i>These dicussions require some heavy lifting, technical expertise and understandings that can be mind boggling to think about.</i><br /><br />Actually, I think the problem is not so much that the actual points under discussion are all that impenetrable. Rather, it's very easy for someone who's got a little background in academia to put forth superficially persuasive arguments that are full of misdirection, and it is hard to figure out exactly where the bullshit is located.<br /><br />It is a lot like this guy in high school who used to constantly present me with "proofs" that 1=0. Usually these proofs would involve a long sequence of assertions and inferences which are mostly valid, but there is always a tricky step where the proof would divide by zero, or raise both sides to the power of zero, or something like that which invalidates the proof in the general case.<br /><br />These "proofs" can really get quite sophisticated, and if they're advanced enough then they may even require knowledge of calculus or some such thing that most people don't know. But they're still deliberately fallacious, and it doesn't take a lot of advanced math to understand that there's a problem, since 1 is not 0.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30302969296665935602011-01-17T17:23:26.179-06:002011-01-17T17:23:26.179-06:00I intend to convey in my top comment, that I made ...I intend to convey in my top comment, that I made the same mistake in trying to restrict the possibilities with definitions, that many people make this mistake, that clear definitions help, and that Francis Bacon wanted people to avoid this argument from definition.<br /><br />Religionists do it too. Like the arguments about the nature of morality, meaning, and happiness are often defined in a way to make atheism look dreadful and theism the only escape from nihilism.Eric J.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10600051893118307721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59693751344680188112011-01-17T17:16:52.268-06:002011-01-17T17:16:52.268-06:00Yeah, I made this almost the same mistake not too ...Yeah, I made this almost the same mistake not too long ago, but for me it was about existence and the universe. Basically, I defined what I could conceive as existing. I define existence as either actually within the universe (the set of everything which takes up space-time) or linguistically as ideas (objects of thought). I thought that Christian Logos was outside my definition of existence because it had created a special third category of being outside space-time and being more than an object of thought.<br /><br />Of course, heaven is imaginable, but I was caught by problem of infinity, ectoplasmic divine nothingness, possibility of thinking without a brain, and other issues for this third reality which has a metaphysics that break almost every limitation (or law) on the physical universe.<br /><br />I see where the caller is coming from. The problem from arguing from definitions is that words serve those who use them. One is not alone in demanding clear and technical definitions of words. In early modern philosophy, Francis Bacon in The New Organon explained this phenomenon of using "ill and unfit" definitions of words as the basis of argumentation about nature of things. He called it the Idol of the Marketplace. <br /><br />As Bacon writes: "...the ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding. Nor do the definitions or explanations wherewith in some things learned men are wont to guard and defend themselves, by any means set the matter right. But words plainly force and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion, and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies." (Francis Bacon's The New Organon, aphorism XLIII)Eric J.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10600051893118307721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75707406835762735642011-01-17T17:08:35.743-06:002011-01-17T17:08:35.743-06:00Christian's believe the Universe was created w...Christian's believe the Universe was created when god sneezed which then created what we call the big bang. Furthermore, this alleged being exist's everywhere in our physical universe(especially on Earth) yet no place because he exist's outside of spacetime(he is in a timeless place called heaven). This contradiction reminds me of things in quantum physics...occupying two opposing states at the same time.<br /><br />These dicussions require some heavy lifting, technical expertise and understandings that can be mind boggling to think about.Gods_misled_children87110https://www.blogger.com/profile/11653377626574661051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50310418926761143232011-01-17T17:08:22.847-06:002011-01-17T17:08:22.847-06:00Good gravy! Do all us New Zealanders sound like th...Good gravy! Do all us New Zealanders sound like that over the phone? I'm never going to get laid again! =( (p.s. Not a dig on Peter personally... our country got the shit end of the stick when it comes to accents!)<br /><br />But yeah, what Russell said. It's a bit like the 'first cause' argument; everything in the universe needs a cause, except for God who conveniently doesn't need one. Except in this case, we've got a God who 'exists' out side of existence and isn't subject to the physical laws of the universe. Same ol' game of three-card monte.<br /><br />If an apologist posited such a God to me, I'd want to know how they obtained such information. But then again, there are probably much better arguments.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09998987681415416383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54998344713094335372011-01-17T16:14:55.331-06:002011-01-17T16:14:55.331-06:00That particular conversation would have been less ...That particular conversation would have been less annoying if the caller got what Matt was trying to say within the first 50 rounds.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.com