Friday, October 19, 2018

Bad Apologetics (Part 2)

"I can't prove the existence of my god, but hey! Why will I bother myself with all that shit! Let me pass the ball to the nonbelievers."

Very typical.

Most amateur apologists like Mr. Rene Jun Alameda loves to play basketball. They love to throw the burden of proof to the other player - which is easier that giving a defense, right? 

You always find amateur apologists ranting "Atheists claims god doesn't exists so they have  a lot of explaining to do and..." 


They started the debate saying their god exists, so why is it now my job to do the explaining?

Anyways, there are methods to prove the nonexistence of something - a logical contradiction will work - I am sure 100% that married bachelors don't exist.   How about some imcompatible divine attributes of Rene Jun Alameda's god like omni-benevolence, omnipotence, omniscience vs. existence of evil. By the way, Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god is considered omnipotent, right? Since the paradox of the stone shows that an omnipotent being cannot exist well, we can use it. How about Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's own  statement that an absolute infinite cannot exists - Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god is considered an absolute infinite, therefore...  

Now these are just logical or  should I say, analytical examples of how to prove god doesn't exist - Logic, yes  logic is really all about playing with words and statements. 

How about using synthetic distinction? Can we prove nonexistence using synthetic distinction? Sure we can! In a box containing all white marbles, I can say that there are no black, or red, or blue marbles in the box, right? 

So we can ask if a disembodied mind exist? Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god is a disembodied mind right? Well? Can Mr. Rene Jun Alameda prove the existence of a disembodied mind that feels love, jealousy, and anger floating between me and the computer monitor right now? 

But why should we make it hard huh? Most apologetics have already been rebutted and  frankly, there are no new arguments - most are just recycled stuff. As  philosopher Michael Scriven said, "if we take arguments for the existence of something to include all the evidence which supports the existence claim to any significant degree, i.e. makes it at all probable, then the absence of such  evidence means there is no likelihood of the existence of the entity. And this,  of course, is a complete justification for the claim that the entity does not exist, provided that the entity is not one which might leave no traces and provided we have comprehensively examined the area where evidence would appear if there were any."

In other words, if theists like Mr. Rene Jun Alameda failed miserable to justify the existence of his god, then you already got your 100% data that prove Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god doesn't exist.

Bad apologetics (Part 1)

Bad apologetic often use faulty logic and misunderstanding of science. Here's a good  example of how amateur apologists utilized the wrong end of the stick to prove the existence of their god. 

In the first post, Mr. Rene Jun Alameda had made an analogy between the  invisibility of air and  the  invisibility of his god. 

This is quite typical for amateur apologists. They will ask  non-believers if they can see the wind. So, a non-suspecting person will answer no, she cannot see the wind. This will be followed-up by another question - "Do you believe that the wind exist?" or "do you feel the wind?" If she will say yes... Got ya! Now why would you believe wind exists, you cannot see it? So, VIOLA, the same with god. You cannot see god but you can feel him, just like the wind.

I don't know. Maybe it's all about their lack of understanding about the different nature of matter or they intentionally twist it so they compare the hiddenness of their god from the invisibility of the wind. Ewww... what a sly, cunning SOB's. Yuck!

Anyways, air, or wind are gas, one of the three fundamental states of matter. As matter,  gas has mass and it can occupy space - that is why balloons expand when you blow it and LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) has mass. Gas consist of a  vast number of molecules moving chaotically in all directions and colliding  with one another. So, same as liquid, gas are considered as fluid. However,  unlike liquid gas molecules are so far apart from each other. That's why air is invisible.

No need to review Physics 101 - the issue here is how can we compare wind or air (which are gas, which is matter) to Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god which is considered a supernatural, disembodied, agent? Does Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god has a mass like the wind? Is his god so small like air molecules? Is his god a  fluid like air? Does his god conduct heat like gas? Is his god measurable? Is Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god made up of matter, molecules and atoms?

False analogy anyone?

And you know what's funny? The wind doesn't care whether you believe it or not, unlike Rene Jun Alameda's god who is so hungry of affection and recognition to the point that it will cursed you of hell fire if you don't believe its existence.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Synthetic A Priori

I've noticed that most proof about god's existence rely solely on logical arguments. For me, that is not a very effective way of proving the existence of a "sentient being" (AKA God). R

As one Christian have said, "I want to clarify is that by God I mean the immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause or in simple words a SENTIENT BEING that caused the conception of the universe." (emphasis mine) 

Does giving me a logical argument about the principle of causality serve as evidence that this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" exists? Even if I will accept (without admitting) the principle of causality, it will not established an "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" as existing by fact. Even if I will add the word "Necessary" to  "sentient being," will it still not become a statement of fact. We will only have statements of logic about the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being." And the reason? Dyan papasok ang synthetic description.

Why I am asking for a synthetic description of this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being (AKA God)?" Para hindi tayo ma-stuck sa definitional truth. 

Logic is a process. It is a process built on rules and definitions so we can mix and match sets of propositions. That's it! Truth in logic is truth by definition ONLY. So if we say that this immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" (AKA God) is the uncaused-cause (base on the principle of causality) - that is a logical conclusion. But logic can't show that such possible beings actually exist. It will not give the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being (AKA God) a factual existence. We need more than that. 

What is an "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being? According to C.S Peirce, words mean anything if we could able to test it. If these words have no practical effect, they are meaningless. So going back to the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being, what the hell is that? It cannot be tested, it cannot be proven, in other words, it's devoid of meaning. Now, in the verification principle of Karl Popper only factual truths (not logical forms) can be verified. With the absence of verification, proof of existence will be improbable.

According to Immanuel Kant, A Priori knowledge can be synthetic. In math for example, 36 x 25 = 900. Now, how do you know? Well, David Hume said that since it is universal and necessary, therefore math is A Priori. Yet Math is also synthetic. Since we know that by definition 36 x 25 = 900 we also say through empirical observation, 36 objects (let say mangoes) multiplied 25 times makes 900 mangoes yet this is not included in the definition of 36 x 25 = 900. That makes it synthetic.  

Using this on the existence of the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god), to prove this "sentient being" only through logical (A Priori/analytical) proof will only give us empty definitional truths without any reference from the outside world (beyond ideas that only stays inside the mind). To established the existence of this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god) it has to be sympathetic A Priori.

As I have already shown, the failure of providing a synthetic description (not just mere logical definition of words or symbols) of this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god) justify my position that this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause" sentient being (AKA god) doesn't exist.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Invisible God?

Often, Christians have some funny ways to defend their "unseen" god. Some compare it to abstract ideas such as the mind, love, courage and worst, some equate their god to air. Maybe it's a kind of excuse - You can't see god because he's like air - PERIOD!

I find it hilarious!

Not a very "serious" argument.

Every time I post or encounter arguments about the historical Jesus, I get this reply.

"No serious historians reject the historicity of Jesus."

Really? So are you saying that those who reject it are not to be considered as "serious historians" huh? Looking at the argument, I can smell the foul stench of Ad hominem.

Was there a consensus that to be condered a "serious" historian, you should believed that Jesus was a real "historical person?"

So what measurement are we using to be considered as a "serious historians?" Is it an Apologetics-influenced scholarship, a "mainstream scholarship,” or the "what most scholars think?”

Have we forgotten the science philosopher Thomas Kuhn who said that by the formulation of new interpretive paradigms as by the accumulation of new data and discoveries is the reason why science progress? Can we not apply this in the paradigms of history, specially on biblical/religious claims?

When these so-called "serious historians" speak about Jesus, are they talking about the same Jesus that was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, heal the sick, produced fish and bread out of thin air, walked on water and resurrected after being dead for three days?

Now, suppose we asked, "Have you even read the mythicist's arguments?" Have you really made a serious thought about them?

I really don't expect to get any answers from these questions.

As the writer and historian David Fitgerald said, "Apologists love to parrot the old lie that "no serious historians reject the historicity of Christ," but fail to realized (or deliberately neglect to mention) the the "historical Jesus" the majority of historians do accept is at best no more than just another first-century wandering preacher and founder of a fringe cult that eventually became Christianity - in other words, a Jesus that completely debunks their own."

Demon Possession

According to an African Christian on the issue regarding atheism and demon possession:  ''Demons wouldn't attack their own. They know atheists are on their side."

Me: Really?

According to your own bible, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." - James 2:19

That means demons are theists.
Better start reading your own holy book.