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.

Friday, June 1, 2018

Blame the atheists?

Why not blame King James' 72 scholars who (for the lack of any idea) translated the Hebrew word re'em to unicorn.

Don't expect too much scholarship in early 16th Century England. The KJV was published in 1611 and even without the advised of Richard Bancroft, those who created the KJV used the Rheims-Douai and the Geneva Bible as references (and not so much of the original Hebrew). According to the Puritan Hebrew Scholar Hugh Broughton, the committee that translated the KJV has little understanding of Hebrew words. The language use in creating the KJV is not the language that the Hebrews used and express. It is the language of British poets used to entertain kings, lords and other royal authority. It is the language of Shakespearean expressive style. It was not about accuracy and getting the right meaning of the Hebrew languange.

Early Greek Bibles are also not accurate when it comes to Hebrew words. Not only that they mistranslated the word "maiden" to a "virgin" they also mistranslated the word re'em to rhinoceros.

Today, modern bible scholars  agrees that the right word for re'em is wild ox.


Why not blame King James' 72 scholars who (for the lack of any idea) translated the Hebrew word re'em to unicorn.

Don't expect too much scholarship in early 16th Century England. The KJV was published in 1611 and even without the advised of Richard Bancroft, those who created the KJV used the Rheims-Douai and the Geneva Bible as references (and not so much of the original Hebrew). According to the Puritan Hebrew Scholar Hugh Broughton, the committee that translated the KJV has little understanding of Hebrew words. The language use in creating the KJV is not the language that the Hebrews used and express. It is the language of British poets used to entertain kings, lords and other royal authority. It is the language of Shakespearean expressive style. It was not about accuracy and getting the right meaning of the Hebrew languange.

Early Greek Bibles are also not accurate when it comes to Hebrew words. Not only that they mistranslated the word "maiden" to a "virgin" they also mistranslated the word re'em to rhinoceros.

Today, modern bible scholars  agrees that the right word for re'em is wild ox.




On the issue of Atheists and Bible Burning

Come on guys...

You can call me a coward for not supporting this bible burning activity, but do you think that such an activity will make your "atheism" the talk of the town? Not that I believe in "catching flies" but burning bibles will just make you look too uh... delinquents. I've been in a lot of burning lately in my college life, you guys don't want to look more of an activists in times where people don't trust those that don't believe a god.


Now, why not instead of burning bibles in Paco Park, why not rent a booth and introduce yourselves as atheists in the public? Make an OUT CAMPAIGN. I have done that at Luneta Park for 3 days and believe me, it's fun, pleasant and more exciting. There were even Christians that came to our booth to er... witness us, but it seems there were the one that were tongue tied.

Challenge yourself to come out an atheist and a good person at the same time.

The choice is yours.