Hillarious creationist "argument from logic".

[ArcturusMengsk]

Just ran into this on a philosophy website. Thought everyone here would appreciate the humor.

It's really quite simple.

In logic, we always assume that there is an object for a subject, and visa versa; that is, there is nothing which exists without an accompanying subject to whom it is known. And because man does not know everything, there must be a Higher Sentience who does.

Reading this, I am immediately reminded of Berkeley's utterly absurd and idealistic (with a capital 'I') argument for the existence of God, as well as several of Kant's more blatant hallucinations. It also seems to affirm to me that we shan't be rid of God until we get rid of the subject/object dichotomy.

[General Zod]

Just a simple and utterly boring argument from ignorance. They're not even trying there.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Just a simple and utterly boring argument from ignorance. They're not even trying there.

There's a little more depth to it than that - he literally means that because we cannot perceive everything in the universe, those things which we cannot perceive require that there exists an Observer who does know them (presuming, as per Berkeley's dictum, that to be is to be under perception) - but it's simply a flaw of logical operation and the inevitable result of an extreme reliance on the subject/object dichotomy.

[General Zod]

There's a little more depth to it than that - he literally means that because we cannot perceive everything in the universe, those things which we cannot perceive require that there exists an Observer who does know them (presuming, as per Berkeley's dictum, that to be is to be under perception) - but it's simply a flaw of logical operation and the inevitable result of an extreme reliance on the subject/object dichotomy.

That's still suggesting that something must be true because we can't know whether or not it's really out there. It's a completely nonsensical argument and horribly overused by armchair philosophers. Thus, an argument from ignorance.

[ArcturusMengsk]

There's a little more depth to it than that - he literally means that because we cannot perceive everything in the universe, those things which we cannot perceive require that there exists an Observer who does know them (presuming, as per Berkeley's dictum, that to be is to be under perception) - but it's simply a flaw of logical operation and the inevitable result of an extreme reliance on the subject/object dichotomy.

That's still suggesting that something must be true because we can't know whether or not it's really out there. It's a completely nonsensical argument and horribly overused by armchair philosophers. Thus, an argument from ignorance.

No, no. I hate to be the devil's advocate, but it's absolutely necessary to understand the enemy if you are to beat him at his own game. There is a self-consistent logic at work here, and if it were right then it would be right. But it's wrong. Here's how it works:


* According to Berkeley, the world exists as idea. This is not something I'm fundamentally opposed to, insofar as it denies the distinction between the subjective and objective 'worlds', but I digress.

* Because the world is idea - because it exists purely in perception - it follows that there can exist nothing outside of or beyond perception. Hume would here elaborate a fundamentally agreeable thesis - that time, space, and causality are properties of the mind structuring the object of its perception - but Berkeley is none so bold. Instead,

* Berkeley claims that existence requires perception; that the act of perception literally brings things forth into existence ex nihilo.


So it's not an argument from ignorance in the sense that, "We don't know God, therefore he may exist"; rather, it's a literal argument from perception, of the sort that "We do not directly observe the sun when our back is turned to it, and yet we can still feel its heat; ergo, it requires a Sustainer - of which we cannot know". One can immediately see here how indebted Kant is to Berkeley and Hume. So there's a great deal of the logical tradition which needs to be purified to prevent this sort of exaltation of an 'Unknown God' or noumenon; Schopenhauer does this adequately.

[General Zod]

No, no. I hate to be the devil's advocate, but it's absolutely necessary to understand the enemy if you are to beat him at his own game. There is a self-consistent logic at work here, and if it were right then it would be right. But it's wrong. Here's how it works:

Uh, no, there isn't. Just because something's consistent with itself does not mean it isn't fallacious.

* According to Berkeley, the world exists as idea. This is not something I'm fundamentally opposed to, insofar as it denies the distinction between the subjective and objective 'worlds', but I digress.

* Because the world is idea - because it exists purely in perception - it follows that there can exist nothing outside of or beyond perception. Hume would here elaborate a fundamentally agreeable thesis - that time, space, and causality are properties of the mind structuring the object of its perception - but Berkeley is none so bold. Instead,

* Berkeley claims that existence requires perception; that the act of perception literally brings things forth into existence ex nihilo.

Non sequitor. Their entire premise rests on the world existing only in our perception when evidence exists to the contrary.

So it's not an argument from ignorance in the sense that, "We don't know God, therefore he may exist"; rather, it's a literal argument from perception, of the sort that "We do not directly observe the sun when our back is turned to it, and yet we can still feel its heat; ergo, it requires a Sustainer - of which we cannot know". One can immediately see here how indebted Kant is to Berkeley and Hume. So there's a great deal of the logical tradition which needs to be purified to prevent this sort of exaltation of an 'Unknown God' or noumenon; Schopenhauer does this adequately.

I'm failing to see how rephrasing it suddenly makes it not be an argument from ignorance.

[Starglider]

Typical case of falling in love with human-created abstractions to the point of believing that they're somehow more important and fundamental than the actual objective universe you're living it. The fact that there's a religious angle just marginally amps up the idiocy level.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Uh, no, there isn't. Just because something's consistent with itself does not mean it isn't fallacious.

Just what I said:

There is a self-consistent logic at work here, and if it were right then it would be right. But it's wrong.

Non sequitor. Their entire premise rests on the world existing only in our perception when evidence exists to the contrary.

No evidence exists to the contrary. The argument is based on empiricism. It can only be refuted through a priori deduction.

I'm failing to see how rephrasing it suddenly makes it not be an argument from ignorance.

Because it's not an argument from ignorance in the sense that he's appealing to a 'God of the gaps'. He's instead arguing from an ontological standpoint which is quite literally immune to empirical analysis and can only be refuted deductively.

[General Zod]

No evidence exists to the contrary. The argument is based on empiricism. It can only be refuted through a priori deduction.

Carbon dating and fossil records tend to prove that there were plenty of things around before humans were. Or were all those skeletons just placed there for our benefit? Occam's razor tends to lead to the first one.

Because it's not an argument from ignorance in the sense that he's appealing to a 'God of the gaps'. He's instead arguing from an ontological standpoint which is quite literally immune to empirical analysis and can only be refuted deductively.

That's a lot of assumptions based on the idiot in the post you quoted saying little more than "Man doesn't know everything. Therefore God exists".

[ArcturusMengsk]

Carbon dating and fossil records tend to prove that there were plenty of things around before humans were. Or were all those skeletons just placed there for our benefit? Occam's razor tends to lead to the first one.

He's not claiming that God interacted with the objective world to place the fossil record in the crust; he's instead arguing that the fossil record is the product of our perception of it and that, following from Berkeley, God has placed these perceptions 'in our head', so to speak, for whatever purpose. It seems similar to the traditional 'God of the gaps', but it's rooted in an ontological viewpoint that makes arguing from empirical evidence utterly self-defeating because it claims that our perception of the world is mere perception - one absolutely cannot defeat Idealism through an appeal to empiricism because most of empirical logic is implicitly idealistic. As such it can be falsified only through a priori argumentation; furthermore, one absolutely must abolish Berkeleianism and Kantianism to avoid such subject-centered modes of thought. Unfortunately this means also taking out a good deal of liberal political thought which has become so thoroughly rooted in our culture that any effort to rectify the situation is immediately suspect.

That's a lot of assumptions based on the idiot in the post you quoted saying little more than "Man doesn't know everything. Therefore God exists".

Once again, I understand the philosophical approach he's taking towards the issue. It is heavily rooted in liberal culture, which is why one often finds such sentiments even amongst atheists. It's not enough to defeat this particular argument; one has to tear down the entire logical methodology that supports it.

Kant is and always has been the enemy.

[General Zod]

Once again, I understand the philosophical approach he's taking towards the issue. It is heavily rooted in liberal culture, which is why one often finds such sentiments even amongst atheists. It's not enough to defeat this particular argument; one has to tear down the entire logical methodology that supports it.

Kant is and always has been the enemy.

You keep claiming that it's a logical methodology but if the entire thing is built on a false premise, it falls apart. That's more than sufficient to show that it's bullshit. Let alone the fact that it has no useful application as a philosophy.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Once again, I understand the philosophical approach he's taking towards the issue. It is heavily rooted in liberal culture, which is why one often finds such sentiments even amongst atheists. It's not enough to defeat this particular argument; one has to tear down the entire logical methodology that supports it.

Kant is and always has been the enemy.

You keep claiming that it's a logical methodology but if the entire thing is built on a false premise, it falls apart. That's more than sufficient to show that it's bullshit. Let alone the fact that it has no useful application as a philosophy.

And there we agree. I'm simply trying to point out that this line of argumentation is distinct from a 'God of the gaps' argument, which is an ad hoc rationalization and nothing further. Idealism, on the other hand, is quite insidious insofar as it is a self-reinforcing and distinct methodology.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just ran into this on a philosophy website. Thought everyone here would appreciate the humor.

It's really quite simple.

In logic, we always assume that there is an object for a subject, and visa versa; that is, there is nothing which exists without an accompanying subject to whom it is known. And because man does not know everything, there must be a Higher Sentience who does.

Reading this, I am immediately reminded of Berkeley's utterly absurd and idealistic (with a capital 'I') argument for the existence of God, as well as several of Kant's more blatant hallucinations. It also seems to affirm to me that we shan't be rid of God until we get rid of the subject/object dichotomy.

It is really tragic to read the greatest philosophic minds degenerate into gobbledeeguk over their religious sacred cow, which just HAD to be justified. Makes you wish they lived in a more enlightened era.

[Rye]

It's really quite simple.

In logic, we always assume that there is an object for a subject, and visa versa; that is, there is nothing which exists without an accompanying subject to whom it is known. And because man does not know everything, there must be a Higher Sentience who does.

Reading this, I am immediately reminded of Berkeley's utterly absurd and idealistic (with a capital 'I') argument for the existence of God, as well as several of Kant's more blatant hallucinations. It also seems to affirm to me that we shan't be rid of God until we get rid of the subject/object dichotomy.

You don't even need to do that. You just have to remove the nonsensical hierarchy to all things that religious people have pulled out of the arses for the past 10,000 years, once you do that, the question begging of God as the "highest" of all things is pretty much neutered (not that they can substantiate that either, it's just assumed due to the nature of comic booky traditionalist claims).

In regards to the argument itself, as with the ontological argument, you just do not get to define things into existence like that. You can define existing things more precisely, but you can't demand that the universe put a perfect million dollars into your bank account. It also betrays its lack of understanding regarding knowledge, knowledge is a set of abstractions, ideas that do not exist separately from those believing and knowing. Knowledge as a whole is gained through sensory perception, united with comprehension via the reasoning faculties of the brain, as such, if an entity were to exist that were omniscient by what we know is involved with real knowledge, there ought to be falsifiable outcomes. Specifically, there ought not to be any light in the universe if there is an entity observing all information at all points and knowing it absolutely. Since this is not the case, I think an argument has to be made that there are no omniscient entities that fit what we actually mean by "knowledge" and "observation."

Of course, the comic booky magical entities that are gods handily get around this with special pleading, but there's no reason to take them seriously. You can no more claim Yahweh exists and is omniscient than you can Shuma Gorath. It is still painfully obvious that these entities are invented and imaginary, and to assert their existence from the ignoranceo f mankind is a bizarre form of hubris, nothing more.

[sketerpot]

When did Red Mage start making arguments for the existence of a God? And when did people start taking him seriously?

[Gigaliel]

You keep claiming that it's a logical methodology but if the entire thing is built on a false premise, it falls apart. That's more than sufficient to show that it's bullshit. Let alone the fact that it has no useful application as a philosophy.

And there we agree. I'm simply trying to point out that this line of argumentation is distinct from a 'God of the gaps' argument, which is an ad hoc rationalization and nothing further. Idealism, on the other hand, is quite insidious insofar as it is a self-reinforcing and distinct methodology.

I'm not really seeing it as such. Berkley's argument pretends that an objective reality is fallacious because we can never perceive the underlying 'reality' beneath the colors and shape of cherry, for example. Therefore God does it because perception is everything and someone must perceive everything in order for it to exist.

Except a God that does JUST that has no relation to the Abrahamic gods (As Zuul mentions). In fact, we could just call it 'the universe' and the model is identical with every respect to the scientific one.

And really, an omniscient being cannot 'think' anymore than a rock as it would be aware of all its future thoughts and what it thinks about those thoughts etc etc and would have no more choice than a rock falling off a cliff. Such a 'being' would resemble a mechanistic universe in all but name and possible ability to talk.

And since the universe doesn't talk ever, empirically this sort of God is the universe and therefore a useless term via Ockham's razor, as Zod said.

I mean really, between an omniscient, omnipotent being or an unsentient mechanical reality, which assumption has the more unobserved traits? The former, therefore it is razored away from any scientific theory.

This is no more serious than Descartes 'God exists because the idea of perfection and a perfect thing must exist to be perfect' or some such. Although I was always curious what actions such a God could do since no action is 'perfect' except 'being perfect' from such axiomatic logic.

Anyway, DIGRESSION OVER. Please let all articles and words be where they should be.

[Vendetta]

Specifically, there ought not to be any light in the universe if there is an entity observing all information at all points and knowing it absolutely. Since this is not the case, I think an argument has to be made that there are no omniscient entities that fit what we actually mean by "knowledge" and "observation."

Actually, there shouldn't be any particles in the universe at all if they require constant observation, due to the uncertainty principle. They can't be observed in an omniscient fashion, because that requires knowledge of their position and velocity, and observing one changes the other.

[Knife]

No, no. I hate to be the devil's advocate, but it's absolutely necessary to understand the enemy if you are to beat him at his own game.

That only works if 'playing their game' is the only way. If two positions or groups are more or less equal, understanding them leads to options. When one group or position is superior, there is no reason to understand them because it is irrelevant to smashing them.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why this kind of argument requires any more understanding than simply pointing out that it's yet another example of the ubiquitous Christian habit of "proving" an absurdity by appealing to yet another absurdity.

Seriously, whenever they try to use logic, that's what it usually boils down to. Make up a completely baseless premise and then deduce from that premise that God exists. Why not simply make up the equally baseless premise that there is a God? Because that would be too obvious.

[Wyrm]

It's really quite simple.

In logic, we always assume that there is an object for a subject, and visa versa; that is, there is nothing which exists without an accompanying subject to whom it is known. And because man does not know everything, there must be a Higher Sentience who does.

It took a little while, but I finally realized that David the Faithful's argument is yet another of a whole family of similar arguments. It shares the same form as the argument from design, first mover, and other nonsense.

It implies that everything that exists must exist a distinct conceiver to dream up its existence. Since not everything in the universe is known to man, those unknown things must therefore have a conceiver to conceive them, hence God.

BUT, if God himself exists, referring back to our premise, he must too have a conceiver able to conceive of this incredible being able to conceive of everything that is unconceived by man. It certainly can't be us, because (again referring back to our premise) we don't know what there is unconceived by us, and therefore any of our conceptions of God will be incomplete or wrong. This implies a God of God. This destroys the conclusion that God is the ultimate conceiver of everything inconceivable in the universe. He cannot 'just exist', because our premise disallows such objects; the premises apply to God just as much as they apply to mundane objects. It also applies to the God of God, the God of the God of God, the God of God of God of God, and up the infinite ladder.

Therefore, the premises in this argument that there is no ultimate conceiver in precisely the same way that the premises used in the First Cause argument actually imply that there is no such first cause — the logic folds back on the proposed ultimate conceiver and destroys him.

Reading this, I am immediately reminded of Berkeley's utterly absurd and idealistic (with a capital 'I') argument for the existence of God, as well as several of Kant's more blatant hallucinations. It also seems to affirm to me that we shan't be rid of God until we get rid of the subject/object dichotomy.

Wrong. The argument already destroys God as the ultimate conceiver. And if he's not the ultimate conceiver, why call him God? By the logic, for any being you choose to worship, there's an infinite number of better candidates for that worship.

[Darth Wong]

The "every object must have a conceiver" premise is a good idea of the "support an absurdity with an absurdity" method that I described. In order to "prove" the existence of God, they simply manufacture a premise that inevitably leads to the conclusion of God. But the premise is always equally arbitrary, having no real justification other than "I say so".

They do the same thing with specific religious stories and beliefs, like the Great Flood. In order to support the Great Flood, simply manufacture a premise about the laws of physics being drastically different in the past, or a giant ice shell hovering above the atmosphere, or kilometres of ocean laying just below the surface of the Earth and then bursting forth. And in order to support those premises, just make up something else. Repeat ad infinitum.

[Rye]

What really annoys me is then they say those premises are axioms and as such not subject to rules of proper establishment.

For instance, with the ontological argument, they invent "perfection" and then claim that degrees of perfection exist in nature in some faculty, and then think they can just assert that there must be a most perfect entity, and to exist is to be more perfect than hypothetical, thus the most perfect entity must exist (and coincidentally is jewgod 2). And how do they justify that utter nonsense? Oh well, these axioms are no less valid than assuming a natural universe without intentional interaction from gods! Uh, yeah, right. Jog on, knobhead.

[Wyrm]

The "every object must have a conceiver" premise is a good idea of the "support an absurdity with an absurdity" method that I described. In order to "prove" the existence of God, they simply manufacture a premise that inevitably leads to the conclusion of God.

Of course the "object -> conceiver" premise is absurd, and people who adopt absurd premises should expect absurd conclusions. But I always find it amusing when a specific argument (with defined premises, absurdities and all) is forwarded to support their God, it fails spectacularly to do so on deeper analysis, such as our First Cause family of infinite ladders.

And it can only get better if they explicitly define their God as "the ultimate X" (whatever X they're trying to prove the existence of with their particular argument) in these infinite ladders, as none of the entities on such a ladder can ever satisfy this requirement and therefore the argument actually denies their God's existence. Isn't logic fun?

They do the same thing with specific religious stories and beliefs, like the Great Flood. In order to support the Great Flood, simply manufacture a premise about the laws of physics being drastically different in the past, or a giant ice shell hovering above the atmosphere, or kilometres of ocean laying just below the surface of the Earth and then bursting forth. And in order to support those premises, just make up something else. Repeat ad infinitum.

It's a goddamn supertask. If they were magical elves, I'd be concerned.