Recently, the brisbane atheist meetup group was attacked by rather nasty troll who called himself Proofthatgodexists ('the troll') whose website is full of the usual theist word games.
The troll proceeded to make various statements such as
"God, as He has revealed to us, is universal, abstract, and invariant"The atheists online made several points to the troll that he is actually assuming, in that statement and in others, that he has absolute certainty about logic. When we put this issue to him, he repeatedly noted that his worldview was correct because it was. Now, for someone that claimed to have absolute knowledge about logic, this arguments seemed a little light on the ground.
Not satisfied with our critique of the worldview that he advanced (which he asked for mind you), he then set about attacking the world view of other members of the group. For instance,
Problem is, science is dependent on the unifromity of nature, another conceptWe tried to explain to the troll that science had worked in the past and accordingly we considered it was reliable, but that we could not be absolutely certain the method would always work. Thus, the method - like everything, was imperfect knowledge such that it was very probable that it could be true but we did not discount the possibility of it being wrong.
which does not comport with any atheistic worldview. The only reason science can
be done is because we proceed on the assumption that nature is uniform, or 'the
future is like the past.' Without that assumption, science would be impossible.
I account for the uniformity of nature in the promises of God. On what basis do
YOU believe that the sceintific method is valid?
Of course, it probably didnt help matters that we had made fun of the trolls website by quoting some of the statement there, like the following Q & A:
Why should I become a Christian?
You should become a Christian because Christianity is true.
Could God have used fallible people to write an infallible book?
Of course, He is God after all.
Why must the God proven on this site be the God of Christianity?
The God proven on this site must be the God of Christianity because He is the only God that HAS been proved here. No other version of God is logically defensible. The God of Christianity is the only God who makes sense out of human experience.
So you can probably empathise with what sort of nutjob we are talking about here, as well as why he seemed to become so upset that we did not accept what he said. I pointed out that the foundation of his belief in God was the Bible, so I asked him:-
Of course, seeing as you are merely a human brain it is necesary for us to recognise that it is your interpretation of those words [the Bible] that you have faith in - could you be wrong?
If yes, then you cannot be sure that you know God.
If no, then you are infallible and equal to God.So, which one is it?
His response was not to answer, but rather to ask a nonsensical question (this would continue for a couple of days - at least):-
Again, this begs the question in that it assumes that God COULD not reveal someWe asked him repeatedly for some evidence that God HAD revealed something to him in such a way that we can know them for certain. Such evidence was not given. Furthermore, as we continued to show that all knowledge could be doubtful (even that statement) because it came from imperfect minds (ie humans and trolls) we found our friend getting further and further from his intial statement to:-
things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
expectation that the future will even probably be like the past. THAT my friend
is proceeding on the expectation that nature is uniform, and is inconsistent
with any atheistic view of the universe.
Actually, it was an expections that nature will probably act in a certain way. Not certainty that it would act in a certain way - our troll, however, was beginning to fully depart from his position. Interestingly, it happened on another thread of the same website where we were discussing morality. The troll, who continued to complain about consistency and was getting increasingly agitated (posting 6 times in one day) made the generous statement that:-
Well, I never claimed to have absolute knowledge, but if I did, you really can't be certain that I haven't provided any evidence now can you?Oh, we can be pretty sure Mr troll. We can be pretty sure.
So, where does this all get us?
The truth is a really difficult nut to crack. When you get a glimmer of something that seems true it usually only takes a second peak to realise there is something wrong with it. Why? Well, in order to know something absolutely you would have to have:-
1. Observed the same event; and,
2. That event must happen the same way
3. Everytime
4. Ever
Otherwise we cannot discount the possibility of the event happening a different way in some other place in the universe. Humans cant really do that, we are limited mortal creatures that have not, and cannot, observe the entire universe. Thus, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, can a human brain hold absolute truth?
This position requires us to acknowledge that we could be wrong about anything (including this statement). Conversely, a person that believes they have absolute truth must think a human brain is infallible, their own. Through all the rants and raves though - I think I have found a response that may settle our troll, both in relation to his continuing agression towards the Brisbane Atheist Meetup group members as well as in relation to his claims of absolute proof. I offer Proverbs 29:22-23
An angry man stirs up strife and a furious man abounds in transgression. AI again quote the trolls statements:-
man's pride will bring him low, but the humble in spirit will retain
honour.
You accept the validity of your ability to reason on faith (blind faith at that), whereas I accept the validity of my reasoning as I know that it is a gift from God. Of the two of us, you are the one offering the faith-based argument.You could be wrong about that too ;)
25 comments:
Absolutely HI-larious :-D I have been banned from expressing my free thoughts at a free-thought forum!
Thanks for the invite here Alex, but judging from the amount of comments, I'd rather post at a place where my posts have a chance of being read.
Still, if anyone happens to come by here, please do indeed visit the Brisbane [ahem] "free" thought group and see for yourself what went on.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. It must be terrible going through life pretending that you do not know anything (but since you do not live consistently with your worldview, you rarely do that anyway).
Freethought means the ability to question everything - if you have absolute truth (which you do not question) then your thoughts are not free. Accordingly, your removal is not as hypocritcal as you may assume.
Nonetheless, I do hope you have learnt from this experience.
PS - I didnt ban you.
"Freethought means the ability to question everything."
You'd think then, that freethinkers would have no poblem with me questioning freethought - but that's not allowed - obviously.
Cheers,
Sye
You weren't questioning free thought - you were saying it was wrong (without evidence). You made value judgements which some of our members thought was just rude.
I could understand what you were trying to say. I agree with our members that it was you trying to impose your own values on other people - but I value all opinions, even wrong ones. Not everyone feels that way.
Again, if you had shown some restraint - and heeded warnings, it wouldnt have turned out this way.
"You weren't questioning free thought - you were saying it was wrong"
Um, you are saying that it's right - without evidence. We question each others' presuppositions, surely that is allowed in a freethought forum - oh wait it isn't.
As far as imposition of values goes - puhlease. I am not allowed to express mine, because those of your ilk were imposed on me.
Cheers,
Sye
You can express your thoughts as much as you wish - but just saying other people are wrong without offering a question - that is what is offencive.
To be honest - your problem is that you are not sufficiently precise in your arguments.
"You can express your thoughts as much as you wish - but just saying other people are wrong without offering a question - that is what is offencive."
Um, were you reading the same forum??? All I did was offer questions, like the one you kept avoiding: "Please give me an example of something which you know imperfectly."
To be honest - your problem is that you are not sufficiently precise in your arguments.
Naturally I disagree, but surely you do not believe that is grounds for banning, otherwise everyone on that forum should be banned. Fact is, some freethinkers just are not tolerant of any thoughts which do not comport with their worldview, as was demonstrated at that forum.
Cheers,
Sye
"just saying other people are wrong without offering a question - that is what is offencive."
P.S. Isn't that exactly what was done to me at that forum?!? Surely banning me, is saying that I am wrong - where was the question? Your whole worldview is rife with inconsistencies.
Cheers,
Sye
You werent banned because we thought you were wrong - rather because your methods were no conducive to constructive discussion.
Again, you are not sufficiently precise
From over at the forum you said:
Such a God cannot exist as he is the cause of evil and perfectly good - it is a contradiction.
1. Please prove that God could not have a morally sufficient reason for the evil in this universe.
2. By what standard of logic are you saying that this is a contradiction, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to that argument?
If he is perfectly good and the source of everything then there should be no evil - and yet there is.
Don't you mean that there are things that you happen not to like??? What is evil according to your worldview?
For someone who denies absolutes, you sure make a lot of absolute statements. You are not living consistently with your professed worldview.
Oh by the way, that question I asked: Please give me an example of something which you know imperfectly. Well?
Cheers,
Sye
1. The definition given of God is inconsistent with what I observe to be evil.
2. Stating that God has morally sufficient reasons for causing evil indicates a belief in "net good" and not "perfect good".
3. Perfection requires certainty. I am 99% sure that this statement is true.
"1. The definition given of God is inconsistent with what I observe to be evil."
Aye, there's the rub :-) You have just refuted your own argument against God. For all you know, what you consider evil is in fact good.
2. Stating that God has morally sufficient reasons for causing evil indicates a belief in "net good" and not "perfect good".
Well, since we are using my definition of evil now, we can use my definition of God too. Our perfectly good God has morally sufficient reason for the evil in this world.
3. Perfection requires certainty. I am 99% sure that this statement is true.
So, you don't know it, you only believe it. Alright, on what do you base the odds of your 'belief?'
Oh by the way, that question I asked: Please give me an example of something which you know imperfectly. Well? (you only told me what you believe).
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Let me ask you this: Could someone who is 99% sure, know that Al Gore is the current president of the United States?
1. The fact that I am not certain about things does not mean that I cannot believe something, merely that I cannot be certain that my belief is correct. No rub required.
What I consider to be good may in fact be evil. I agree that is possible. Then again, you consider christianity to be good and I, and many others, consider it to be evil. I would ask that you use the same humility as me - of course, you can't because you have faith (hence no free thought).
2. As previously stated, perfectly good means "no evil", even if morally sufficient reasons are available in the total course of consideration God does, in the narrow purchase of the event, something that is evil - accordingly he is not perfectly good but rather contextually good - a wholly different kettle of fish.
3. I base the probability that the statement is correct on the evidence at hand, accordingly, different statements have different probabilities (although we should not consider this as a quantative or numbered probability by more as a qualitative one).
The previous statement is an example of imperfect knowledge. We can work from the basis of that statement because it has a high degree of probability and develop further knowledge from that point. Of course, should the initial statement turn out to be incorrect by some later evidence then we should not feel restricted in returning and changing our initial statement to better suit the evidence. Thus, like all scientific knowledge - we should not be afraid to question whether it is correct. Your objection seems to be that you can only operate from things that you have absolute knowledge about - of course, as a human this would make it rather difficult to live. Think about your everyday life and how often your brain works on probability and not "perfect knowledge".
Regarding Al Gore, that person must be using some strange evidence.
Remember
hypothesis - evidence - conclusion (imperfect knowledge that we could later test).
Perhaps I have not been sufficiently clear on this topic.
All knowledge is imperfect (including this statement) because it is subject to an infinite egress of questioning (ie, I can ask "How do you know" for ever).
An absolute statement would not be subject to such questioning. You posit that you absolute knowledge exists and accordingly, please provide a statement that is not subject to questioning.
In the legal system we accept that such questioning could continue forever (and some lawyers, annoying ones, seem to want to pursue such a course). Nonetheless, courts impose a certain standard by which a question will be allowed to proceed, ie reasonable doubt in criminal jurisdictions or balance of probabilities in civil jurisdictions.
For instance, you may consider that the statement "George Bush is the president of the United States" but I can ask "How do you know that George Bush has not been replaced by an alien clone?" and infinite further questions of such nature. Of course, those doubts are not reasonable - but without disqualifying them we do not have absolute knowledge of the initial statement. Thus, all knowledge is to some degree imperfect (including this statement).
Finally, if there was a God (of the nature that you have described) then he would be the termination of questioning because he would consist of absolute knowledge, and yet I can ask the question - "Does God exist?".
Faith, however, clouds the issue. Where you say "I know that God exists", I can always respond "How do you know?" - Thus your knowledge of God is not absolute because you will always be subject to the infinite egress of questioning. Of course, even though you have settled in your own mind that such a thing is absolutely certain, have you the intellectual honesty to ask those questions yourself? No, why not. Because if you do then you will not have faith.
The fact that I am not certain about things does not mean that I cannot believe something
Never said that you couldn’t believe anything, just that you can’t KNOW anything.
”As previously stated, perfectly good means "no evil"
But, as you admit, this is another thing that you simply cannot know. For all you know, ‘perfectly good’ could mean “all evil.”
I base the probability that the statement is correct on the evidence at hand
Problem is, you have exactly zero basis for trusting the senses with which you perceive the ‘evidence’ or the reasoning with which you interpret it.
The previous statement is an example of imperfect knowledge. We can work from the basis of that statement because it has a high degree of probability and develop further knowledge from that point.”
Probability demands uniformity. What is the basis for your assumption that nature is uniform?
Thus, like all scientific knowledge - we should not be afraid to question whether it is correct.
But, how do you know that the scientific method is itself correct? (Remember, you don’t).
Regarding Al Gore, that person must be using some strange evidence.
How about you answer the question: “Could a person who is 99% sure that Al Gore is the current president of the United states, know it to be true?”
Cheers,
Sye
”All knowledge is imperfect (including this statement) because it is subject to an infinite egress of questioning (ie, I can ask "How do you know" for ever).”
But, since your statement itself could be wrong, there could in fact be certainty. Problem is, you deny certainty, but you do not live according to your presupposition. For example:
An absolute statement would not be subject to such questioning.
That is such a load of crapola. How do you know that absolute statements would not be subject to questioning??? Oh wait – you don’t.
Finally, if there was a God (of the nature that you have described) then he would be the termination of questioning because he would consist of absolute knowledge, and yet I can ask the question - "Does God exist?"
Please prove that absolute knowledge is not subject to questioning.
”Faith, however, clouds the issue. Where you say "I know that God exists", I can always respond "How do you know?"
And I could respond: “I know this because God, who knows everything, has revealed it to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.”
”Thus your knowledge of God is not absolute because you will always be subject to the infinite egress of questioning.
Um, are you absolutely sure that my knowledge of God is not absolute? Keep digging man! :-)
Cheers,
Sye
I continue to press the case that absolute statements are not subject to questioning because they are not capable of being the subject of any cavaets or qualifications.
I understand that you make a living (or at least a website) based on this notion and so seeing the possible disproof of it might be a little hard to swallow, notheless I have shown it to you.
And I could respond: “I know this because God, who knows everything, has revealed it to us in such a way that we can know it for certain.”
Now the questions being:-
1. How do you know God revealed it?
2. How did he reveal it?
3. How do you know that your human brain hasn't made a mistake in reasoning same?
And to every resulting statement a further question ad infinitum. Thus showing that it is not, in all likelihood, absolutely true but rather the result of faith in which you have replaced your ability to reason the likelihood of a statement being true with acceptance that it is.
PS - I am not absolutely sure that your knowledge is not absolutely true but I think that it is, to a very high degree, not so.
”I continue to press the case that absolute statements are not subject to questioning because they are not capable of being the subject of any cavaets or qualifications.”
How do you know?
Now the questions being:-
1. How do you know God revealed it?
2. How did he reveal it?
3. How do you know that your human brain hasn't made a mistake in reasoning same?
Irrelevant. You would be forced to admit that God COULD reveal things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them, which gives me at least a potential for certainty, which you do not have.
PS - I am not absolutely sure that your knowledge is not absolutely true but I think that it is, to a very high degree, not so.
On what do you base your conclusion?
Cheers,
Sye
How do you know?
Now you are thinking. I don't. It just seems reasonable to me - you can disagree all you like. I encourage you to do so.
Irrelevant. You would be forced to admit that God COULD reveal things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them, which gives me at least a potential for certainty, which you do not have.
We aren't dealing with coulds (in which case you admit that he may not have). A pink unicorn could create the universe. You could be the result of abiogenesis on this planet without any divine intervention. The revelation you describe could be the result of mental illness. Etc, etc. Again, how do you know?
If you base your entire philosophy of certainty on a "could" statement then you aren't really all that certain, are you?
And yet again, you are not sufficiently precise - as previously mentioned, a hypothesis without evidence is merely words. You hypothesis that God COULD reveal something has no backing because it assumes the nature of God - itself something which is not evident. Ironically, you then use this assumed knowledge to postulate that God exists.
In my opinion, your logic is badly twisted from a desire for it to be true, rather than any actual merit of the evidence.
On what do you base your conclusion?
I have doubts about the veracity of the statement resulting from the further questions that I can level at same (as with all statements). Nonetheless, if your knowledge was absolute then it would be not subject to further questions or doubts, accordingly, it is very likely in my opinion that it is not true.
We aren't dealing with coulds (in which case you admit that he may not have).
Um no. I know for certain the truth of God’s revelation, I am simply asking you to admit that such an avenue to certainty is possible.
”Again, how do you know?”
Because God has revealed the truth of His existence to us, in such a way that we can be certain of it. As I said, you may not agree with me, but not conceding the possibility is intellectually dishonest.
If you base your entire philosophy of certainty on a "could" statement then you aren't really all that certain, are you?
As I said, I don’t. I am certain. I’m just trying to get you to be intellectually honest, and admit the possibility. For someone who does not profess absolutes, it would be contradictory to say that my worldview is absolutely impossible.
”And yet again, you are not sufficiently precise - as previously mentioned, a hypothesis without evidence is merely words.”
And as I have repeatedly asked, where is the evidence that supports your hypothesis that ‘a hypothesis without evidence is merely words?’
You hypothesis that God COULD reveal something
That is not my hypothesis. I know that God DID, I am simply asking you to be intellectually honest, and admit that he COULD.
”has no backing because it assumes the nature of God - itself something which is not evident.”
Prove this please.
”In my opinion, your logic is badly twisted from a desire for it to be true”
What standard of logic are you using to call my logic ‘twisted,’ how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me?
”Nonetheless, if your knowledge was absolute then it would be not subject to further questions or doubts
Prove this please.
Cheers,
Sye
Um no. I know for certain the truth of God’s revelation, I am simply asking you to admit that such an avenue to certainty is possible.
Sye, I have been over this a thousand times now. Knowledge, imperfect as it is, is based on what HAS happened. A hypothesis on the other hand is based on what COULD happen. You claim a hypothesis and have yet to provide any evidence to support it. Thus, I cannot say whether it HAS happened.
Because God has revealed the truth of His existence to us, in such a way that we can be certain of it. As I said, you may not agree with me, but not conceding the possibility is intellectually dishonest.
Again, you are supposing knowledge without actually showing evidence for your hypothesis. It is not intellectually dishonest to say that I have no evidence for your position - which is exactly (as close to a single line as possible) what I am saying.
As I said, I don’t. I am certain. I’m just trying to get you to be intellectually honest, and admit the possibility. For someone who does not profess absolutes, it would be contradictory to say that my worldview is absolutely impossible.
It is merely a hypothesis - it is not knowledge itself. Hypothesis may result from imagination in the human mind and without any correlation with the outside universe. Thus, if you say that you were provided with absolute knowledge, we can ask wehther your brain received that information perfectly. Because your mind is complicit in both statements - and considering this one - you cannot be certain there is no flaw therein without making the assumption that your brain is perfect. Do you see where I am coming from?
”has no backing because it assumes the nature of God - itself something which is not evident.”
Prove this please.
I do not consider that anything I have ever seen is evidence for God (Subject to my own frailties of course).
What standard of logic are you using to call my logic ‘twisted,’ how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me?
Accepting a hypothesis without evidence means that there is a higher probability that your imagination could contaminate your thought process - thus the importance of evidence.
Nonetheless, if your knowledge was absolute then it would be not subject to further questions or doubts
Prove this please.
Its bound up in the definition of absolute knowledge. Such knowledge is not questionable because it covers all possible inconsistencies. For example (this gets a little philosophical) if we were to image that everytime a question was asked about a particlar statement, there were a separate universe corresponding to each possible answer. This would mean that when I ask you whether your absolute truth is the result of mental illness or delusion, there is one universe where the answer is yes and another where the answer is no. For truth to be absolute, then the answer to any question about it must only exist in one universe, such that there is only one answer possible. Christians assume this to be God, but when we ask the question multiple separate universes form cause it could also be Allah, Wotan, Zeus or random probability. Thus, what truth can you state which does not result in any other possible universes?
Regards
Alex
"After the recent Sye troll controversy and the increasing frequency of theists on our discussion forums - I am now opening up a poll on whether to institute a policy of ejecting theists.
This poll is necessary as there are certain members that do feel uncomfortable with level of debate or aggresiveness of theists on the forums."
Priceless!!! Thanks for that Alex!
I think I'm going to include it in my book under the heading: "Things that 'freethinkers' say. :-D
I hope you include a proper definition of freethinker.
As previously noted, our forum is intended as a support group - many of our members have been treated badly by religion in the past. As a group co-ordinator, I have a responsibility to protect those members from stress resulting from theist attacks.
Nonetheless, I personally have no problem with debating you - as seen here.
BTW, keep me informed of the progress of your book. I will buy a copy if there is some mention of the "hypocritical freethinker" ;).
Post a Comment