A case for strong atheism

[Traveler]

Hi, Snow.

By the rules of empirical epistemology, Roundearth is correct: the burden of proof is not on him; it’s on us. Roundearth’s position is a status quo argument: i.e. his argument is that current knowledge is all there is, and anything that current knowledge does not support should be treated as non-existent.

So, by the rules of empirical epistemology, his worldview does not require supporting evidence, but ours does. And, this is perfectly justified: his argument is just the null hypothesis, so it is upheld by default each time our argument fails to find supporting evidence. It may seem unfair that we have to do all the work, but this is fully consistent with the epistemology, and there is no double standard.

However, he errs in trying to claim the benefits of being the null hypothesis, while not accepting the consequences. If he argues that the burden of proof is yours, then he also accepts that the power of proof is yours. That is, your “hypothesis” can (in principle) be demonstrated; but his cannot.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I’m sure you’ve heard that before? Unfortunately for Roundearth, the only support for atheism that can be found (even in principle) is an absence of evidence for God. So, atheism can only be regarded as the tentative conclusion arising from the observation that no evidence for God has been found yet.

The problem is that Roundearth is arguing a scientific basis not a philosophical point. Plus even empirical epistemology follows rhetorical logic that begins with an unproven premise that must be accepted of faith. You must understand that his stand is not that G-d cannot be proven to exist but by his admission under hard atheism that not only does G-d not exist but that G-d cannot exist.

His argument is that G-d is supernatural and that supernatural does not exist. The problem is with his definition of supernatural based on his understanding of physics which is sadly outdated. LDS, in essence, define G-d as the most advanced intelligence that exists. Therefore, under the premises of G-d as defined by such an LDS notion then G-d is akin to the most advanced scientist that exists.

Thus it is Roundearth’s obligation to prove either that advanced intelligence and science does not exists or that they are improbable, according to the principle of Ockham’s razor. The LDS stand is that anything that is possible can be engineered and accomplished by anyone possessing the knowledge and means to accomplish it. The greatest error of all is that Roundearth does not understand LDS notions of the divine and lacks the desire to learn.

The Traveler

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

If you are unable or unwilling to see or understand this argument then I must assume that you are scientifically inept and incapable being educated beyond the known flaws of outdated Newtonian physics and therefore your touting of scientific arguments is fraudulent and I see no purpose or reason to continue with such nonsense.

I've got to be honest with you, Traveler: you're not being half as clear as you think you are. I echo Roundearth’s complaints that your arguments contain too little substance to be debated meaningfully.

And, based on your explanations of things, I’m not convinced that your touting of scientific arguments is not fraudulent.

-----

My point is that you are being very selective and shallow in what you say you are willing to accept as possible; especially if you are touting Ockham’s razor.

Ockham’s razor:

“The explanation that involves the fewest unevidenced entities is most likely to be correct.”

Selectivity and shallowness are kind of the principle behind Ockham’s razor: you don’t base theories on things you can’t observe' date=' unless you can’t explain a certain phenomenon without them.

Furthermore, Ockham’s razor has nothing to do with what one is willing to accept as possible: it has everything to do with ruling out things that you accept as possible in favor of things that you find more plausible.

-----

There is a high likelihood that there are indeed “things” that exists that cannot be explained or even conceived within the limits of our 3 dimensional physics and comprehension.

But, Ockham’s razor demands that we treat these “things” as non-existent until such time as we either (1) discover that they exist or (2) discover that natural processes cannot be explained without them.

This is what Roundearth is doing, and there is nothing wrong with his doing it. And, there is nothing wrong with his application of Ockham’s razor to the soul. As far as he can tell, there is no evidence of a soul, and a soul is not required to explain the natural processes associated with life, so he is correct to disregard it until such time as it is demonstrated to be existent or required.

He is not correct, however, to use Ockham’s razor as proof of anything. It is a heuristic designed only to draw conclusions when conclusions cannot be drawn from demonstration, and, as such, has no proactive power on its own. That is his only failure on this thread.

-----

That is' date=' once again a principle of Ockham’s razor that containing all the energy and matter of our universe is most unlikely without the Big Bang going off prematurely.[/quote']

This is either a very dumbed-down layman version of Big Bang Theory that completely obscures the actuality of it, or evidence that you don’t understand it yourself.

Big Bang Theory deals with the expansion of time and space from a primordium (called the “singularity”) that, itself, had neither time nor space.

The container analogy you use is highly inappropriate: the amount of matter and energy had nothing to do with why or when the Big Bang happened: quantum mechanics suggests that there very well might not even be a “why the Big Bang happened” at all. Furthermore, time itself is an aftereffect of the Big Bang, so there was no “when the Big Bang happened,” either: thus, “going off prematurely” is also out.

-----

The current theory that shows the most promise is that our universe resulted from the collapse of an 11 dimensional universe.

You’re referring to string theory or M-theory? Ockham’s razor would demand that we not consider these, because neither of them has produced evidence of the additional spatial dimensions required. In fact, neither is even considered to be testable at this point, so neither is even a “theory” in the true sense of the word. And, there is currently no promise that this situation is going to change in the near future, either.

I’m not a cosmologist, or even a physicist, but I have spent ample time discussing these topics with professional cosmologists as part of the greater “evolution vs creation” debate, and I’m quite certain that your explanations are wholly inaccurate.

Furthermore, your applications of Ockham’s razor are incorrect and inconsistent.

On behalf of Roundearth (whose position I do not support), I voice the objection that your arguments are neither relevant nor intelligible. You are not helping by spouting partially-coherent bits of science of dubious quality, then deflecting Roundearth's requests for clarification under the pretense that he is underqualified.

[rameumptom]

Round Earth, I must admit your thoughts on self-esteem being diminished by not following one's own mind to be non-scientific.

Maslow's hierarchy describes your views as some of the baser and lowest levels: selfishness and survival. Interestingly, Maslow's highest level, self-actualization, means a person arrives at a point where he can go beyond himself. Being a hero, self-sacrificing one's life, goes completely against your view. However, our military and police do it frequently. Are they slaves to a lesser god, because they have ideals that go beyond self-aggrandizement? Not according to psychology.

You've described the perfect Id, but neglected the Adult portion of the Ego.

[Finrock]

Good morning Bluejay. Not sure if we've meet before, but if not it is a pleasure to meet you! :)

But, Ockham’s razor demands that we treat these “things” as non-existent until such time as we either (1) discover that they exist or (2) discover that natural processes cannot be explained without them.

This is what Roundearth is doing, and there is nothing wrong with his doing it. And, there is nothing wrong with his application of Ockham’s razor to the soul. As far as he can tell, there is no evidence of a soul, and a soul is not required to explain the natural processes associated with life, so he is correct to disregard it until such time as it is demonstrated to be existent or required.

He is not correct, however, to use Ockham’s razor as proof of anything. It is a heuristic designed only to draw conclusions when conclusions cannot be drawn from demonstration, and, as such, has no proactive power on its own. That is his only failure on this thread. (Bold Emphasis added by Finrock)

I'll let Traveller respond to the rest of your post to him but I think your categorical statement that I've emphasized is in error. Roundearth began this thread postulating an argument that for the most part is irrelevant within the LDS frame of reference. His position that a supernatural being cannot exist is based on a Nicene Creedal Trinitarian view of God which doesn't apply to our understanding of God. Although it could be said that Roundearth was at fault for not familiarizing himself with his target audience prior to taking on this debate, I won't hold him accountable for that. Many attempts have been made to make Roundearth aware of the LDS perspective on God, etc. and Roundearth has consistently failed to take in to account these very important metaphysical differences between Creedal Christian views and the LDS Christian view. Hence his arguments are arguments of irrelevancy. This is fallacious and seems to demonstrate an insincere desire for a reasonable debate.

To give some examples of what I am referring to so I'm not just making empty claims consider the following examples. Note that because of time constraints I will not be quoting the actual exchanges although anyone doubting my claims can look back on the thread to find the references:

1. Roundearth was provided explanations and links to articles that define the LDS view of God. In response Roundearth rejected that we believe in God at all because he isn't "supernatural". Hence, Roundearth "wins" the debate by default because of the unreasonable and ridiculous notion that a god can only be god if it is supernatural and if it is supernatural it cannot exist. I would love to be able to prove all my positions by selectively chosing my definitions so that they necessarily prove my point!

2. When it was explained to Roundearth that our understanding of spirit is not something that is immaterial but rather it is material, he created a straw man by designating it as "invisible matter" instead of dealing with or even trying to understand the LDS perspective on what this matter is or how it might be explained using current understanding of science, etc.

These are two examples that I can currently think of from the top of my head but I know there are also other examples of fallacious reasoning that I can demonstrate after going back if requested. In any event, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the categorical statement that Roundearth's only failure on this thread is to use the Ockham's Razor as proof of anything, is false.

I also want to note that it is because of Roundearth's failure to deal with the metaphysical issues presented in points 1 and 2 above (and others not addressed here) that make the Traveller's, Snow's, mine, and other's posts relevant. The issue here isn't just how or when does the principle of Ockham's Razor apply and what it proves, but what point is there in debating an opponent who refuses to accept and address the metaphysical and ontological truths within a Mormon frame of reference?

Regards,

Finrock

[Roundearth]

Thanks for your response. This makes your concerns much clearer.

Let me just say that you haven't surprised me. When challenged to support your position and answer it's inconsistencies, you retreat and pretend that it is me, rather than your own lack of understanding that prevents you from answering.

Let's take one of your points and "seriously consider" it:

In response to my question of how I will be better off if I abandon my faith, you spouted some mumbo jumbo about polygamous wives (I am not one) and also said:

"Self esteem, the belief that you are valuable (self respect) and competent to cope with reality (self confidence), is one of the most important things for you. It is fundamental to all of your emotions, it has an enormous influence on your decisions and ambition, and it is the best predictor of happiness that we have. Self esteem follows from obeying your mind scrupulously, in all things. Acting against your mind, i.e. broaching your integrity, results in self-hatred, which is destructive to you. There are many forms of acting against your mind, including sacrificing your mind to your parents, your friends, or your emotions. Your life and happiness require that you never sacrifice your mind.

A Mormon, in my opinion, cannot completely live by his mind. He has to subordinate his mind to the Book of Mormon, which means to his emotions, and to the church on all issues where they conflict. From the nature of self esteem, this must damage his self esteem."

Frankly, that's meaningless drivel. I can just as easily say that being an atheist increases your chances of getting shingles. Oddly enough, the proof of that contention is equal to the proof of your contention.

You seem to equate you being able to make stuff up with proof or evidence.

Third request - and I know this is a pointless exercise because you CAN"T answer:

How will I be better off if I abandon my faith and why are you hypocritical in applying one standard (of proof) to other's beliefs and no such standard to your own.

Well, it's not mumbo jumbo but it is a bit abstract. I recommend the books The Psychology of Self Esteem and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden, the leading expert in the field and one of the most respected psychologists living today. He argues the points I've been making about self esteem. I'm just going to recommend that you read one of those books since clearly I can't articulate his theory in a way persuasive to you. (He's a really good writer, btw.)

This may strike you as a cop-out. Then again, I don't think either of us really expected the other to convince the other of anything substantial in a mere online discussion.

(edit)

I'll give you some quotes from Six Pillars:

Self esteem is important:

There are realities we cannot avoid. One of them is the importance of self esteem.

Regardless of what we do or do not admit, we cannot be indifferent to our self evaluation. However, we can run from this knowledge if it makes us uncomfortable. We can shrug it off, evade it, declare that we are only interested in practical matters, and escape into baseball or a shopping spree or a sexual adventure or a drink.

Yet self esteem is a fundamental human need. Its impact requires neither our understanding nor our consent. It works its way within us with or without our knowledge. We are free to seek to grasp the dynamics of self esteem or to remain unconscious of them, but in the latter case we remain a mystery to ourselves and endure the consequences.

(p3)

Sketch of how self-esteem works:

If I trust my mind and my judgment, I am more likely to operate as a thinking being. Exercising my ability to think, bringing appropriate awareness to my activities, my life works better. This reinforces trust in my mind. If I distrust my mind, I am more likely to be mentally passive, to bring less awareness that I need to my activities, and less persistence in the face of difficulties. When my actions lead to disappointing or painful consequences, I feel justifed in distrusting my mind.

(p4-5)

Negative influence of religion:

I recall, many years ago, a Carmelite nun speaking of her training. "We were taught that the enemy to be annihilated, the barrier between ourselves and Divinity, was the self. Eyes cast down - not to see too much. Emotions suppressed - not to feel too much. A life of prayers and service - not to think too much. Above all, obedience - not to question."

(p 290) Edited March 2, 2010 by Roundearth

[Guest]

Well, it's not mumbo jumbo but it is a bit abstract. I recommend the books The Psychology of Self Esteem and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden, the leading expert in the field and one of the most respected psychologists living today. He argues the points I've been making about self esteem. I'm just going to recommend that you read one of those books since clearly I can't articulate his theory in a way persuasive to you. (He's a really good writer, btw.)

This may strike you as a cop-out. Then again, I don't think either of us really expected the other to convince the other of anything substantial in a mere online discussion.

Well, it's not mumbo jumbo but it is a bit abstract. I recommend the books The Boof of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price by Joseph Smith, the leading expert in the field. He argues the points we've been making about the Plan of Salvation and self esteem. I'm just going to recommend that you read one of those books since clearly I can't articulate his theory in a way persuasive to you. (He's a really good writer, btw.)

This may strike you as a cop-out. Then again, I don't think either of us really expected the other to convince the other of anything substantial in a mere online discussion.

After you read one or both those books, we can discuss what we got out of what we read. If you need a copy, let one of us here know and we'll send one right out to you.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Traveler.

Thanks for your response.

Plus even empirical epistemology follows rhetorical logic that begins with an unproven premise that must be accepted of faith.

I have a major problem with this. You are misusing the word "faith." There is no faith involved in disregarding things that you cannot confirm through physical experience. Neither a tentative conclusion drawn from lack of evidence nor an affirmative conclusion drawn from personal observation is a faith-based conclusion.

-----

You must understand that his stand is not that G-d cannot be proven to exist but by his admission under hard atheism that not only does G-d not exist but that G-d cannot exist.

Yes, and the reason he thinks he can make this argument is because he thinks absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. That's the real mistake that he is making: it has nothing to do with how LDS perceive God.

-----

His argument is that G-d is supernatural and that supernatural does not exist. The problem is with his definition of supernatural based on his understanding of physics which is sadly outdated.

LDS, in essence, define G-d as the most advanced intelligence that exists. Therefore, under the premises of G-d as defined by such an LDS notion then G-d is akin to the most advanced scientist that exists.

I don't think that this is a strictly accurate statement. It is certainly a statement that we like to make, and it has a certain logical appeal to it, but it's hard to explain, for instance, the Atonement as simply "more advanced science and/or technology": there really has to be a difference in substance in order to explain why Jesus can atone for other people's sins, and we can't.

-----

Thus it is Roundearth’s obligation to prove either that advanced intelligence and science does not exists or that they are improbable, according to the principle of Ockham’s razor.

No, you've gone too far here. He doesn't have to demonstrate that "advanced intelligence and science" do not exist generally: he has to demonstrate that the specific intelligence and science we attribute to God does not exist, or that a being that can utilize that specific intelligence and science does not exist.

Otherwise, you are saying that the existence of science ten years more advanced than ours would be support for the existence of God as you define Him.

-----

The greatest error of all is that Roundearth does not understand LDS notions of the divine and lacks the desire to learn

This has very little relevance when one factors in the error Roundearth makes in thinking that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bluejay
fixed a quote code problem

[Guest]

Otherwise, you are saying that the existence of science ten years more advanced than ours would be support for the existence of God as you define Him.

Not to put words in Travelers mouth but this exactly what we believe. That the advancement of science gives us a better understanding of the nature of God. Eventually, when the time comes, then we would have all the scientific knowledge required to see God... maybe not 10 years from now... but we are assured that even if we will not know the exact time this will happen, that it WILL happen.

Edited March 2, 2010 by anatess

[Roundearth]

Well, it's not mumbo jumbo but it is a bit abstract. I recommend the books The Boof of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price by Joseph Smith, the leading expert in the field. He argues the points we've been making about the Plan of Salvation and self esteem. I'm just going to recommend that you read one of those books since clearly I can't articulate his theory in a way persuasive to you. (He's a really good writer, btw.)

This may strike you as a cop-out. Then again, I don't think either of us really expected the other to convince the other of anything substantial in a mere online discussion.

After you read one or both those books, we can discuss what we got out of what we read. If you need a copy, let one of us here know and we'll send one right out to you.

Oh, cool! We should start with The Psychology of Self Esteem, if we're going to have a reading group.

(edit)

Wait, I misread that, haha.

Point taken. I added some quotes from the books to my last post so you have something to address.

I do plan to read those at some point.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Roundearth

[Guest]

Oh, cool! We should start with The Psychology of Self Esteem, if we're going to have a reading group.

I'll take you up on that. But since you're ahead of me on that one - you can bide your time by reading the Book of Mormon, then when we're done hashing out the Psychology of Self-Esteem, we can go straight to the Book of Mormon. I'm serious if you are.

(edit)

The quote on the Carmelite sister is not applicable to LDS view - or most non-Catholics for that matter. But, let's not take this by piece meal. Let's tackle religion and self-esteem right after I finish reading the book. Then I can be coherent in my statements and I can understand you better. I'll send you a PM when I'm done.

Edited March 2, 2010 by anatess

[Roundearth]

I'll take you up on that. But since you're ahead of me on that one - you can bide your time by reading the Book of Mormon, then when we're done hashing out the Psychology of Self-Esteem, we can go straight to the Book of Mormon. I'm serious if you are.

(edit)

The quote on the Carmelite sister is not applicable to LDS view - or most non-Catholics for that matter. But, let's not take this by piece meal. Let's tackle religion and self-esteem right after I finish reading the book. Then I can be coherent in my statements and I can understand you better. I'll send you a PM when I'm done.

BoM is available for 50 cents plus shipping on Amazon. I'll read wikipedia or something from the library until that shows up. I don't know if we'll follow through on the reading group thing, but you have just persuaded an atheist to read the Book of Mormon. Congrats.

(edit)

(edit)

The quote on the Carmelite sister is not applicable to LDS view - or most non-Catholics for that matter. But, let's not take this by piece meal. Let's tackle religion and self-esteem right after I finish reading the book. Then I can be coherent in my statements and I can understand you better. I'll send you a PM when I'm done.

Fair enough. Edited March 2, 2010 by Roundearth

[Bluejay]

Hi, Finrock.

Good morning Bluejay. Not sure if we've meet before, but if not it is a pleasure to meet you! :)

It's a pleasure to meet you, too!

-----

Roundearth began this thread postulating an argument that for the most part is irrelevant within the LDS frame of reference...

Actually, his points were perfectly relevant. If you prefer to debate with him the meaning of "supernatural" and whether or not the LDS God fits this definition, that is your prerogative; but, given that empiricism can't distinguish between "supernatural" and "natural, but not yet demonstrated," his points are only nominally related to the definition of "supernatural."

In the end, the error he is making is trying to transform an absence of evidence (Ockham's razor) into evidence of absence, and he's just using some fancy double-talk, combined with erronaeous semantics, to accomplish it.

-----

The issue here isn't just how or when does the principle of Ockham's Razor apply and what it proves, but what point is there in debating an opponent who refuses to accept and address the metaphysical and ontological truths within a Mormon frame of reference?

The Mormon frame of reference is superfluous in this debate: the argument fails because it is logically unsound, not because, even if it were true, it wouldn't apply to our God. In fact, the way it is set up, it doesn't apply to any God---supernatural, natural, quasi-natural, multi-dimensional or otherwise.

So, you and Traveler can continue to argue that our God is not supernatural, if you wish; but, you haven't been successful in convincing him, so I prefer to cut to the chase and speak a language that Roundearth is more likely to understand.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Anatess.

Originally Posted by Bluejay

Otherwise, you are saying that the existence of science ten years more advanced than ours would be support for the existence of God as you define Him.

Not to put words in Travelers mouth but this exactly what we believe. That the advancement of science gives us a better understanding of the nature of God. Eventually, when the time comes, then we would have all the scientific knowledge required to see God... maybe not 10 years from now... but we are assured that even if we will not know the exact time this will happen, that it WILL happen.

No offense, Anatess, but you completely misunderstood what I said. This has nothing to do with the discussion Traveler and I are having.

Let me explain my statement a little more clearly:

Traveler says that Roundearth has to prove that advanced intelligence and science do not exist in order to disprove God.

But, there are countless examples of "advanced intelligence and science" that we could theoretically discover that are not God. For example, aliens who have figured out how to make better underwater vehicles than we have. Since nobody would consider that kind of "advanced intelligence and science" to be God, Roundearth does not have to disprove the existence of that kind of "advanced intelligence and science" in order to disprove the existence of God.

The only "advanced intelligence and science" that Roundearth has to disprove are the kinds of "advanced intelligence and science" that could be considered "God's intelligence and science."

Does that make sense?

[Roundearth]

Round Earth, I must admit your thoughts on self-esteem being diminished by not following one's own mind to be non-scientific.

Maslow's hierarchy describes your views as some of the baser and lowest levels: selfishness and survival. Interestingly, Maslow's highest level, self-actualization, means a person arrives at a point where he can go beyond himself. Being a hero, self-sacrificing one's life, goes completely against your view. However, our military and police do it frequently. Are they slaves to a lesser god, because they have ideals that go beyond self-aggrandizement? Not according to psychology.

You've described the perfect Id, but neglected the Adult portion of the Ego.

Careful. Saying that "psychology" backs a position like that would require more support than simply Maslow (and as we'll see below, I don't even think Maslow supports you). Maslow represents the humanistic school of thought, which is just one of at least half a dozen prominent schools of thought on human behavior. Psychology is a very fragmented field at present.

Does Maslow put self esteem on the lowest levels of his hierarchy of needs? Here is a primary source: Classics in the History of Psychology -- A. H. Maslow (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow puts self-esteem in the fifth, i.e. second highest, level of his hierarchy, "esteem needs". Clearly, your claim that Maslow puts self self esteem in the lower levels of the hierarchy is false.

Does Maslow describe self actualization as when "a person arrives at a point where he can go beyond himself"? Here is the same primary source on that issue:

The need for self-actualization. -- Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization.

This term, first coined by Kurt Goldstein, is being used in this paper in a much more specific and limited fashion. It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.[p. 383]

The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person. In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in inventions. It is not necessarily a creative urge although in people who have any capacities for creation it will take this form.

The clear emergence of these needs rests upon prior satisfaction of the physiological, safety, love and esteem needs. We shall call people who are satisfied in these needs, basically satisfied people, and it is from these that we may expect the fullest (and healthiest) creativeness.[8] Since, in our society, basically satisfied people are the exception, we do not know much about self-actualization, either experimentally or clinically. It remains a challenging problem for research.

Clearly, your claim that self actualization involves going beyond oneself is false. Self actualization is, roughly, reaching one's highest potential in one's chosen field.

Now, there may be other primary sources where Maslow develops his concept of self actualization, and I will concede the point if you can present those. However, for the moment, I think that you are entirely wrong in your interpretation of Maslow.

Moving on to your argument against my conception of self esteem. Joining the military or the fire department can be an expression of self-love. It can be an expression of the unwillingness of the individual to live in a society that is unsafe (from enemies, or fire, or whatever). As Ayn Rand argued in a famous speech at West Point: "You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service--it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you realize it."

[Traveler]

Hi, Traveler.

Thanks for your response.

I have a major problem with this. You are misusing the word "faith." There is no faith involved in disregarding things that you cannot confirm through physical experience. Neither a tentative conclusion drawn from lack of evidence nor an affirmative conclusion drawn from personal observation is a faith-based conclusion.

-----

Yes, and the reason he thinks he can make this argument is because he thinks absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. That's the real mistake that he is making: it has nothing to do with how LDS perceive God.

-----

No, you've gone too far here. He doesn't have to demonstrate that "advanced intelligence and science" do not exist generally: he has to demonstrate that the specific intelligence and science we attribute to God does not exist, or that a being that can utilize that specific intelligence and science does not exist.

Otherwise, you are saying that the existence of science ten years more advanced than ours would be support for the existence of God as you define Him.

-----

This has very little relevance when one factors in the error Roundearth makes in thinking that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

There are a number of ideas - first to the notion of premises. If a premise is proven (or demonstrated) then it would not be a premise. All logic must start with something assumed. That which is assumed is different from faith – how?

Second – if we agree that there is possible and probable intelligence greater than ours (to any degree) then the can of worms is opened and the obligation to demonstrate (by some logic) that intelligence which can be possessed is bounded and at what point; is the obligation of those that purport it to be so. For the sake of keeping things within some scope – I had defined greater intelligence as the intelligence possessed by a being or race of beings beyond the capability of any human individual or any collection of human individuals. Since there was no objection to that definition – I believe it stands.

Finely – my statement is that it is foolish to argue against something that you do not understand; very much applies to our friend Roundearth. I therefore purport it is the obligation of Roundearth to have sufficient understanding of what he is arguing against – to at least minimize wasted time in attempting to educating him in things he seems to refuses to understand or consider. That is his obligation – to at least show some understanding of what he wishes to refute. When he demonstrates a willingness to have a discussion on a level playing field of actual logic then a discussion could prove to be fun, enlightening, exiting and of benefit to us all. Without some rational effort to tailor his thoughts to our understanding and doctrine any discussion will be frustrating to everyone and have no possibility of anyone learning anything beyond that Roundearth does not understand or care about any points that we LDS make.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Hi, Anatess.

No offense, Anatess, but you completely misunderstood what I said. This has nothing to do with the discussion Traveler and I are having.

Let me explain my statement a little more clearly:

Traveler says that Roundearth has to prove that advanced intelligence and science do not exist in order to disprove God.

But, there are countless examples of "advanced intelligence and science" that we could theoretically discover that are not God. For example, aliens who have figured out how to make better underwater vehicles than we have. Since nobody would consider that kind of "advanced intelligence and science" to be God, Roundearth does not have to disprove the existence of that kind of "advanced intelligence and science" in order to disprove the existence of God.

The only "advanced intelligence and science" that Roundearth has to disprove are the kinds of "advanced intelligence and science" that could be considered "God's intelligence and science."

Does that make sense?

I don't think I misunderstood you (but then, I'm slower than you guys on the scientific front, so I might be missing something).

"Traveler says that Roundearth has to prove that advanced intelligence and science do not exist in order to disprove God." is not what we are talking about. I think we are talking about "Traveler says that Roundearth has to prove that advanced intelligence and science do not exist in order to disprove the possibility of a God."

But, there are countless examples of "advanced intelligence and science" that we could theoretically discover that are not God. For example, aliens who have figured out how to make better underwater vehicles than we have. Since nobody would consider that kind of "advanced intelligence and science" to be God, Roundearth does not have to disprove the existence of that kind of "advanced intelligence and science" in order to disprove the existence of God.

The only "advanced intelligence and science" that Roundearth has to disprove are the kinds of "advanced intelligence and science" that could be considered "God's intelligence and science."

Does that make sense?

It is true that just because it is supernatural doesn't mean that it is God. At the same token, if supernatural is possible, then God is possible. And of course we can consider that kind of advanced intelligence and science to be God if we have testimony of it. Right now our understanding on matters of the divine is like a baby - We can't show that the alien with the underwater vehicles is not God or not OF God. But we can go by the accounts of the people who have witnessed such a phenomenon and what their testimony is of the matter - whether it is God or not.

So, in my opinion, the entirety of what we perceive as our universe - including those that are discovered by advanced intelligence and science are considered part of God's intelligence and science or God's creation. All of it. So, to disprove the existence of God, you have to include all that in your discussion.

Edited March 2, 2010 by anatess

[Roundearth]

Here is where I think your argument fails.

You are accustomed to debating naturalistic topics, and you seem well-equipped to do so. However, when debating supernatural topics, the law of identity simply becomes a fancy way of substituting the word “existent” for the word “natural,” thereby using sleight of hand to make a semantic argument appear substantive. Here is my explanation:

What your argument shows is that supernatural beings do not fit the definition of “natural being.” Point read, understood and accepted.

However, you then state that failure to meet this criterion leads to the conclusion of “non-existence.”

Essentially, you have required “naturalness” as a pre-requisite for “existence.” However, from the perspective of the supernaturalist, this is a significant redefinition of the word “existence.”

Excellent point. To meet it, I need to elaborate on the argument I gave in my OP. The law of identity says that a thing is what it is. A thing's nature is the part of its identity that governs how it acts, or doesn't act. A tree's nature is the part of its identity that makes it grow from a seed and bloom flowers or whatever. Likewise, it is the part of its identity that makes it not bloom theologians or sprout wings and fly away into the horizon. So a thing's nature is just part of its identity. Nature, then, is just existence viewed from a specific perspective, as a system of entities interacting according to their natures. Supernaturalism is the belief that some thing does not have a nature, i.e., that it does not act or not act, that it is just in some undefined and indeterminate state between the two, i.e., that it has no identity. So naturalism is a corollary of the law of identity.

I can also meet your point by finding an authoritative definition of nature, then arguing from that definition to the nonexistence of the supernatural. Perhaps the most authoritative source possible is Aristotle's philosophical lexicon in the Metaphysics. After an examination of six different uses of the term "nature," Aristotle concludes that "From what has been said, then, it is plain that nature in the primary and strict sense is the essence of things that have in themselves, as such, a source of movement; for the matter is called the nature because it is qualified to receive this, and processes of becoming and growing are called nature because they are movements qualified to receive this. And nature in this sense is the source of the movement of natural objects, being present in them somehow, either potentially or in complete reality" (Metaphysics, 1015a 13-20, emphasis added).

So a nature is what makes a thing that acts the kind of thing that it is - namely, a thing that acts. A supernatural thing would be a thing that acts without a nature, which is a clear contradiction.

Now, I can see someone arguing that a supernatural thing is a thing that doesn't act at all. This fits with our conception of a supernatural thing as thing in another dimension, since everything in this dimension acts in some way. And it explains the "super" in supernatural, since we can now think of supernatural things as things above vulgar action. However, there are two problems with that definition. First, it means that the things we typically think of as supernatural are not supernatural - the soul, God, and the rest of the things we think of as supernatural all act. Mormons should actually join me in my naturalism, because everything in Mormonism is natural on this definition. Second, it means we can't actually know that there is a supernatural, since a thing that does not act cannot be detected in any way. For example, does it reflect rays of light? Then it has the nature of a light reflecting thing. So this concept of the supernatural has no referents, and a concept with no referents is useless and invalid.

Let’s agree that, in order to win this debate, you must demonstrate that God does not exist by a definition of “existence” that could feasibly include supernatural entities. Otherwise, all you are saying is that God is not a natural being, and that is, frankly, a boring and pathetic argument.

I could accept Aristotle's definition of nature. Aristotle's definition could include supernatural entites in the sense that I noted above. However, by that definition, no supernatural entities actually exist, even on Mormonism.

[Guest]

So a nature is what makes a thing that acts the kind of thing that it is - namely, a thing that acts. A supernatural thing would be a thing that acts without a nature, which is a clear contradiction.

Now, I can see someone arguing that a supernatural thing is a thing that doesn't act at all. This fits with our conception of a supernatural thing as thing in another dimension, since everything in this dimension acts in some way. And it explains the "super" in supernatural, since we can now think of supernatural things as things above vulgar action. However, there are two problems with that definition. First, it means that the things we typically think of as supernatural are not supernatural - the soul, God, and the rest of the things we think of as supernatural all act. Mormons should actually join me in my naturalism, because everything in Mormonism is natural on this definition. Second, it means we can't actually know that there is a supernatural, since a thing that does not act cannot be detected in any way. For example, does it reflect rays of light? Then it has the nature of a light reflecting thing. So this concept of the supernatural has no referents, and a concept with no referents is useless and invalid.

I could accept Aristotle's definition of nature. Aristotle's definition could include supernatural entites in the sense that I noted above. However, by that definition, no supernatural entities actually exist, even on Mormonism.

Now this just makes my head swim. Superman - yes, the one with the red cape - is he supernatural or not? I am serious in this question.

[Roundearth]

Again it appears to me that your difination of a naturalist is steped in out of date thinking steming from the Dark Ages.

Let us take this statement:

To demonstrate the complete blindness to 21st Century science of the above statement I call to attention the scientific notion of "bosons" - sub atomic known and proven to exist which can occupy the same space as other matter and not alter or affect the other matter.

I would be very interested in helping anyone understand things but you are resisting every effort as though your very life was at stake. You say you are sincere but I see no such evidence.

All I see is old worn-out arguments and a complete resistance to join in any 20th century and avoiding discoveries that will take anyone interested beyond the limits of ignorance into the freedoms and liberties of knowledge.

The Traveler

So your hypothesis is that the soul is composed of bosons. Interesting. If bosons are a form of matter that can occupy the same space as other matter, then we resolve a bushel of problems associated with the soul: what it's composed of (I mean, all photons are made of bosons, so there's plenty of material), and how it doesn't displace the rest of the matter in our bodies. We even resolve the old problem of how the soul interacts with the body: it's just bosons switching from an immaterial to a material form. Maybe they go into an immaterial form to "think," and a material form to act and receive information.

But we still have some problems. First of all, presumably the soul-bosons have to have a certain conformation to serve as a soul. But there are lots of non-soul-bosons in our bodies, since bosons are responsible for light and the weak and strong forces. Why isn't this conformation of soul-bosons disrupted by the non-soul-bosons that are in our bodies? And of course there's absolutely no evidence that bosons ever arrange themselves as they would have to to form a soul, and no mechanism for how they would do that.

P.S. Could you give a source for your claim that bosons can occupy the same place as other matter?

Sorry about taking so long. It's awesome to be able to talk with a scientist about this stuff. Thanks for the conversation.

[Roundearth]

Einstein showed that matter and energy are interchangeable with the famous E=MC^2 equation. Additionally, a single photon shot through a single-slit still results in interference patterns- one explanation for this phenomenon is that it's actually interfering with photons in another universe. And since energy and matter are interchangeable, there you have it- one affecting the other according to one theory. Granted, you're talking dimensions, and I just threw out the word 'universe'.

Gravity is another example of a (probably) multidimensional force- the fact that it spans additional dimensions is one hypothesis for its relative weakness compared to the other forces.

This is a good case for the claim that other dimensions and universes can interact with this one to make "weird stuff" happen. However, Traveler's claim was specifically that other universes interact with ours to cause invisible matter to appear, and my question was specifically directed at that.

[Finrock]

Bluejay,

I understand your position and I concede that your argument against Roundearth's position is likely the stronger argument.

Actually, his points were perfectly relevant.

Based on the content of Roundearth's arguments in the OP, I do not agree. Let me demonstrate why. I've been basing my arguments on those specific points and questions presented by Roundearth. For instance, in the OP Roundearth gave two arguments for being an atheist. These are positive claims for atheism. They were the following:

1. Humans are born without any a priori knowledge and/or experience. Burden of proof principle requires all claims be validated before they should be accepted. All arguments for God fail. Therefore, a person isn't justified in believing in God. (Roundearth calls this weak atheism).

2. God is defined as a supernatural and infinite being. Law of identity is that all things act in accordance with their nature and to exist is to be defined. A supernatural being is above nature, therefore it is amorphous and undefined and based on the law of identity something undefined cannot exist. Therefore a God cannot exist. An infinite being exceeds all limits and therefore it cannot be defined. Therefore God cannot exist.

Now, I may have missed the post where Ockham's Razor was presented as an argument against God so I've made no attempt to even speak on this point, instead my arguments have thus far been focused on the assertions made in 1 and 2 above.

For assertion 1, I have challenged the premise that humans are born without any a priori knowledge and/or experience. Second, Roundearth is making a positive assertion that all arguments for God fail, yet he provides no reason to believe this assertion other than that he deems it so. Although I haven't had a chance to yet, I also challenge the idea that all arguments for God fail.

For assertion 2, Roundearth's conclusion, at least based on how he has presented it in his OP, is contingent upon the definition that God is a supernatural and infinite being. Hence my claim that from an LDS frame of reference Roundearth's argument is irrelevant because we do not understand God to be supernatural or infinite in the sense that Roundearth is using these terms. Second, his conclusion isn't supported by his premises. His premises do not support the conclusion that a God cannot exist. At best they support the conclusion that a supernatural and infinite God cannot exist. Again, because Roundearth has failed to understand his target audience and address those metaphysical realities in his argument, this line of reasoning is irrelevant to Mormons.

...but, given that empiricism can't distinguish between "supernatural" and "natural, but not yet demonstrated," his points are only nominally related to the definition of "supernatural."

Are you sure? If that is the case then there are many things that Roundearth must deny that are generally accepted as scientific "truths". I'm not sure that all empiricism is so strict.

The Mormon frame of reference is superfluous in this debate: the argument fails because it is logically unsound, not because, even if it were true, it wouldn't apply to our God. In fact, the way it is set up, it doesn't apply to any God---supernatural, natural, quasi-natural, multi-dimensional or otherwise.

I think in my post that you responded to this is one of the points I was trying to make albeit maybe not clearly. It seems to me that Roundearth's premises are arbitrarily and irrationally setup so that his position is necessarily true. Of course when this is the case, you generally attack the premises and that is what I have been attempting to do.

In the end, the error he is making is trying to transform an absence of evidence (Ockham's razor) into evidence of absence, and he's just using some fancy double-talk, combined with erronaeous semantics, to accomplish it.

So, you and Traveler can continue to argue that our God is not supernatural, if you wish; but, you haven't been successful in convincing him, so I prefer to cut to the chase and speak a language that Roundearth is more likely to understand.

As I stated in the begining of this post, I do not disagree that "in the end he is trying to transform and absence of evidence into evidence of absence". However, I do think that my contentions so far have been justified and relevant based on the actual and specific arguments that Roundearth has demonstrated in this thread (at least the ones that have come to my attention).

Regards,

Finrock

[Roundearth]

But thus say if ever God created well the human beings through the evolution... We shall look like very stupid, when even, after ...when we shall know all the truth if ever we got it all wrong and what it is very like that that God created the world. He can indeed say to us " ah you then: you do not miss a nerve(cap)! You were there, in the creation of the world? Then, how you can allow to say that the theory of evolution it was matter what? Yes it is very like that that I created you. You are proud excessively, to claim to know how I, I made things! You did not content with putting back in doubt, humbly and sincerely, the theory of evolution. That still I would understand. Well, no. You persisted in demonstrating that it was necessarily false. As if you knew him(it), as if you were in my secrets.... And as if you were persuaded that I am incapable to create a mechanism of evolution!

si Dieu pouvait me dire...

Hey ho! But you understood nothing in your mission you! I I sent to you to say to the world that I am love, that the only things which count it is to love me and to like(love) you some the others. I thought that after Jesus, you would have understood him(it)! But not! Instead of it, you stumble to want to demonstrate to the world that I created you from clay! But we don't care, in the way I created you! For me what account it is that you see a sense(direction) in your life! I gave different talents to each. I looked to some of scientists' talents. The scientists are there to make of the science, to explain how of the life, and to use(get) it to improve your situation. I gave to the others spiritual talents. The monks are there to bring of the spirituality, to explain why of the life. What begins you to mix everything! You lose some energy and some paper to defuse(unsettle) the evolution, while theoretically

The theory of evolution is not an arrogant theory. Darwin arrived at that conclusion after humbly examining all of the evidence and finding that a massive amount of it had amassed behind evolution. Today, evolution is supported by something like 99% of biologists. Biologists are not arrogant people. They are trained to be scrupulously critical of all claims pertinent to their field, and if evolution was a false theory based on arrogance it would have been run out of town a long time ago.

[Vanhin]

BoM is available for 50 cents plus shipping on Amazon. I'll read wikipedia or something from the library until that shows up. I don't know if we'll follow through on the reading group thing, but you have just persuaded an atheist to read the Book of Mormon. Congrats.

Let me suggest The Scriptures, Internet Edition

It includes all of our "standard works" online, complete with cross-references and study helps (such as the Guide to the Scriptures), and is easy to search.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Round Earth, would you say that dark matter/energy are natural or super-natural? While we are just on the edge of actually being able to measure it, it is still a strongly held scientific theory. The fact is, if dark matter/energy exist, then the probability is that there is dark matter/energy within our own bodies; but we can't readily measure it in any form or fashion. We cannot see it, even though we know the majority of the stuff in the universe is made from it.

Perhaps the spirit/soul is made from such stuff? Whether it is or not, the point is that just because we have not yet discovered something, does not mean it doesn't exist. You keep bringing up unicorns. Yes, there are no real unicorns. At least not in today's world, and not according to our current knowledge. But there's a difference in a claimed unicorn, with a physical body that can be seen (if it were real), and a spirit that is made of fine matter that has not yet been measured. We believe in infrared, even though that spectrum is beyond our ability to see it with our own eyes. We can only see it indirectly, using mechanical measuring devices. The same goes with atoms, subatomic particles, and dark energy.

Traveler may want to correct me here, but my understanding is that dark matter annihilates when it comes into contact with "normal" matter.

Your claim that there is no spirit, simply because one has not been seen nor measured yet, is a theory - not proof. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence.

That's true. However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when we would expect to find evidence of some thing, were it real. Absence of evidence is also reason not to believe in the thing that there is an absence of evidence for.

Given we have many eye witnesses of God and angels in our own day - I mentioned several instances before, and "miraculous" events regarding the Book of Mormon, etc., we have evidence that something is going on here that is out of the ordinary, even if it is natural. When 15 separate men have testified of seeing the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, 4 of them seeing an angel in conjunction with it, we now have evidence.

When Joseph Smith sees Christ on several occasions, with others also seeing Christ with him (including Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon), then we have evidence.

When the Book of Mormon comes forth making lots of claims, and many of those claims are found to be true, that is evidence. That the Book of Mormon mentions a place named Nahom, which is a place of mourning and burial; and that place is only rediscovered in the 1990s and dates back to the time of Lehi in the Book of Mormon - that is evidence.

You made claims like this before, and I asked for citations so I could check out the evidence for myself.

And, all believing LDS will tell you of their personal witness, that evidence that comes to one person at a time. For the individual, that also is evidence.

Well, holy-ghost-like feelings are felt by people who are not experiencing the holy ghost, and you can cause yourself to feel a holy-ghost-like emotion that's not in fact caused by anything external, as this link explains:

Warm Fuzzies or the Holy Ghost?

The whole "burning bosom" warm feeling is not uncommon in daily life for people of any and all religious backgrounds. We felt it when Superman saves someone that fell off a building, when Darth Vader turns on the emperor to save his son Luke, when Lassie finally came home and when the Grinch returned all the toys to Whoville.

Some people get goosebumps, some get a lump in their throat, some get teary-eyed from watching these emotionally-charged fictional movies. Likewise, even atheists feel that "tingling, warm sensation" in many activities. You take a nature lover who climbs to the top of a mountain and looks out over the valley with a setting sun and - wham - the tingles start. The patriotic person who listens to a rousing rendition of the National Anthem or the Battle Hymn of the Republic gets the shivers.

All of these experiences can cause the "burning bosom" regardless of religion. That is because they are "emotion-based." Whether something is meaningful to us is the result of our past experiences and belief system. While an American would feel the tingles during the National Anthem, a visiting Frenchman may not feel anything at all. Why? Because the American Anthem has no meaning for him.

How to purchase that feeling.

The feelings are certainly not unique to the LDS Church. Bonneville Productions, the media firm owned by the Church, claims to produce that special feeling that many of us and investigators associate with the Holy Spirit. In fact, Bonneville has trademarked this term and calls it "Heartsell".

"Their unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. They call this uniquely powerful brand of creative HeartSell® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response."

If you own a business you can also employ "Heartsell" by hiring Bonneville to consult for you. At first, we couldn't believe that they would blatantly admit that they can manufacture such feelings but they do.

Mormon Testimony & Spiritual Witnesses

I myself have had feelings at various times: sometimes when thinking about the greatness of man, and sometimes when watching certain movies.

I would conclude that testimonies based on the emotions one felt at a certain time do not prove the truth of Mormonism.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Roundearth

[Roundearth]

Thanks, I will tell you what you must do to find out for sure the existence of God, though I don't pretend to be able to command God in determining the time frame and nature of the witness. If I could command God to make himself known to you, then I would posses the ability to demonstrate proof of his existence. But I cannot do that, and therefore it is a road that you must choose and travel on your own.

But before I do, I would like to know your analysis of the following passages from our scripture. Just click on the link -> Alma 32:17-43. If you would be willing to read that, and let me know what you think about it, it would surely help me explain the instructions to you.

Regards,

Vanhin

My best interpretation of those verses is: There is an experiment. When you try the experiment, a seed may or may not be planted. If the seed is planted, you should water it. To water the seed is (I think?) to study the scriptures. If you water the seed, you will receive the fruit of the tree, which is presumbly either worldly happiness or heaven.