Comments for Foxhole Atheism » Foxhole Atheism http://foxholeatheism.com a blog for freethinkers Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:36:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Where is God? by Dev http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8108 Dev Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:36:10 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8108 Those are pretty much the same responses I would make to those questions. I think the physical laws might actually be the strongest example, if one grants a certain objective realism about physical laws (something I'm inclined to reject): that is, that they aren't just models that accurately describe the way things work, but are inherent in the structure of the universe itself. Furthermore, they would be the reason things act the way they do. I could see a religious person easily twisting this into some sort of argument for God. In regards to the algorithm, I guess the issue would have something to do with the ontological status of information and processes on information. Neither has a spatio-temporal location: although the information and process might be represented/instantiated in something physical, that representation/instantiation does not seem to be the information/process. After all, the same information can be represented and the same process instantiated through some other medium. Are they, then, really existent entities? (And in what way?) If one argues that they are, one can argue that the mind is a similar sort of non-spatial real entity (which I happen to believe). Then there's the BS step, where one could try to turn that into some sort of argument for God, if God is something like "the mind of the universe". Those are pretty much the same responses I would make to those questions.
I think the physical laws might actually be the strongest example, if one grants a certain objective realism about physical laws (something I’m inclined to reject): that is, that they aren’t just models that accurately describe the way things work, but are inherent in the structure of the universe itself. Furthermore, they would be the reason things act the way they do. I could see a religious person easily twisting this into some sort of argument for God.
In regards to the algorithm, I guess the issue would have something to do with the ontological status of information and processes on information. Neither has a spatio-temporal location: although the information and process might be represented/instantiated in something physical, that representation/instantiation does not seem to be the information/process. After all, the same information can be represented and the same process instantiated through some other medium. Are they, then, really existent entities? (And in what way?) If one argues that they are, one can argue that the mind is a similar sort of non-spatial real entity (which I happen to believe). Then there’s the BS step, where one could try to turn that into some sort of argument for God, if God is something like “the mind of the universe”.

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Dev http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8107 Dev Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:34:31 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8107 Those are pretty much the same responses I would make to those questions. I think the physical laws might actually be the strongest example, if one grants a certain objective realism about physical laws: that is, that they aren't just models that accurately describe the way things work, but are inherent in the structure of the universe itself. I could see a religious person easily twisting this into some sort of argument for God. In regards to the algorithm, I guess the issue would have something to do with the ontological status of information and processes on information. Neither has a spatio-temporal location: although the information and process might be represented/instantiated in something physical, that representation/instantiation does not seem to be the information/process. After all, the same information can be represented and the same process instantiated through some other medium. Are they, then, really existent entities? (And in what way?) If one argues that they are, one can argue that the mind is a similar sort of non-spatial real entity (which I happen to believe). Then there's the BS step, where one could try to turn that into some sort of argument for God, if God is something like "the mind of the universe". Those are pretty much the same responses I would make to those questions.
I think the physical laws might actually be the strongest example, if one grants a certain objective realism about physical laws: that is, that they aren’t just models that accurately describe the way things work, but are inherent in the structure of the universe itself. I could see a religious person easily twisting this into some sort of argument for God.
In regards to the algorithm, I guess the issue would have something to do with the ontological status of information and processes on information. Neither has a spatio-temporal location: although the information and process might be represented/instantiated in something physical, that representation/instantiation does not seem to be the information/process. After all, the same information can be represented and the same process instantiated through some other medium. Are they, then, really existent entities? (And in what way?) If one argues that they are, one can argue that the mind is a similar sort of non-spatial real entity (which I happen to believe). Then there’s the BS step, where one could try to turn that into some sort of argument for God, if God is something like “the mind of the universe”.

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Mike http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8100 Mike Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:56:08 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8100 Right, Paul. I would also add that we can say the same thing about God existing "before" the big bang if that's supposed to be the first moment in time (which I doubt). People might complain that it's just sloppy language but when we have no sensible way to speak about something we ought to seriously question its merits. Right, Paul. I would also add that we can say the same thing about God existing “before” the big bang if that’s supposed to be the first moment in time (which I doubt). People might complain that it’s just sloppy language but when we have no sensible way to speak about something we ought to seriously question its merits.

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Paul So http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8099 Paul So Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:35:11 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8099 I enjoy this entry, those were the exact questions I asked before my permanent deconversion. However, I want to formulate these questions into an argument P1: Space-Time is physical precondition for location, causality, and dimensional properties (1 dimensional, 2 dimensional, 3 dimensional; height, length, width, distance, 4 dimensional) P2: All first order physical properties have location, causality, and dimensional properties. P3: God, Soul, and Heaven are incorporeal C1: Therefore all first order physical properties inhabit in Space-Time C2: Therefore God, Soul, and Heaven cannot have location, causality, and dimensional properties Implication: God, Soul, Heaven cannot have spatial predicate "outside" I enjoy this entry, those were the exact questions I asked before my permanent deconversion. However, I want to formulate these questions into an argument

P1: Space-Time is physical precondition for location, causality, and dimensional properties (1 dimensional, 2 dimensional, 3 dimensional; height, length, width, distance, 4 dimensional)
P2: All first order physical properties have location, causality, and dimensional properties.
P3: God, Soul, and Heaven are incorporeal
C1: Therefore all first order physical properties inhabit in Space-Time
C2: Therefore God, Soul, and Heaven cannot have location, causality, and dimensional properties
Implication: God, Soul, Heaven cannot have spatial predicate “outside”

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Mike http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8097 Mike Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:57:37 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8097 Dev, First, let me say I'm glad you enjoy the blog. It's nice to get feedback. I did consider those things and don't think it will ultimately be a way out. I'll try to briefly explain my thought process. Numbers offer perhaps the strongest case, but the nature of their existence is hotly debated. Do they merely exist as products of the mind? Do they have no real ontological status, as Derek Parfit says? I think we can safely say this. Numbers don't "exist" in any way that interacts with reality in a causal way, so the analogy isn't very helpful to resolve the problem. Democracy is just an idea and ultimately no different than other products of the mind, like a novel. I'm happy to grant that God is like that because I do in fact think it's imaginary. The operation of gravity is rooted in something physical, most likely, like a graviton (hypothetical as far as I know). Our current best theory offers the mechanism of the warping of spacetime. So I think that's not really a counter example. The algorithm is programmed into something physical, is represented by code which I would guess has analogous physical things like current, and was put there by something physical. So I do see how such things can be tempting but I question whether any of them are effective analogies either because they really are physical, don't actually exist, and/or are nothing like what is claimed for God. Dev,

First, let me say I’m glad you enjoy the blog. It’s nice to get feedback.

I did consider those things and don’t think it will ultimately be a way out. I’ll try to briefly explain my thought process.

Numbers offer perhaps the strongest case, but the nature of their existence is hotly debated. Do they merely exist as products of the mind? Do they have no real ontological status, as Derek Parfit says? I think we can safely say this. Numbers don’t “exist” in any way that interacts with reality in a causal way, so the analogy isn’t very helpful to resolve the problem.

Democracy is just an idea and ultimately no different than other products of the mind, like a novel. I’m happy to grant that God is like that because I do in fact think it’s imaginary.

The operation of gravity is rooted in something physical, most likely, like a graviton (hypothetical as far as I know). Our current best theory offers the mechanism of the warping of spacetime. So I think that’s not really a counter example.

The algorithm is programmed into something physical, is represented by code which I would guess has analogous physical things like current, and was put there by something physical.

So I do see how such things can be tempting but I question whether any of them are effective analogies either because they really are physical, don’t actually exist, and/or are nothing like what is claimed for God.

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Dev http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8096 Dev Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:44:37 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8096 I've been following your blog for a while and really enjoying it. However, I think your argument here could be easily challenged by pointing out that there are MANY really existent things that have no spatio-temporal (or at least spatial) locations. Where is the number 2? Where is democracy? Where is Newton's law of gravity? Where is the algorithm my computer is running? I’ve been following your blog for a while and really enjoying it. However, I think your argument here could be easily challenged by pointing out that there are MANY really existent things that have no spatio-temporal (or at least spatial) locations. Where is the number 2? Where is democracy? Where is Newton’s law of gravity? Where is the algorithm my computer is running?

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Mike http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8095 Mike Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:17:07 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8095 No problem. I just finished reading Leviathan and the Air Pump, so Boyle is fresh in my mind. No problem. I just finished reading Leviathan and the Air Pump, so Boyle is fresh in my mind.

]]> Comment on Where is God? by Ianus Christius http://foxholeatheism.com/where-is-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8094 Ianus Christius Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:54:05 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=755#comment-8094 Hi, Mike! Very good articles I found here. Also, thanks for your correction on my blog. It was Boyle, not Bacon. My big mistake. Sorry. Hi, Mike!

Very good articles I found here.
Also, thanks for your correction on my blog. It was Boyle, not Bacon. My big mistake. Sorry.

]]> Comment on Doubting Science: The other tactic of creationists by Modern science as a contemporary dogma? « World of Ianus Christius http://foxholeatheism.com/doubting-science-the-other-tactic-of-creationists/comment-page-1/#comment-8092 Modern science as a contemporary dogma? « World of Ianus Christius Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:52:36 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=748#comment-8092 [...] Doubting Science: The other tactic of creationists (foxholeatheism.com) [...] [...] Doubting Science: The other tactic of creationists (foxholeatheism.com) [...]

]]> Comment on Doubting Science: The other tactic of creationists by Paul So http://foxholeatheism.com/doubting-science-the-other-tactic-of-creationists/comment-page-1/#comment-8087 Paul So Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:08:44 +0000 http://foxholeatheism.com/?p=748#comment-8087 I'm starting to become more pessimistic about the circumstances in the U.S. since the anti-intellectual atmosphere and pseudo-intellectual atmosphere is poisoning people's mind. Intellectual dishonesty is becoming the norm when people use sophomoric philosophical insights to exploit science for their own ideological interest, and it's sickening me to the core. Creationist can focus all they want on the areas of uncertainty in Evolution rather than looking at the body of evidence, but by doing this they forget that the same can be done on General Theory of Relativity, Special relativity, Big Bang Theory, Laws of Conservation, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetic laws, and all the scientific laws; it clearly shows double standard on their part, hence intellectual dishonesty. No scientific theory is perfect, and anyone can coherently be a scientific realist and a fallibilist who believes that scientific theories are approximations that can be increased through more supporting evidence yet be open to the possibility that the current theories are in principle falsifiable. However this does not have to entail that we should doubt our current theories, we should only doubt them when new evidence shows to the contrary. This is such a simple and fair way of viewing how we use and change scientific theories, and I am not a scientists by any means. Yet people, as usual, talk trash about things from Global Warming to Evolution. Unfortunately, due to my pessimism with the stupidity and sophistry of the human mind in general (occasionally including my own) I don't think the situation in the United States will improve; I think people will get more pseudo-intellectual and pretentiously arrogant about their intellect to the point that all we have left is trash and superstition. i may sound very cynical here, but so far while I see technological progress, I see no intellectual progress among people who are consumerist-centered ideologues. I’m starting to become more pessimistic about the circumstances in the U.S. since the anti-intellectual atmosphere and pseudo-intellectual atmosphere is poisoning people’s mind. Intellectual dishonesty is becoming the norm when people use sophomoric philosophical insights to exploit science for their own ideological interest, and it’s sickening me to the core. Creationist can focus all they want on the areas of uncertainty in Evolution rather than looking at the body of evidence, but by doing this they forget that the same can be done on General Theory of Relativity, Special relativity, Big Bang Theory, Laws of Conservation, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetic laws, and all the scientific laws; it clearly shows double standard on their part, hence intellectual dishonesty. No scientific theory is perfect, and anyone can coherently be a scientific realist and a fallibilist who believes that scientific theories are approximations that can be increased through more supporting evidence yet be open to the possibility that the current theories are in principle falsifiable. However this does not have to entail that we should doubt our current theories, we should only doubt them when new evidence shows to the contrary. This is such a simple and fair way of viewing how we use and change scientific theories, and I am not a scientists by any means. Yet people, as usual, talk trash about things from Global Warming to Evolution. Unfortunately, due to my pessimism with the stupidity and sophistry of the human mind in general (occasionally including my own) I don’t think the situation in the United States will improve; I think people will get more pseudo-intellectual and pretentiously arrogant about their intellect to the point that all we have left is trash and superstition. i may sound very cynical here, but so far while I see technological progress, I see no intellectual progress among people who are consumerist-centered ideologues.

]]>