Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

[pat]

Do you really want to know what wrong with this “argument”? Let’s break it down, line by line.
Here is your stated argument in its entirety.

mbm693 wrote:
Let me put this in terms even a child can understand.

You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat. But since it’s only unlikely that it’s a monster, that means the monster must exist.

After all, arguing that it’s unlikely that it’s a monster means that it most definitely is a monster. Sure the cat would make a better explanation, but you can’t prove that it’s not a monster, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t, so it must be a monster.

Here is it piece by piece with appropriate criticisms…

mbm693 wrote:
You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat.

Noises under bed.
Not a monster
Therefore,
Must be the cat.

This is called “non sequitur”, the premises do not lead to the conclusion. You have noises that can’t be a monster, but that does not mean it�??s a cat.

mbm693 wrote:
But since it’s only unlikely that it’s a monster, that means the monster must exist.

Being a monster is unlikely,
Therefore the monster exists.

This is so bad it is almost cannot be comprehended. It’s kind of a hybrid between “affirming the consequence” and “denying the antecedent”…It’s probably just non-sequitur, if not just utter nonsense.

mbm693 wrote:
After all, arguing that it’s unlikely that it’s a monster means that it most definitely is a monster.

Same as above. Repeated nonsense.

mbm693 wrote:
Sure the cat would make a better explanation, but you can’t prove that it’s not a monster, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t, so it must be a monster.

The full argument as concluded by this final sentence:

Noises under bed.
It is not a monster.
A cat is a better explanation.
Can't prove is a monster
Therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove it is not a monster.
Therefore, 
It's a monster.

This is just garbage. I cannot even fit it into a nice little fallacy category. None of the premises lead into one another, and no conclusion can be drawn from what is presented.
So hell fucking NO, I did not use the same reasoning by drawing on the cosmological argument for the existance of God. I would be embarrassed to have presented such a thing.

Yeah, this is the debunking argument to the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

So please persist on using it. It’s gonna get you real far and make you look real smart.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

Logic is apparently elusive to you. The argument is linear and painfully simple and it just skips by you. You cannot grasp the concept that argument is arguing a single thing, not a justification for everything. A monster under bed that is actually a cat is not relevant in any way shape or form.

No matter how much you try to pound that tripe in is still completely irrelevent as a logical argument or an analogy. But keep pounding away at it. Why don’t you write it again just to be sure. Next you going to expound on what if “dog” really meant “cat”, I suppose.
[/quote]

I don’t understand how you are unable to get this, it’s really very simple.

I never said the noise was the cat. The cause of the noise is unknown in this example. I don’t even have a cat, never have, and that’s completely irrelevant to the argument.

You’re argument was that I can’t assign probability to a being’s existence because I can’t take it’s ‘nature’ into consideration… unless it already exists. That’s completely circular. That’s not hard to see. I’m not even mad anymore, I just feel bad for you.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

… Pat is an idiot…

from what is presented.

So hell fucking NO, I did not use the same reasoning by drawing on the cosmological argument for the existance of God. I would be embarrassed to have presented such a thing.

Yeah, this is the debunking argument to the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

So please persist on using it. It’s gonna get you real far and make you look real smart.
[/quote]

This wasn’t an argument at all, it was an analogy to your argument. That’s why it was so easy to pick apart. It’s ridiculous. The elements from your previous posts are there. For instance, one of your brilliant arguments is: the burden of proof is on “anyone who will answer the question”.

If you’re wondering if it’s a monster or not, and you conclude that monsters aren’t real, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they aren’t. This IS the logic you apply to belief in god and it’s a joke.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

Nothing here is arbitrary. It is deductive in it’s purest form. If you want to the prime mover “monster” and hide him under your bed go right ahead. It doesn’t make it so. This stuff is not arbitrary.[/quote]

To begin with, aristotle’s version of the unmoved mover was a god that would have been so disapointed with humanity that after he set everything in motion, he simply sat contemplating his own perfection. This is a long way from the personal, loving god I think you believe in.

Besides that, Aristotle was a great philosopher for his time, but he’s been passed by. The guy to argue with now is David Hume. He pushed logic as far as it could go. Kant is said to have answered him, but his writings are so hard to comprehend that no one really knows.

That’s not just me talking, that’s several PhD’s in philosophy. Given his conclusions (basically that certain things are just unthinkable) I honestly doubt he made any real progress.

… Back to making you look foolish. Here is your argument for god being the prime mover: God is the prime mover.

Seems a little short. Looks more like a statement with no evidence to back it up to me.

[stokedporcupine]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

Nothing here is arbitrary. It is deductive in it’s purest form. If you want to the prime mover “monster” and hide him under your bed go right ahead. It doesn’t make it so. This stuff is not arbitrary.

To begin with, aristotle’s version of the unmoved mover was a god that would have been so disapointed with humanity that after he set everything in motion, he simply sat contemplating his own perfection. This is a long way from the personal, loving god I think you believe in.

Besides that, Aristotle was a great philosopher for his time, but he’s been passed by. The guy to argue with now is David Hume. He pushed logic as far as it could go. Kant is said to have answered him, but his writings are so hard to comprehend that no one really knows.

That’s not just me talking, that’s several PhD’s in philosophy. Given his conclusions (basically that certain things are just unthinkable) I honestly doubt he made any real progress.

… Back to making you look foolish. Here is your argument for god being the prime mover: God is the prime mover.

Seems a little short. Looks more like a statement with no evidence to back it up to me.[/quote]

ummm… wow. you know nothing about philosophy. nothing about Aristotle, Hume, or Kant.

[stokedporcupine]

wow. I’m glad I left this thread a long time ago…

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

Logic is apparently elusive to you. The argument is linear and painfully simple and it just skips by you. You cannot grasp the concept that argument is arguing a single thing, not a justification for everything. A monster under bed that is actually a cat is not relevant in any way shape or form.

No matter how much you try to pound that tripe in is still completely irrelevent as a logical argument or an analogy. But keep pounding away at it. Why don’t you write it again just to be sure. Next you going to expound on what if “dog” really meant “cat”, I suppose.

I don’t understand how you are unable to get this, it’s really very simple.

I never said the noise was the cat. The cause of the noise is unknown in this example. I don’t even have a cat, never have, and that’s completely irrelevant to the argument.
[/quote]
So when you said this:
“You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat.”

You didn’t really say it? Oh brother, you’re just killing me with this shit.

I have been telling you it’s irrelevant for pages now, thanks for finally getting it.

You’re argument was that I can’t assign probability to a being’s existence because I can’t take it’s ‘nature’ into consideration… unless it already exists.

No I said you cannot assign properties to something that doesn’t exist. For you to say God is too complicated to have be a creator, you have to concede existence first.
Name one thing, that does not exist, that has properties.

That’s completely circular. That’s not hard to see. I’m not even mad anymore, I just feel bad for you. [/quote]

I guess in a world where you did say something you actually said, it may seem circular in a rectangular sort of way. Otherwise there is nothing circular about it…The cosmological argument came into being to prevent circular reasoning.

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

… Pat is an idiot…

from what is presented.

So hell fucking NO, I did not use the same reasoning by drawing on the cosmological argument for the existance of God. I would be embarrassed to have presented such a thing.

Yeah, this is the debunking argument to the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

So please persist on using it. It’s gonna get you real far and make you look real smart.

This wasn’t an argument at all, it was an analogy to your argument. That’s why it was so easy to pick apart. It’s ridiculous. The elements from your previous posts are there. For instance, one of your brilliant arguments is: the burden of proof is on “anyone who will answer the question”.
[/quote]
Where are you now? First of all that was your argument as you were presenting it as an objection to the argument I put forth. An objection to an argument is…SURPRISE!..an argument.
Second of all it was so easy to pick apart because it made absolutely no sense what so ever.
Third, I have showed many times how that “thing” you made up is not analogues in any way shape or form to the cosmological argument in any of it’s forms. But no, you kept repeating it and patting yourself on the back at it’s brilliance.
Fourth, “burden of proof” in the beginning is no longer relevant, because I went ahead and put forth an argument, which shifts the burden or forces. If I put forth an argument, you cannot continue to say that you don’t have to “prove a negative”. I took all that bullshit out by presenting an argument, you now have to either agree with it, or prove why it is wrong. Which you did not do…at all.You just kept calling me a pussy and waving a victory flag. Claiming that you’re “da man” and that you “own” me is not a counter argument.

[quote]
If you’re wondering if it’s a monster or not, and you conclude that monsters aren’t real, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they aren’t. This IS the logic you apply to belief in god and it’s a joke. [/quote]

I never concluded any such thing. That is why it is a Red Herring and a Straw man. It has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not God exists. We weren’t and aren’t discussing the existence of monsters.
If you think that “logic” is what is applied in the cosmological argument then you clear have no idea what it says. Usually one presenting a counter argument would want to know what the original argument was.
I wouldn’t apply that “logic” you claim I use to take a shit.

[pat]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

Nothing here is arbitrary. It is deductive in it’s purest form. If you want to the prime mover “monster” and hide him under your bed go right ahead. It doesn’t make it so. This stuff is not arbitrary.

To begin with, aristotle’s version of the unmoved mover was a god that would have been so disapointed with humanity that after he set everything in motion, he simply sat contemplating his own perfection. This is a long way from the personal, loving god I think you believe in.
[/quote]
Uh, what? We are now discussing what kind of God, God is? Aristotle never discuss what the prime mover was…
I am pretty sure Aristotle is quite relevant still.

Besides that, Aristotle was a great philosopher for his time, but he’s been passed by. The guy to argue with now is David Hume. He pushed logic as far as it could go. Kant is said to have answered him, but his writings are so hard to comprehend that no one really knows.

I love Hume, he is one of my favorites of all time. His insights into causation were brilliant. Where they fell short is his inability comprehend causality with out the temporal/ spatial element. But if you want to understand cause and effect relationships their is none better…
Kant’s writings are not hard to comprehend…What he did do is cease on the weaknesses in some of Hume’s arguments with particular emphasis on dispelling determinism, of which Hume was a supporter. That is not to say that his life was dedicated to arguing against Hume, but he did do that.

That’s not just me talking, that’s several PhD’s in philosophy. Given his conclusions (basically that certain things are just unthinkable) I honestly doubt he made any real progress.

Logical fallacy here: Appeal to Authority…Those Phd’s you know…give them that “monster” argument of yours. Let them ponder the wonder of that thing.

[quote]
… Back to making you look foolish. Here is your argument for god being the prime mover: God is the prime mover.

Seems a little short. Looks more like a statement with no evidence to back it up to me.[/quote]

Come back when you have actually read the argument. At no point did I “Affirm the consequence” as you suggest.

[pat]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
wow. I’m glad I left this thread a long time ago…

[/quote]

That was a smart move…

[pat]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

Nothing here is arbitrary. It is deductive in it’s purest form. If you want to the prime mover “monster” and hide him under your bed go right ahead. It doesn’t make it so. This stuff is not arbitrary.

To begin with, aristotle’s version of the unmoved mover was a god that would have been so disapointed with humanity that after he set everything in motion, he simply sat contemplating his own perfection. This is a long way from the personal, loving god I think you believe in.

Besides that, Aristotle was a great philosopher for his time, but he’s been passed by. The guy to argue with now is David Hume. He pushed logic as far as it could go. Kant is said to have answered him, but his writings are so hard to comprehend that no one really knows.

That’s not just me talking, that’s several PhD’s in philosophy. Given his conclusions (basically that certain things are just unthinkable) I honestly doubt he made any real progress.

… Back to making you look foolish. Here is your argument for god being the prime mover: God is the prime mover.

Seems a little short. Looks more like a statement with no evidence to back it up to me.

ummm… wow. you know nothing about philosophy. nothing about Aristotle, Hume, or Kant. [/quote]

Ya think?

[mbm693]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

ummm… wow. you know nothing about philosophy. nothing about Aristotle, Hume, or Kant. [/quote]

Enlighten me.

[mbm693]

[quote]pat wrote:

So when you said this:
“You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat.”

You didn’t really say it? Oh brother, you’re just killing me with this shit.

I have been telling you it’s irrelevant for pages now, thanks for finally getting it.

[/quote]

I said, it’s PROBABLY just the cat. The whole point of the analogy is that you don’t know what the noise is. How are you still missing this?

You’re argument was that I can’t assign probability to a being’s existence because I can’t take it’s ‘nature’ into consideration… unless it already exists.

No I said you cannot assign properties to something that doesn’t exist. For you to say God is too complicated to have be a creator, you have to concede existence first.
Name one thing, that does not exist, that has properties.

I’m saying a being with those properties is unlikely to exist. The bottom line is, you don’t really KNOW what created this universe. This is an excellent time to apply Occam’s Razor and go with the simplest explanation that fits the available evidence. That is the big bang, not and all powerful, all knowing god.

Lucky the Leprechaun has a set of properties that make him extremely unlikely to exist. If you’re seriously saying that I can’t take his properties into account when I consider his existence, then what good reason do I have for not believing in him?

That’s completely circular. That’s not hard to see. I’m not even mad anymore, I just feel bad for you.

I guess in a world where you did say something you actually said, it may seem circular in a rectangular sort of way. Otherwise there is nothing circular about it…The cosmological argument came into being to prevent circular reasoning.

No, your argument is circular. I’ll say it again: something does not have to exist for it to be unlikely for it to exist.

The cosomlogical argument did not come into being to prevent circular reasoning. That’s a load of horse shit. The cosmo argument is not circular, just arbitrary. It arbitrarily assumes that god is the first cause based on an arbitrary definition of perfection and what it takes to create it.

[stokedporcupine]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:

ummm… wow. you know nothing about philosophy. nothing about Aristotle, Hume, or Kant.

Enlighten me. [/quote]

pat already responded to your post for me.

your first big mistake was in claiming that Aristotle is not relevant anymore…

[stokedporcupine]

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

You’re argument was that I can’t assign probability to a being’s existence because I can’t take it’s ‘nature’ into consideration… unless it already exists.

No I said you cannot assign properties to something that doesn’t exist. For you to say God is too complicated to have be a creator, you have to concede existence first.
Name one thing, that does not exist, that has properties.

[/quote]

I can’t really comment much on this whole discussion, because I have not been around to read the whole thing. I would like to comment on this though.

You could indeed assign properties to things that do not exist. This is done all the time in fantasy. For instance, Unicorns have a defining property, yet they do not exist. If you’d like an example from Kant, Golden mountains would be another example of things with properties that do not exist. For a more recent example, science does this all the time in theory development.

But, moving away from examples, this whole discussion is related to Quine’s “ontological slum” which he attributes to people with a platonistic metaphysics. Without all the jargon, the problem is that if you admit into existence anything and everything that has properties (ie, anything and everything of which something can be predicated) then you have to admit that there exists an infinite number of things. This is for the obvious reason that there are an infinite number of different subject-predicate combinations that I could postulate.

Quine’s solution to this ontological slum of course is that only objects that can be quantified over exist (though this is a technical point in predicate logic that i don’t have time to explain). Though this approach “clears the slum”, it makes it possible to deny that things like unicorns and golden mountains exist, it does not automatically decide which objects (in you case, things that i can attribute properties too) can be quantified over (ie, which ones are real).

For this reason, Quine’s approach to clear the slum is attractive in that it explains how and why we can postulate the properties of things that do not exist. On the other hand, Quine’s approach does not automatically answer the question of which objects actually exist. This for Quine is an empirical matter, but of course you might try to prove the existence of something a priori.

Whatever the case may be, the point is that you can indeed postulate what properties an object might have and deduce consequences about those things and their properties without assuming the existance of the things.

[stokedporcupine]

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

I’m saying a being with those properties is unlikely to exist. The bottom line is, you don’t really KNOW what created this universe. This is an excellent time to apply Occam’s Razor and go with the simplest explanation that fits the available evidence. That is the big bang, not and all powerful, all knowing god.

[/quote]

this is not what occam’s razor is.

[mbm693]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
wow. I’m glad I left this thread a long time ago…

[/quote]

I had something snide and dismissive in here before I saw your other posts (page had not refreshed). Totally taking it back though.

[mbm693]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

I’m saying a being with those properties is unlikely to exist. The bottom line is, you don’t really KNOW what created this universe. This is an excellent time to apply Occam’s Razor and go with the simplest explanation that fits the available evidence. That is the big bang, not and all powerful, all knowing god.

this is not what occam’s razor is. [/quote]

Wikipedia quote, so take it for what it’s worth.

This is often paraphrased as “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood.

This is exactly why I’m arguing that the big bang makes more sense than god. A lot less goes into creating the big bang, than creating an omnipotent being.

[mbm693]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

You’re argument was that I can’t assign probability to a being’s existence because I can’t take it’s ‘nature’ into consideration… unless it already exists.

No I said you cannot assign properties to something that doesn’t exist. For you to say God is too complicated to have be a creator, you have to concede existence first.
Name one thing, that does not exist, that has properties.

I can’t really comment much on this whole discussion, because I have not been around to read the whole thing. I would like to comment on this though.

You could indeed assign properties to things that do not exist. This is done all the time in fantasy. For instance, Unicorns have a defining property, yet they do not exist. If you’d like an example from Kant, Golden mountains would be another example of things with properties that do not exist. For a more recent example, science does this all the time in theory development.

But, moving away from examples, this whole discussion is related to Quine’s “ontological slum” which he attributes to people with a platonistic metaphysics. Without all the jargon, the problem is that if you admit into existence anything and everything that has properties (ie, anything and everything of which something can be predicated) then you have to admit that there exists an infinite number of things. This is for the obvious reason that there are an infinite number of different subject-predicate combinations that I could postulate.

Quine’s solution to this ontological slum of course is that only objects that can be quantified over exist (though this is a technical point in predicate logic that i don’t have time to explain). Though this approach “clears the slum”, it makes it possible to deny that things like unicorns and golden mountains exist, it does not automatically decide which objects (in you case, things that i can attribute properties too) can be quantified over (ie, which ones are real).

For this reason, Quine’s approach to clear the slum is attractive in that it explains how and why we can postulate the properties of things that do not exist. On the other hand, Quine’s approach does not automatically answer the question of which objects actually exist. This for Quine is an empirical matter, but of course you might try to prove the existence of something a priori.

Whatever the case may be, the point is that you can indeed postulate what properties an object might have and deduce consequences about those things and their properties without assuming the existance of the things. [/quote]

Very well said. I’d never heard of Quine’s slum before but I really like the concept.

[mbm693]

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:

ummm… wow. you know nothing about philosophy. nothing about Aristotle, Hume, or Kant.

Enlighten me.

pat already responded to your post for me.

your first big mistake was in claiming that Aristotle is not relevant anymore… [/quote]

I’m gonna stick by this one (for now). I think he’s valuable to philosophy from a historical perspective, but I don’t think any of his arguments are still relevant. I am a bit rusty though so I’m interested in discussion.