Logical Consistency And Other Theist Hobgoblins

Logic is not just good, neat or nifty, it’s essential for surviving and thriving. Logic is one of the most powerful tools humanity has ever discovered. Yay for logic. But a retreat to pure reason is a retreat into fantasy. Deductively valid proofs evince logical consistency, and logical consistency only. A proof whose soundness is unknown, or assumed, (or presupposed), has no more utility than divination via the reading of tea leaves.

Dungeons and Dragons is a logically consistent system, too.

 

Dragon Proof

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Logical Consistency And Other Theist Hobgoblins

  1. There is a an entire universe full of evidence for the existence of the Creator but zero evidence for the atheist idea that everything happened all by itself.

    That means that all atheist thinking is based on fundamental irrationality.

    • First, just to clear up one of your errors: all you know about an atheist is that they lack belief in deities. That does not allow you to ascribe beliefs to them on the issue of cosmogenesis, abiogenesis, morality, or whether Coke is better than Pepsi. Many atheists are happy to say “I don’t know” on the issue of cosmogenesis. Which is what I will say, with a caveat. Which is, of course, that I do have empirical and mathematical evidence for my views that the laws of physics not only allow for creation ex nihilo, they demand it. http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=53136

      So, no, there is zero evidence for any deity or deities.Not going straight to a God of the Gaps fallacy is not an act of irrationality, I’m happy to say. Even if you were correct and physics wasn’t yielding tremendous insights into the universe, that would not allow us to go to “We don’t know, therefore, god”.

      We’d have to default back to “Therefore, we don’t know, and maybe we should find out.”

      • Zero,

        You can play word games all you want but the bottom line is that theists believe in God and atheists do not believe in God.

        Since this is Western Civilization chances are great that I am Christian which makes the belief in various deities meaningless.

        Also, from a purely secular viewpoint our Western Heritage starting with the ancient Greeks teaches the understanding that there is one Creator.

        A person who wishes to develop a reasoning mind must reject atheism because it is irrational.

        • I’m afraid I’m not the one playing word games. Again, if you do not believe in any deities, that does not mean you believe that cosmogenesis occurred ex nihilo; someone could, very easily, simply throw their hands up at the subject of cosmogenesis.

          Your attempt to avoid the issue of deities in general and presuppose your own religion’s deity, is noted.
          Your attempt to claim that somehow our system of knowledge starting with the pagan ancient Greeks is tied to monotheism, is noted.
          Your claim that not buying what you’re selling is inherently irrational, is noted.

          You’re welcome to carry the burden of proof and falsify the null hypothesis any time now.
          Care to take a swing at it?

          P.S. “western heritage” is not a proper noun.

          • Zero,

            Deity is an atheist weasel word and implies religious faith. Since this post is written by an atheist we must steer clear of religion so we can stay on the common ground of reason.

            The issue is simple: Does the universe have a Creator or First Cause?

            If you answer no, then you are an atheist and you believe everything happened all by itself.

            • So, you can’t carry the burden of proof then? Didn’t think so.

              And yes, belief in a god is religious. Funny how that works. Horribly weaselly of me to point out that your God of the Gaps argument deals with gods. You’re very clever to simply call it a, capital C, Creator, while pretending that you’re not talking about any deities and we shouldn’t discuss the fact that your argument is religious. I know, you’d like to pretend otherwise.

              Have fun pretending.

              And you’re evidently not even reading what I write. Yet again, “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer. Someone can lack belief in any deity and still say “I don’t know” when asked how universes are made.

              If you won’t even address what I’m actually writing, there’s no much point in this.

              Can you carry the burden of proof?
              Because, if not, we default to “we don’t know”, not “We don’t know, therefore, god.”

              You can’t carry the burden of proof, can you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s