Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

At this point, it becomes.....Ad nauseam.

"The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it." - fallacyfiles.org

In some circumstances, the source of something is relevant to examine it, so when it comes to epistemic evaluation and so on, AG is the only side here being correct on that one. Funny thing is.... can you compare the "child and racism" example with that? lol

No, the "genetic fallacy" defense doesn't look to work on your favor here, but that isn't surprising, different uses and interpretations people give to an argument as fallacious, thinking it supports their side, is not that uncommon.

And well, the "epic fail" (because you attacked them with that) looks to be shooting back at you than anything else. Like aiming and shooting a ray gun towards a mirror. It looks entertaining, I give you that.

Your definition is a bit off and you seem confused. Epistemologically one can ask if one is justified in believing something by looking at its origin. However, one cannot draw a conclusion relating to the truth of falsity of the claim by looking at the origin of how people come to believe it. For example, one could argue that if the evidence stands against a belief, one is not warranted to believe it. However, this is totally separate from the truth of the matter. Something can be true, regardless of how one believes it like a prehistoric man believing the earth to be a globe because his religion tells him it is. Attacking the man's religion does nothing to prove his what he is saying to be wrong. You can only attack his grounds for believing it.

Your sourse for the definition is a bit dodgey. I already gave a textbook definition, an example from a debate and a link from an atheist website showing that this specific claim commits the genetic fallacy:

"Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits."
- With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) by S. Morris Engel, chapter V, subsection 1 (pg. 198)

Or another

'A genetic fallacy occurs when an explanation of S confuses the temporal order of actual events leading up to S with the logical order in which S must be generated.'
- Hanson, Russell 'The Genetic Fallacy Revisited, American Philosophical Quarterly 1967

What AG did was state:

"if major intuitive supports for theism are shown to be questionable, then it may be that theism ought to be considered highly improbable given this, or at least that theism is less likely."

This blatantly commits the genetic fallacy. Since the logical concept of God is simply not addressed at all in his argument. Rather, he is trying to show that humans believing in God is an unjustified position. The latter is the most he can claim (I would dispute that, but that is for another time); what he has done is conclude that 'theism is less likely' which does not draw a logical order conclusion. Hence it is a genetic fallacy.

Agreed. It's embarrassing when arguments with all the sensicality of "Is the impossible, possible? are resorted to.

Yes, that is correct. The argument isn't a matter of "requiring God to do the logically impossible", as that's ridiculous. God isn't required to do anything. God can't exist as moral perfection is incoherent.


If by "kind of did that", you mean that you didn't. You ignored the argument. Even further, I didn't shift anything. You're the one who perpetually behaves in a dishonest manner.

Now if you want me to destroy your entire contention than sure, why not:


Errr.... M entails ~M is not an expression I'd agree with. In any case, your argument doesn't work as broadly as you want. All I may have proven is that goodness is not a great-making property. However, in all honesty, I have not proven that maximal goodness entails non-maximal goodness, or that moral perfection entails imperfection, I've proven that moral perfection is not possible as the scale increases infinitely. Goodness can still be good, we just can't have a property of maximality. Your argument disagrees with a lot of direct intuitions about properties that we know scale infinitely. (it's also not that great of an argument)

Even further, even if your argument works, the only great-making property with a problem is goodness. So, all I've disproved is that maximal goodness is impossible. This means that morality is incoherent, and some atheists already think that.

As well, even if your argument works in the manner in which you think it does, it still does not entail the falsity of my argument. It entails the falsity in an argument in the chain of arguments made. This could also mean that a best of all possible worlds is possible.

Finally, your analysis of properties, if it works to moral goodness, also can apply to the goodness of a given possible world. Thus, if moral goodness being impossible is a problem, so is the relevant maximal greatness of a world, as worlds could have properties that make them greater or lesser. So, if your argument works, then because the logic also applies to greatness of possible worlds, you have to accept a best of all possible worlds, or the idea that scaling worlds is impossible. (Which *would* be unscriptural because the line between good and non-good worlds is implicit in such things as the Edenic world being "good")


HA HA HA HA HA HA!! 91, that's the most ret*d thing I've seen. I agree, there is nothing more perfect than that which is perfect, BUT if it is morally better to choose X2 over X1, and the perfect being picks X1, then there is a possible being better, thus entailing that the perfect being *really* isn't. I didn't assert a "logical impossibility", I pointed out that two principles are logically incoherent. Logical incoherency means that the idea in question is impossible, not the argument though. This is just a massive failure and I cannot see how any intelligent person can make such egregious and stupid and disgusting mistakes.


No I don't, but hell, at least I use it rather than the garbage that you use.


91, the argument only works if you are assuming that God exists. M_P is not. M_P is saying If X is true and God exists, then there would be a good reason for why X is true. There is no good reason for why X is true, therefore God does not exist. M_P made a valid argument.

In short, your argument is bogus in arguing against M_P's atheistic argument, in that you're assuming the opposite of M_P's conclusion... which means that the two arguments don't address each other. The best you can do is use logic similar to what GE Moore did for his "Here is a hand" argument, and say that we start off with more plausible assumptions, but I'd say that M_P is doing a better job by far on that count.


No. The argument doesn't actually engage M_P's argument. You're assuming the very fact being contested. Thus, your argument, as an effort to engage M_P is just wrong. It fails. There is no debating this. You are wrong, and if you persist then you have proven yourself utterly delusional.


No, naturalism claims that naturalism is ontologically correct. Not that non-naturalism is not viable given the set of facts we have. Nor does it claim to have proven that nothing more parsimonious can exist(although the inference does rely on that)

91, neither M_P nor myself, are making naturalism properly basic. That's not even the argument.

I don't know what you are even trying to say by arguing that an ontological theory cannot argue outside of itself. Ontological theories can be discussed and debated, and that is not a matter of definition, but rather historically such debates have occurred and continue to occur. However, theories themselves do not argue, and the theories are argued using shared tools for assessing the validity of theories.

You don't ever seem to know what the hell you are talking about, causing everything you write to be bull sh**, garbage, idiocy, and delusion.


Not really. If you'll note, I wasn't that keen on M_P's argument in the first place, even suggesting he lump it in with his argument from parsimony. However, it can also be true that if theism is true, that non-theism ought not be expected as plausible.

Look, I am not the one using the bad arguments here. Frankly, 91 is the only person here who even *likes* these arguments on "Is the impossible possible?", and that's only because 91 has been using bull sh** to attack M_P's very straightforward, plausible, and logical argument that if extreme suffering exists then God does not.

Bethie, I am not sure if you've seen 91 argue before, but... his method is the most intellectually disturbing thing you will ever see. He loves the ontological argument. He misuses reason continually and focuses on making abstract metaphysical arguments. He is stubborn on his misuse of logic to the point where he will DENY THE ACTUAL, LITERAL, *DEFINITIONAL* CLAIMS OF LOGIC TEXTBOOKS if they disagree with him. It is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

@91: What you basically have is a word-game. "A rock too heavy for God to lift" argument violates the law of non-contradiction. There's really not much of a serious way to approach this.

On the other hand, if we don't really have to worry about the seriousness of the argument, you COULD say this:

God is omnipotent. God CAN make a stone too heavy even for Him to lift--and then LIFT IT!

That's a beautiful statement illustrating why it is not fruitful to engage in theological argument. That statement is total lunacy..

Ahhh so Jesus can cook a burrito so hot he himself can't eat it. I've been wondering for the longest time since I saw that Simpsons episode.

Ah, the Theological Burrito Problem

God is omnipotent, omipresent, omni-whatever else makes him so powerful. Except for that whole turn-your-back to the serpent probing Eve to bite the apple, Eve and Adam both eating from the tree, and putting some leaves around their waists. Perfectly acceptable according to His plan...

What about a one-ended stick?

No, neither. See, He cannot contradict either Himself or any of His own laws (including simple physics).

It depends on how you look at it. Yes, the intention was silliness, and the point that making theological arguments out of word games is silly.

Where this might have practical application for an actual believer, though, is along the same lines as Jesus' statement that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Later on He says, "with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." If you can possibly conceive of some impossible task, even of finding an apparent contradiction of God's very nature, then my statement that God CAN make such a stone AND do something that is apparently impossible and contradicting even God's very nature (logical law of non-contradiction) actually does make sense. God can do the impossible (create a stone impossible for Him to life) AND do the impossible (lift it).

In logical terms, since we're daring to break even a logical law, basically what you have is a contradiction (a) and it's opposite contradiction (-a). Generally I sucked at math, but my understanding is that a + -a=0. So the word-game renders itself null. To understand it in positive terms (something rather than nothing), it really only works metaphorically or proverbially. If it defies human logic, yet at the same time it is truth, then the only assumption one can make is that human logic is limited.

@leejosepho: On a personal note--I don't really think that God would violate logical laws, nor do I really think God would do something that violates His nature. In terms of physics/natural laws, though, I think that those kinds of things exist to maintain the order of the universe--rather, they ARE the order of the universe--or to help us understand the order/organization of the universe in terms we can understand through our own observation, at least insofar as we CAN understand the universe. That gives us clues as to whether we can detect genuine acts of God because we are able to assess what is most likely physically impossible and determine that a given incident is very likely an act of God. It's God's creation; He can do with it what He wants any way He wants, whether this means acting through natural timing or intervening directly in defiance of "the rules."

Errr.... M entails ~M is not an expression I'd agree with. In any case, your argument doesn't work as broadly as you want. All I may have proven is that goodness is not a great-making property. However, in all honesty, I have not proven that maximal goodness entails non-maximal goodness, or that moral perfection entails imperfection, I've proven that moral perfection is not possible as the scale increases infinitely. Goodness can still be good, we just can't have a property of maximality. Your argument disagrees with a lot of direct intuitions about properties that we know scale infinitely. (it's also not that great of an argument)[/quote]

The problem with this is that you have stated a logical contradiction:





You are so out of date with this.. at least you have read enough philosophy to have understood Voltaire... but your education must not have continued past that point. What you have completely rejected is the principle of sufficient reason and the concept of maximal greatness. Firstly the principle of sufficient reason holds that God only needs a sufficient reason in order to remain logically coherent. A view that is supported by the majority of philosophers, including many atheists (hence the end of the logical problem of evil). The problem for you is that under the principle of sufficient reason there is no act for which a morally perfect being would not have a sufficient reason. A morally perfect being ENTAILS its having a sufficient reason by logical necessity. The only way you have subverted that is by saying that maximal greatness +1 would be better than maximal greatness. The issue is that Maximal greatness is maximal greatness and adding plus one is a logical contradiction. Following the principle of explosion, you can assert anything from this contradiction... hence your argument fails.



Nope, if you are arguing the concept of God the only thing that needs to be added to this is objective morality... which you already stated is implicit in the argument.



So if it is fair to assume that objective morality exists then it entails by necessity that the principle of sufficient reason would also apply.



I do not know what definition of naturalism you are using, because it certainly does entail that there is nothing non-naturalistic:

Naturalism is the belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world. (OED)



Naturalism entails that it is a properly basic belief, since it makes an absolute claim to be foundational.



If it entrails there is nothing outside of itself... which naturalism does... it by default claims logical truths as part of its own system... you cannot prove it without reference to it... hence it is circular in its reasoning and cannot be argued for in the way MP was attempting.

The "eye of the needle" was like an "emergency gate" in the wall of the city, and that gate was used to let someone in at night without opening the regular gate and exposing everyone in the city to danger. It was actually quite possible for a camel to pass through that gate, but everything being carried, treasures or whatever else, first had to be unloaded and abandoned outside ... and then the camel had to get on its knees to crawl through ...

... and the one place in Scripture where a man asks what he must do to be saved, he is given essentially the same answer.


Then you should not have said what you did.


Same response.


Whew. That would wear me out.


No way in hell, and if anyone ever wants to completely devastate my faith, they would only need to prove God had done that even just once.

Last edited by leejosepho on 14 May 2011, 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

......... 91, the argument you use is still a failure. You're explicitly begging the question as you are assuming God in your attack against arguments that God does not exist.

If we do not assume this, then an argument is needed.

Even further, the Principle of Sufficient Reason isn't really a theological principle, it's a much more general principle about how everything ought to have a reason why it is, and skeptics have used it to argue against positions, such as foundationalism, as they see foundations as often being ad hoc rejections of the principle of sufficient reason.

As for "maximal greatness + 1" is a logical contradiction? Yes, yes it is. But holding that better =< good is also obviously false. That's the basic underlying rationale behind such an argument. A failure to understand this is just inexcusable.


91, no, you are begging the question on God's existence in using this argument. This is a plain and clear failing. There is no debating this.


No, it wouldn't. The issue is that we are arguing an incompatibility claim. We are not holding God's existence as an axiom, as that's the only point where this would apply. (As well, you're misinterpreting the principle of sufficient reason by pretending it is something special in the philosophy of religion, rather than a general philosophical point by Liebniz, and one of the basic objections to libertarian free will comes from it violating the principle of sufficient reason by putting forward actions that lack sufficient reason)


Err.... ok??

It doesn't entail anything non-naturalistic, you've just made a basic and egregious error. I cannot understand how someone can make an error like this either, as it doesn't follow from your definition at all.


No it doesn't. The definition you just presented never said anything of the sort. This is ridiculous, and a claim not made by naturalists.


Umm.... this fails because all of these beliefs hold that logical truths are true.

What you are claiming is so confused that I don't even want to know how anybody could be so foolish as to make this error. It is revoltingly bad. It is pretty obvious as an error. This is just ridiculous.

You added nothing new... just more bluster and double standard... Everything you just said has already been address... I rest on my last post... unless you want to say something original.