Atheist fundamentalism is a sad phenomenon. Examples of it are provided below from comments made on this post.
Agreus
“Yes it’s a poor argument. The argument is deductively valid, as is the following:
If large green peas, then Jolly Green Giant. Large green peas. Jolly Green Giant.
Obviously, this isn’t a good argument for the existence of the Jolly Green Giant. Yet Chris, who supposedly is a huge proponent of TAG, seems to think these types of arguments are pretty convincing arguments for the existence of God.”
Agreus is referring to TAG here and is asserting that it is a “poor argument”. At this point in the discussion, he still has not told us exactly why it is a poor argument (and still has not). He admits that the argument is deductively valid and provides another example of a deductively valid argument. It is not very clear why he provides the other argument. Nevertheless, I have seen the same kind of action taken on atheist blogs and websites. Perhaps atheists think that writing out other arguments with apparently absurd premises and conclusions justifies their rejection of the argument which is actually the topic of discussion. In any event, the argument that Agreus offers pertaining to the Jolly Green Giant has nothing to do with the examples of TAG which were provided except that both arguments are deductively valid. Agreus asserts that it is obvious that the Jolly Green Giant argument is not a good argument for the existence of the Jolly Green Giant but does not tell us why. Likewise for TAG. Contrary to what Agreus writes about me, I do not think that his argument for the Jolly Green Giant nor allegedly analogous arguments constitute “pretty convincing” arguments for the existence of God. Most deductively valid arguments have nothing to do with the existence of God. Aside from this, an argument can in fact be sound yet not convincing. There is a difference between proof and persuasion.
Claudio Querido
“P1 – If knowledge, then God
How can there be knowledge if reality is only a product of God’s mind? If truth or falsehood in the Universe can be revised according to somebody’s whims, then it doesn’t make sense to call it reality anymore, no matter who is the revisor.
P2- Knowledge – In a subjective Universe? I don’ t think so.
P3 – Therefore, God exists…in your imagination.
Unless you can come up with a definition of God that is coherent, we can feel free to affirm with all letters that such a contradiction doesn’t exist. As a being that “creates” reality and give objects their identities, his inexistence is 100 % garanteed. Your definiton of God is all proof of his inexistence one can possibly need.”
Claudio has made up a position and started arguing against it, but the position he is arguing against is not that of the Christian. Since God is real, reality is not only a product of God’s mind. He argues against another straw man when he attributes a belief to Christians along the lines of God revising truth and falsehood according to His “whims”. Hey, it sounds nice, but it has nothing to do with the position Claudio is supposedly engaging. Claudio then implies that the universe on the Christian view is “subjective”. I am not sure what this even means as it is stated, but have my suspicions that Claudio is an “Objectivist”. As such, Claudio is objecting to nothing more than God’s sovereignty based upon his dislike of it. He then asserts that God exists “in your imagination”. Of course he does not offer anything by way of argument for this assertion, but fundy atheists rarely do so. He next assumes that there is no coherent definition of God, but does not provide anything by way of why it is that the definitions of God he has encountered are incoherent. Claudio apparently believes that since God creates, God cannot exist. I miss how this strange assertion accomplishes anything. Claudio refers to “your definition of God” and cites it as being proof that God does not exist. Again; no further explanation is provided. We have a decent sample of atheist preaching, but nothing more.
The Secular Walk
“@Mr. Bolt:
Many people often consider TAG to be both circular and unstated because when one views the argument one gets the feeling that there must be more to it, because the argument is just a bunch of bare assertions. So that moves some people to say the argument is unstated; And in it’s unstated format the argument is patently circular. However those people don’t realize that TAG basically has no more supporting premises. That it really is fully stated, and that it’s just a circular argument plain and simple. That’s how they are both “consistent” with each other.
“Many people often consider TAG to be both circular and unstated”
Have you experienced many people doing this?
“…because when one views the argument”
How does one “view” an unstated argument?
“…one gets the feeling that there must be more to it,”
Well obviously if the argument has not even been stated, there must be more to “it”.
“…because the argument is just a bunch of bare assertions.”
Arguments are composed of assertions. I do not see any problem there except for you, because you would want to simultaneously hold that the argument is both stated and not stated.
If you’re saying instead that the argument is merely an assertion, then recall that I’ve already dealt with this. A mere assertion is not an argument and cannot be properly labeled “circular”.
“So that moves some people to say the argument is unstated;”
Well I just showed why what they are saying does not make any sense.
“And in it’s unstated format the argument is patently circular.”
What does “unstated format” mean? How can an unstated argument have “format”? How can it even properly be called an argument? All you’re doing here is asserting that TAG, as an argument in “unstated format”, whatever that means, is “patently circular”. But this cannot be, as the two charges are inconsistent with one another. Merely asserting the opposite is not much of an answer to the problem, I’m afraid.
“However those people don’t realize that TAG basically has no more supporting premises.”
They don’t? Who are these people again, and how do you know that they don’t know? Maybe it would help if you could state TAG as you conceive of it so we can see what you mean about there being “no more supporting premises”. Of course “no more supporting premises” implies that there are some premises…and if you stated the argument it would no longer be unstated…and even if we had some mixed up bundle of premises which did not constitute an argument they still could not be called circular… Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean by providing an example.
“That it really is fully stated,”
Then it’s not unstated, is it?
“…and that it’s just a circular argument plain and simple.”
Circular arguments are typically stated so far as I know. Can you provide me with an example of an unstated circular argument?
“That’s how they are both ‘consistent’ with each other.”
Your explanation does not actually cohere, so you have not yet come close to reconciling the two. I’m not even sure why you would think that you had done so when you explicitly state, “That it [TAG] is really fully stated.” How can TAG be stated and unstated?
You may want to give this some more thought.
The Secular Walk
@Mr Bolt
“Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean by providing an example.”
Here’s an example that shows how TAG is a fallacious circular argument:
Premise 1A: “If knowledge then God”
Premise 2A: “knowledge”
Conclusion A: “therefore God”
The argument above is fallacious because the second premise does nothing to substantiate the initial claim in {P1}
It’s that simple. TAG is an extremely bad argument.
The Secular Walk,
I asked, “Can you provide me with an example of an unstated circular argument?”
In response you provided a stated argument. That’s not unstated. So you did not provide an example of what I asked for.
Not only is what you wrote not relevant to what you wrote before and ignores my counter to your original comment, but it makes very little sense.
The premises of any argument like the one you stated above (which is an instance of Modus Ponens) are to be “substantiated” by other arguments, evidences, etc. given in support of the premises.
Yeah, it’s “simple”, but you have not shown that TAG is “an extremely bad argument.” You’ve instead merely asserted it after I refuted your last comment and then showed that you likely do not really have what it takes to keep up on this one right now. :/
I’d encourage you to read through the discussion very carefully and give it some more thought. You might also want to purchase or check out an introduction to logic textbook. I recommend Copi.”
It looks as though The Secular Walk did not take my advice. Instead, he attempted to change the topic of the discussion and things got worse from there on out.
@Mr. Bolt
Ok, let me give you a fair opportunity to substantiate why if knowledge exists, then God exists. Why does knowledge necessitate God?
Notice that The Secular Walk has completely abandoned his previous line of reasoning. He did not explain how what he wrote before was not blatantly contradictory, and he did not answer my questions.
Exactly Agreus; I tried to point this out to Mr. Bolt but he decided to red herring to his unstated/circular distraction, instead of dealing with the real issue. Whether TAG is valid and sound, and proves God.
Comments like these make me wonder whether or not people like The Secular Walk are just trolls. The Secular Walk has accused me of a red herring. This is rather amusing for a number of reasons. First, note what The Secular Walk was trying to establish when he initially commented. Second, note that when I responded to The Secular Walk with what was wrong with his comments, he changed the subject. Third, note that there was a reason for The Secular Walk initially responding the way that he did…it was the topic of the post. Unfortunately for The Secular Walk, the “unstated/circular” issue is not a “distraction” at all, it’s the entire point of the post that he tried and failed to satisfactorily respond to. A distinguishing feature of fundamentalist atheists is their apparent inability to be able to stay on topic when they are pressed for answers concerning their initial assertions. We have a good example here in the case of The Secular Walk, who wishes to discuss whether “TAG is valid and sound, and proves God”. (Of course, part of the discussion The Secular Walk supposedly wants to have is the discussion he wants to avoid – namely – how TAG can be both unstated and yet circular.)
“I’m still waiting on a substantiation from you Mr. Bolt, on why Knowledge/logic necessitates God.”
One must wonder why The Secular Walk was waiting on a response to something that was not relevant to the refutation he received nor the topic that was being discussed. Perhaps it is the case that The Secular Walk is guilty of the very red herring he incorrectly attempted to ascribe to me.
“Too long of a lag time in response means I can conclude your position is false”
Of course “too long” is subjective and even if I were to have taken “too long” the conclusion that my position is false does not at all follow. The truth of a position does not depend upon the length of time an adherent to that position takes to respond to a fundy atheist on a blog. Surely The Secular Walk knows this? If I were an atheist I would be pretty thoroughly embarrassed right about now. Is the desperation on the part of fundy atheists so great that they must use such absurd reasoning in an effort to declare victory?
“…because you either can’t answer, won’t, or did not respond in a timely manner, such that I can move on, assured my position has not been impugned.”
Unfortunately for The Secular Walk his position has “been impugned”. Recall that I refuted the claims he was making in his comments. He wanted to move on after that.
@Nick F, Chis Bolt, etc
(irritated sigh)
(He should put himself in my shoes!)
“Can any of the opposition here/theists, stop with these silly little distractions”
Not when The Secular Walk kept bringing up such silly little distractions.
“…and red herrings like unstated this,”
Again, that was the topic of the post, not a red herring, and The Secular Walk knows this because it is what he initially commented about.
“…or harping about timely manner,”
If I said that it was not amusing to see a complaint concerning the very thing that he brought up then I would be lying.
“…and get to the important issue here. Can you prove God with TAG”
Probably not, if TAG is both unstated and circular, but no one has shown how both of these objections can be the case.
“…or am I correct in my Strong Atheism?”
Even if TAG could not be used to prove the existence of God it would not follow that Strong Atheism is correct.
“So again I ask, can Mr. Bolt, or Nick, give logical, empirical, observational, or scientific substantiation for why logic/knowledge necessitates the existence of God?”
Actually he did not ask this once, so he cannot ask it “again”. Regardless, it was irrelevant to the discussion.
“Stop messing around with nonsense and get to the important question here.”
That would require that I not respond to The Secular Walk’s wishful thinking.
“And I didn’t set an arbitrary timeline for truth. I said I CAN CONCLUDE…(I) can conclude.”
No, you cannot.
“This is reasonable.”
No, it is not.
“If you ask a female for a date, and she takes minutes to answer, YOU can conclude, that she either doesn’t want to go, or at the very least, can’t answer right now because she’s not sure.”
There are countless other explanations as to why a “female” might take minutes to answer concerning a date. For example, perhaps she is waiting for The Secular Walk to refer to her as something other than “female” before answering. One can no more draw the conclusion that The Secular Walk wants to here than one can in the case of how long it takes me to respond to The Secular Walk. The analogy The Secular Walk attempted to make is not even valid.
“There’s a reasonable time for any response. This is like a debate but in written format. If you asked someone in a face to face debate to give a logical account of something, and they are silent for 10 minutes, one can conclude the question has revealed that their position is false or illogical.”
One can conclude this, but is the conclusion correct? So long as some other reason might be produced for the silence the conclusion is dubitable. Even in this narrow hypothetical other reasons for the silence would need to be rule out. One obvious alternative conclusion is that the person debating just does not have an answer. Another is that he or she is not very skilled at debate. It does not follow that the position held is false or illogical. Again, this is not even analogous to the situation that The Secular Walk was trying to draw conclusions about anyway. I was not in a face to face debate with The Secular Walk during a cross examination period anymore than I am a “female” he has asked on a date.
“If their position was correct, they would not be silent for no 10 MINUTES. That’s common sense.”
No, that’s an incorrect assertion and wishful thinking without any argument to back it up.
“What are you supposed to do? Sit there and left them think about it for 2 hours? No; There’s a reasonable timeline.”
One wonders why this worries The Secular Walk so much when he is not in this position at all.
“In this format, a few days is the most”
The Secular Walk’s reasoning here is that if he posts a comment on a website that does not even relate to the topic being discussed and then the person he directed it toward does not answer within two days then that person’s position is false. Oh if only it were that easy! 🙂
“…because you have to know people have social lives /obligations, and are not on the computer all day.”
Perhaps that is the reason the person did not view the comment worth responding to immediately?
“What are you supposed to do, check in regularly for 2 weeks until they MAY respond. That dog don’t hunt.”
🙂
Hopefully The Secular Walk will check back in. If anyone knows how to get in touch with him then please let him know that I would like to invite him to debate me on the topic of the existence of God one evening the week after next (the week of June 13th) on Skype. I hope that in that context he may have some of his questions answered directly and without any more than a minute of “lag”.
Leave a Reply