Saying goodbye

[Paulomycin]

This is abductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.

1. That's your claim, so prove it.

2. The causal argument also pre-dates Charles Sanders Peirce's abduction by nearly 400 years. My variation of this is clear example of "argument by elimination," which also qualifies as deductive.

This last part is the key flaw:

"Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited."

In reality, it is "Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all known rational options have been cited."

You're holding out for a purely imaginary placeholder that you can't rationally fill. You continually argue that indeterminates are somehow determinate, and therefore worth considering.

The burden of proof is on you to show deductively that there cannot logically be another option.

Again, you're holding out for a purely imaginary placeholder that you can't rationally fill. You continually argue that indeterminates are somehow determinate, and therefore worth considering.

If I did this, I could just follow atheists around on the daily with, "But what-if you're wrong? What-if you're wrong? Therefore, I'm right." Dirty pool, old man.

 

[Paulomycin]

So please clarify for me: do you believe that a person dies and then immediately goes to heaven?

Yes. Please review absolutely every word of your own question before replying.

When you say "you have to die before going to heaven", that's what it implies. You body dies, but you - your soul, your personality, your essence - lives on.

"You[r] body dies, but. . ." <-- Don't strain yourself with that reach. You've already admitted to an initial (first) death here.

Think it over. When I say "if God's basic nature. . .

You had me at "if." The speculative "if" gives me the option to chase it or seriously question why an atheist is trying to disprove purely speculative fiction with. . .purely speculative fiction.

"God is good" will always be true to you, for you have defined goodness as being God's nature. The problem is, you now have no way to explain what "goodness" means.

Goodness means God. It's literally exclusive to God alone. -Mark 10:18

Try completing this sentence: "God is good because..."

Because that (really) is His nature. Easy-peasy. See, you're hung-up on this metaphysical standard of "good" that you yourself cannot account for. A theoretical morality, that even God Himself would be subordinate to. <-- But that would mean God is not omnipotent.

There is no higher standard of morality than God alone.

You'll find you can't do it, except by saying "because He is God" or "because it is His nature to be." This means that you are, essentially, saying nothing more than "God is God", which gives us no information about what goodness is.

Because you assume we're using "goodness" as a separate metaphysical descriptive. We are not. You cannot even account for moral "good" without God. Even the presuppositionalists get that.

You're right; I do have to account for these things. But how I do so is a different debating topic.

^ I'm never allowed to get away with that dodge. What makes you so special?

Again: you're just playing logic games because you have no actual evidence for God's existence, any more than you can explain what goodness means.

Logic is the biggest game in town. It's a game with rules. Either you're in or out.

You're just trying to define both of them into existence.

No. If you accept logic as universal, then the modus ponens and PSR put you through the wringer. You're more than welcome to reject logic to escape God, but that's a heavy price you don't want to pay. Logic is math-based. Proof is exclusive to math. Thus, the modus ponens is not only valid, but also sound.

You've just dismantled your own argument. If logic was discovered, not invented, it did not require a Grand Logician (ie, God) to invent it.

^ Circular argument. If logic is invented, then there would be no reason to invent it in the first place. You're claiming that there was a time when no reason existed. . .for no reason.

Logic is simply us observing ways in which the universe works.

In which case, you're equivocating logic itself. Bad move.

Its laws are prescriptive, not descriptive.

^ Is that a typo? Because that's actually my line.

You're welcome. Why you think this helps you is beyond me.

"If program, then programmer." If the universe is a computer program, then it logically follows that there is a programmer. If the cosmos appears ordered, then it logically follows that there is an Orderer. etc.

Of course it doesn't. Why does "everything exists" lead to the supposition that "there must be a Person who controls everything that exists?"

Why does your special pleading have to come into this?

Moral Orel has already answered this:
"In reality, it is "Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all known rational options have been cited."
The burden of proof is on you to show deductively that there cannot logically be another option."

Which I refuted. There is no such thing as a determined indeterminate. You people are just contradicting yourselves. I never claimed a negative, "that there cannot logically be another option," and I don't have to prove a negative. You're welcome.

A fallacy? In what way?

I literally said the fallacy of begging the question. Quote: "You're more than welcome to imply the universe is "just there" without explanation, as a question-begging fallacy."

We know that the universe is here. We don't yet know why.

1. Claiming the statement, "We don't yet know why," and then claiming that this statement is equivalent to the determinate answer is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. IOW, "I don't know" is never the answer for anything. It's like taking an exam and filling out all the write-in answers with "I don't know," and then expecting your teacher to give you a passing grade. Ridiculous.

2. You should at the very least feel some purely rational frustration with the universe begging the question of its own existence. But you don't, because the logical fallacy makes you feel good about being an atheist. You just have to wake up every morning and force it on the rest of the world as-if it were rational, when it really isn't.

Even granting that, for the moment, your "tiny handful of facts" do not seem very useful to you.

Logic stacks. MUH is rational. <-- The wider reality that governs material nature is unfalsifiable. Supernature is rational.

As I said: you don't seem to be making much sense.

Because you demand the right to special plead Principle of Sufficient Reason. You want to write your own exceptions to reason itself.

Sure I am! That's how a debate works. You make your arguments. I refute them.

Only objective refutations count. This isn't about your will. Any moron can "nuh-uh" their way out of a jam. I'm holding you to a higher standard than that.

Because I pointed out the flaws in your arguments. If you want to ignore that, you can. I can lead you to water, but can't force you to drink.

*ahem* "Nuh-uh!" <-- Did the magic work? Or is it just when you do it?

- You're not the judge of what is "good" evidence and what isn't. Flaws in evidence can only be submitted as objective flaws. Not subjective flaws.
- Evidence is objective; not subjective. So your subjective assessments never count.
- You have cited no objective flaws in the causal argument. Assertions without evidence to the contrary don't count. "Flawed" is not a magic word that creates real flaws.

No, you haven't. Because we don't know what this cause was.

Yet you are admitting "cause." <-- The deductive proof follows from there.

Sure they all have the same thing in common. They all ask you to believe in them without proof, and you don't, because it would be foolish to.

No. They're all materialistic empirical claims; every one of them. And they always come around every generation or so to replace the old tired-out one that preceded it.

They also have this in common with God, which is exactly the point. It doesn't matter what qualities you say God has; until you've proven that He exists, these mean nothing.

Hold up. Pay attention here and don't skim-past this: The definition of terms is always necessary before proof can even be demonstrated. I agree with igtheists and ignostics. They are correct on one highly relevant detail you are missing here--the definition of "God." I only define "God" as an omnipotent being. Not, "The God of the Bible," because I'm not a presuppositionalist. The Bible is Special Revelation; not General Revelation in nature. Your definition of "god" or "god(s)" doesn't count here, because I'm accepting the burden of proof. So in the end, it's first definition of terms in the claim; then prove the claim.

But you can know that. You can examine the car and see.

^ Special pleading. You can examine the universe and see.

God, on the other hand, cannot be examined. You should be careful with your analogies, because this one is just obviously wrong.

The existence of "God" can obviously be examined when contrasted against a finite universe. Granted God cannot be known exhaustively, but that's not necessary, we already know enough that we are without excuse.

It's not a double standard. I quite accept that you are capable of making logical arguments. The fact that you haven't does not at all mean that you can't.

Then how do you know I'm even capable of making logical arguments to begin with? You've never seen any. Why contradict yourself? You reject law of causality. You reject modus ponens. You reject PSR. You reject pretty much all the logic that I'm appealing to. You think appeal to ignorance is "the answer" for literally everything. You think gainsaying is rational. You think logic is invented without the prior existence of logic itself (quack-quack). You essentially reject law of identity. You think an indeterminate is a determinate claim. Need I go on? I think it's pretty clear where the misology really comes from here.

I would very much like to read that! No, I'm afraid the website you sent does not open. Are you aware that there are quite a number of parts of the internet that it is difficult to access in China?

What a convenient loophole you discovered! Since your "internet disability" doesn't allow external (neutral POV) verification, then this means I can pretty much ignore everything you argue on those very same grounds.

Perhaps you could copy and paste the article so I can read it? Or find it on a different website? Or you could tell me the name of the article. I can probably find it if I search.

I'll copypaste it in the next post, but then you can then immediately move the goalposts and reject it because you can't verifiy it for certain that Harris wrote it, or that I didn't doctor the contents.

 

[Paulomycin]

Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix?

by Sam Harris

April 20, 2011

Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix? | Sam Harris

Many people have noticed that there seem to be no new arguments for the truth of any of the world’s religions. I recently stumbled upon one, however, and it has given me a moment’s pause.

The Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that our entire cosmos could be running as a simulation on a supercomputer of the future. This, needless to say, is a bizarre claim, but it can be defended with a few surprisingly plausible assumptions:

Bostrom’s first premise is that human consciousness is the product of information processing in the brain. If this is correct, there is probably nothing magical about having the wet stuff of neurons doing the work, and it should be possible to instantiate minds like our own on a computer. Human consciousness, therefore, would be platform independent.

There are smart people who will leap off this train before it leaves the station—the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose thinks that consciousness cannot be the result of mere computation; the computer scientist David Gelernter* believes that consciousness is a matter of computation, but there must be something special about biological neurons. However, these appear to be minority opinions in the scientific community. The assumption that minds like our own could, in principle, be realized on a computer seems to be on reasonably firm ground.

Bostrom’s second assumption is that if we survive the next few centuries without annihilating ourselves, it is just a matter of time before we build computers capable of running virtual worlds populated by virtual people. Our descendants will likely do this, the way we create video games like The Sims. They might create virtual worlds where simulated ancestors live in circumstances very much like our own. In his paper, Bostrom justifies this assumption using known principles of computation and without assuming any breakthroughs in physics.

Given these premises—that human consciousness is purely the product of computation; that our computing power will continue to grow; and that our descendants will build simulated worlds—it seems tempting to conclude that simulated people will eventually outnumber all the real people who have ever lived. Statistically, therefore, it is more likely that we are simulated ancestors, living in a simulated world, rather than real ancestors of the real, supercomputing people of the future.

This is, of course, a very strange idea. And here is my own contribution: add to this strangeness the possibility that the supercomputing people of the future will build into their virtual worlds the truth of Mormonism, or some other faith that seems like it could not possibly be true at present. In which case, we may, in fact, be living in a world in which Jesus will return on clouds of glory to judge the living and the dead. Perversely, this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy: given how beguiled people have been by religious mythology throughout our history, our descendants might engineer specific religious doctrines into their virtual worlds just for the hell of it.

Of course, this is not an entirely serious conjecture, but it is not entirely unserious either. It isn’t obvious to me that there is something wrong with Bostrom’s simulation argument. It really does seem that one of these propositions must be true: Either (1) consciousness is not a matter of computation and cannot be simulated, or (2) we never do simulate it as a matter of fact (perhaps because we destroy ourselves in the interim), or (3) we stand a good chance of living in a simulation—to which I add a theological twist: This simulated cosmos might be every bit as ridiculous as Joseph Smith said it was.

* [Note: A reader, Graham Warner, has pointed out that my original inclusion of the philosopher John Searle along with David Gelernter was misleading, and I agree. Searle often argues that “information” and “computation” do not exist in the real world, the way synapses and electrical potentials do, and this view leads him to resist any description of the human mind as the product of “information processing” or of the brain as a biological “computer.” However, Searle does not actually deny that consciousness could be instantiated on a nonbiological “computer” that emulated all the causal properties of the human brain.]

 

[Paulomycin]

The point is that Paul had affection for Onesimus. How much affection he had is beside the point.

That is, in fact, the entire point. You don't love a mere slave as "my son" (verse 10). As his own heart (verse 12). As a beloved brother (verse 16). You're blind to the love, man.

How much affection he had is beside the point. The point is, he sent him back to his master.

As a brother, wanting Philemon to accept Onesimus, no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Boom. Your cherrypicking here is done.

You say that there was a Hebrew law that said that escaped slaves should not be returned to their masters.

As slaves. Paul did not violate any law. Onesimus was emancipated at his salvation, his status changed, and returned to Philemon as a "slave no longer" - Philemon 1:16 You're now doubling-down and accusing a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" and a Pharisee of blatantly violating Deuteronomy 23:15-16. I was waiting for when you'd throw Paul under the bus. No surprise.

I've shown how that was wrong, because it was strictly in the context of an Israelite army attacking other tribes. God was saying, "If a slave from the enemy you are attacking escapes and joins you, you shall not return the slave to them because they are your enemy."

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 does not say, "slave from the enemy you're attacking. . ." Now you're desperately trying to add more specific context than is even in the verse. The HCSB translation even heads the passage RE: "Fugitive Slaves." Doesn't matter where they originated. It's all slaves in-general. Direct verbatum quote:

“Do not return a slave to his master when he has escaped from his master to you. 16 Let him live among you wherever he wants within your gates. Do not mistreat him."

Again, you just took the sentence out of context;

There is no extra "enemy" context in that passage. You added "enemy" to it and made it your own imaginary "context."

I hope that now you understand why you are incorrect. Take a look:

*reading*

1. It doesn't say, "And do not return said aforementioned enemy slaves to his master when he has escaped from his master to you."

2. Escape would necessarily happen at home, after the slave has been taken back and/or sold to a master. In war, they're just a POW. They're not a slave yet, because none of the soldiers have been decommissioned to civilian duty.

3. Why would enemy slaves get an exemption exclusive only to foreigners, but not a native-born Hebrew? Nope, there's only one law, both for the stranger and the native. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, and Numbers 15:16. You can't push a double-standard on the law of Moses.

4. Since all Hebrew slaves are granted a mandatory seven-year manumission

The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel

19th century commentaries aren't canon either.

It seems, from the connection, that this has a particular relation to times of war, when heathen soldiers or servants might desert and come over to the Israelites with intent to turn proselytes to the true religion.

Then the commentator needs to address 1-3 above. How do I know this commentator didn't have a bias towards the Fugitive Slave Acts of the 1850s? I don't.

I'm totally within my rights to argue with these commentators, and it doesn't include all of them on that page either. There is no consensus that this was exclusive to just foreign captives. How can you be a slave when you're still a POW who hasn't been sold into slavery yet?

Then why did you mention him?

His justification for Civil Rights from scripture. Not on his authority alone, but on his reliance of the Bible.

And yes, since the Bible is entirely pro-slavery, Martin Luther King would hardly be able to make a case for civil rights based on it. Good on him for trying, of course, and if Christians failed to properly understand the bible and so were influenced to the good, that's fine. But make no mistake: if you actually read and follow the Bible, you must be in favour of slavery, because it is.

Wow, you're becoming more Confederate every day! Way to throw MLK under the bus there, or should I say you just threw him in the back of it?

You're just making my case for me. Paul knew that Jessu' kingdom was not of this earth, but while we are on this earth he was just fine with slavery.

This is like saying Jesus is just fine with sin because He didn't abolish all sin while He was still alive, right then and there.

And you can call Pastor Warren a heretic all you like, but since you've so far failed to prove any of his arguments wrong, it's plain who is really following the Bible here (Pastor Warren is, if I need to spell it out).

He's a double-standard heretic; preaching that some people are only 3/5ths Imago Dei.

Paul never actually stated that he was pro-slavery? When he said that slaves should obey their masters and not be disobedient? Do you need him to spell it out?

To convert them. To keep the peace. Not because he was "pro-slavery." Listen, baby-killing abortionists exist. Just because I concede that fact, and allow them to live peacefully right next door to me doesn't make me "pro-choice." It's about priorities. Paul's priorities were clear in 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Activism against Rome was illegal. Paul could not legislate against sin. <-- The gospel subverts it.

"Slaves, be good slaves for your masters. Masters, be good masters to your slaves.
Paul can't make it simpler than that.

What part of, "do the same things," and, "giving up threatening" are you failing to comprehend here?

Quote: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free."

9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, [in addition to] giving up threatening," <-- "Them" refers to the bondservants. Not other masters.

So to the masters, it would literally read as, "Masters, be obedient to those who are your bondservants according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free, in addition to giving up threatening."

Masters are not brothers to slaves. Slaves are not brothers of masters. The distinction cannot be ignored.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're holding out for a purely imaginary placeholder that you can't rationally fill.

Yes, that's the claim you need to prove to show that your argument is deductive. Unless you know and can prove that there are no other alternatives, then your argument is abductive.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, that's the claim you need to prove to show that your argument is deductive. Unless you know and can prove that there are no other alternatives, then your argument is abductive.

You're demanding that I prove a negative. If you ask me to "prove no other alternatives," then in all fairness I can demand that you prove God doesn't exist.

Fair is fair. Please don't push your double standards on me.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're demanding that I prove a negative.

I'm demanding that you prove your claims. If you don't want to prove a negative claim, then don't make negative claims. If you don't support your claims, positive or negative, then everyone is free to dismiss them.

I can demand that you prove God doesn't exist.

If I ever make that claim you can, otherwise no, you'd have no grounds to make such a demand.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm demanding that you prove your claims.

I'm not claiming a negative. I don't have to prove a negative. You don't get to dictate how argument by elimination works.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not claiming a negative.

Yes you are. Here it is again:

You're holding out for a purely imaginary placeholder that you can't rationally fill.

I don't have to prove a negative.

You have to prove your claims. So if your claims are negative, then you have to prove a negative claim. I'm sorry, I know that's difficult.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes you are.

You are badgering me, and I know my rights. I'm not making a negative claim. I don't have to prove a negative claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not making a negative claim. I don't have to prove a negative claim.

Okay, if you don't want to prove your negative claim, prove the version phrased as a positive claim:

To account for ultimate cause, the only options* are as follows:

- Chance
- Intent
- A material cause.

This:

*Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

is not proof of your claim. It is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. "Unless you prove me wrong, I am right".

 

[Paulomycin]

is not proof of your claim. It is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. "Unless you prove me wrong, I am right".

There are only three options. Period. If you want a fourth option, you must (a.) claim it, (b.) define your terms, and then (c.) prove your positive claim. You carry the burden of proof for any claims over and beyond three!

 

[Moral Orel]

There are only three options. Period.

Yes, this is the claim I'm talking about. Please prove it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, this is the claim I'm talking about. Please prove it.

You're demanding that I prove your desire for a fourth, because you don't want to take on the burden of proof.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're demanding that I prove your desire for a fourth, because you don't want to take on the burden of proof.

I'm demanding you prove your claims. You can't, so we can all safely dismiss your argument and I'll move on.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm demanding you prove your claims. You can't, so we can all safely dismiss your argument and I'll move on.

The options are deductive possibilities put through the process of elimination. Of which, there are only three; no more. And there's nothing you can rationally do about it.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm demanding you prove your claims. You can't, so we can all safely dismiss your argument and I'll move on.

You cannot "safely" dismiss my argument. God exists, and for the umpteenth time was proven via deductive elimination.

 

[Moral Orel]

Of which, there are only three; no more.

This is your claim and it is dismissed because it is without evidence. That's why your argument is dismissed because your argument rests on a premise with no evidence to support it.

 

[Paulomycin]

This is your claim and it is dismissed because it is without evidence.

This is a deductive proof. It is not inductive evidence. Please learn the difference between proof vs. evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is a deductive proof.

No, it's a claim. It is an assertion. A proof is an argument. "There are only three" is not an argument or a proof.