Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MOJO-JOJO · 05-13-2002, 09:27 AM

I came across this argument by "post-it" at the Baptist Board. Underscores the fact that they are truly living in a fantasy world.

What do you think?

quote:
Originally posted by chekmate:

quote:
(post-it) You just made a contradiction fallacy. If God is unknowable, then one could not know God.

(Checkmate)

I think that's his point. You can't know that God exists. You can believe or have faith that he exists, but you can't know it because of the very nature of him being a god.

(post-it speaking again)
I knew someone would try to make that claim. 99percent didn't come back to argue it because he knew he made the contradiction.

In an argument, all the premises must be usable, otherwise you must draw your conclusion from only that which is used. In [t]his argument, when you disallow the 2nd premise, you can only conclude the original premise which is "God is unknowable." But that would be non sequitur since he has not supported that God is unknowable with any other premises. So his entire argument failed.

Checkmate, before its over, you will see that there is NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA arguments being made by atheists that can stand. Not a one. The well seasoned higher up atheists even admit it, it's just they don't tell other atheists...like you. Ask your atheist leaders if that is not a true statement."

Err...okay....Hey Atheist Leaders!! Is this a TRUE Statement?? Is the Christian position really the clear winner here as he thinks it is? Or has Homer Simpson here been smoking somethin' funny?

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]

Clutch · 05-13-2002, 09:52 AM

Er... I can see why you're baffled. I am, of course, only an Lieutenant-Colonel Third Class, in the Ontario Cadre of Atheist Dominion. But could you give the url for this, so I can get a look at the argument alluded to? What's the second premise, for instance? Thanks. If I can't explain this for you, I'll pass it along to my superiors, who are currently away at the leadership summit meetings...

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

chekmate · 05-13-2002, 10:13 AM

Boy oh Boy did that make my head hurt to hear him say that! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000697&p=" target="_blank">Here's the thread</a>
<a href="http://URL=http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000697;p=7" target="_blank">Here's the page where it was said</a>

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: chekmate ]

Clutch · 05-13-2002, 10:45 AM

Alrighty, then!

Here are a few points that may be worth mentioning.

(1) There is no such thing as a 'contradiction fallacy', unless post-it just means that any statement correctly formalized as (p&~p) is false. But, well... nobody's said any such thing in this exchange. So it looks like he's pulling this out of his arse.

(2) The notion of 'usable' premises is a figment of his imagination. Premises can be true or false; warranted or unwarranted; relevant or irrelevant; but usable? Again, he's just making shit up.

(3) (Important!) Why the heck does the second premise get "disallowed"? What is that supposed to show? Take any argument at all and start arbitrarily disallowing premises -- golly, they're all going to end up committing "contradiction fallacies"! What a maroon.

(4) There are actually two arguments in 99percent's post; one inference is made between the first and second statements, and another between the second and third. The first argument is valid. God is unknowable; hence, if you can know X, X ain't God. Yep, that works. The second argument is invalid. If you can know X, X ain't God; hence, necessarily there is no god. Yuck. You need a supplementary premise to make this work: Necessarily, any truth is knowable. But of course, no theist who thought *that* would have asserted the first premise in any case. So overall this is a lousy argument.

(5) post-it's reply is full of shit. But a hyper-charitable reading of it would just take it to be the denial of 99's first premise. In fact, the via negativa conception of god is not widely accepted among Christians, though the Christian medievals flirted with it, and a rabbinical tradition tracing to Maimonides embraced it whole-hog (um, maybe not the best figure of speech. whatever.).

(6) A way to make something forceful out of 99's point might be to point out instances of apologists covertly relying on the unknowable conception of God -- as in finessing the problem of evil, perhaps -- and then just note how poorly that strategy squares with any sense that one can know, for instance, that God is good, that God cares about humanity, or really, anything that one might believe on the basis of a supposed *relationship* with Jesus.

(7) But, why bother? I am rationally justified in my positive disbelief in the existence of pink hippogriffs who do calculus on a contract basis while delivering pizza to the President of Ecuador. Because this is logically incoherent? Nope. Strong, or strong-ish, atheism does not require a demonstration of the logical impossibility of a god.

My two cents. But who knows what the Dear Leaders of our colony will say about it?

daemon · 05-13-2002, 10:49 AM

Ach! Zuper-zekret agent post-it hass obviously diskovered our zekret organization! Ve muzt get avay, mein infidel minions!

As a more serious reply, premises don't have to be supported by a logical argument, they're assumed to be true in the first place, so post-it's thing about the premise "God is unknowable" is hogwash.

Metacrock · 05-13-2002, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
Alrighty, then!

Here are a few points that may be worth mentioning.

(1) There is no such thing as a 'contradiction fallacy', unless post-it just means that any statement correctly formalized as (p&~p) is false. But, well... nobody's said any such thing in this exchange. So it looks like he's pulling this out of his arse.

(2) The notion of 'usable' premises is a figment of his imagination. Premises can be true or false; warranted or unwarranted; relevant or irrelevant; but usable? Again, he's just making shit up.

(3) (Important!) Why the heck does the second premise get "disallowed"? What is that supposed to show? Take any argument at all and start arbitrarily disallowing premises -- golly, they're all going to end up committing "contradiction fallacies"! What a maroon.

(4) There are actually two arguments in 99percent's post; one inference is made between the first and second statements, and another between the second and third. The first argument is valid. God is unknowable; hence, if you can know X, X ain't God. Yep, that works. The second argument is invalid. If you can know X, X ain't God; hence, necessarily there is no god. Yuck. You need a supplementary premise to make this work: Necessarily, any truth is knowable. But of course, no theist who thought *that* would have asserted the first premise in any case. So overall this is a lousy argument.

(5) post-it's reply is full of shit. But a hyper-charitable reading of it would just take it to be the denial of 99's first premise. In fact, the via negativa conception of god is not widely accepted among Christians, though the Christian medievals flirted with it, and a rabbinical tradition tracing to Maimonides embraced it whole-hog (um, maybe not the best figure of speech. whatever.).

(6) A way to make something forceful out of 99's point might be to point out instances of apologists covertly relying on the unknowable conception of God -- as in finessing the problem of evil, perhaps -- and then just note how poorly that strategy squares with any sense that one can know, for instance, that God is good, that God cares about humanity, or really, anything that one might believe on the basis of a supposed *relationship* with Jesus.

(7) But, why bother? I am rationally justified in my positive disbelief in the existence of pink hippogriffs who do calculus on a contract basis while delivering pizza to the President of Ecuador. Because this is logically incoherent? Nope. Strong, or strong-ish, atheism does not require a demonstration of the logical impossibility of a god.

My two cents. But who knows what the Dear Leaders of our colony will say about it?

OK, what's your rank in the atheist hierarchy? Maybe that's not true, I want to talk to the leader! I can't stop laughing about that!

Clutch · 05-13-2002, 11:39 AM

Quote:

premises don't have to be supported by a logical argument, they're assumed to be true in the first place, so post-it's thing about the premise "God is unknowable" is hogwash.

Well, post-it doesn't know anything about arguments. But obviously it's fair game to reject an argument on the grounds that its premises are false, and to regard it as indecisive on the grounds that its premises are simply unwarranted. It's not *grotesquely* charitable to read post-it as doing the latter.

And quite correctly, I would say. 99's first argument is valid but has a dubious sole premise (unless it's a response to someone earlier in the thread who espoused a via negativa view), and second argument is just invalid. Bad argument, bad response. Bad Religion, Bad Company, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Bad Minton...

Okay, stopping now.

hinduwoman · 05-14-2002, 05:32 PM

Take me to your leader!

Sorry, can't resist it.

Nickle · 05-14-2002, 05:53 PM

I would make a in-depth reply but Admiral Bill has me swabbing the deck.

(speling)

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]

99Percent · 05-14-2002, 06:56 PM

And quite correctly, I would say. 99's first argument is valid but has a dubious sole premise (unless it's a response to someone earlier in the thread who espoused a via negativa view), and second argument is just invalid. Bad argument, bad response. Bad Religion, Bad Company, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Bad Minton...

I bow to Clutch who is higher up in the Atheist chain of command <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

05-13-2002, 09:27 AM	#1
MOJO-JOJO Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Nashville, USA Posts: 949	Challenge by Baptist Board Regular, Is he serious?? I came across this argument by "post-it" at the Baptist Board. Underscores the fact that they are truly living in a fantasy world. What do you think? quote: Originally posted by chekmate: quote: (post-it) You just made a contradiction fallacy. If God is unknowable, then one could not know God. (Checkmate) I think that's his point. You can't know that God exists. You can believe or have faith that he exists, but you can't know it because of the very nature of him being a god. (post-it speaking again) I knew someone would try to make that claim. 99percent didn't come back to argue it because he knew he made the contradiction. In an argument, all the premises must be usable, otherwise you must draw your conclusion from only that which is used. In [t]his argument, when you disallow the 2nd premise, you can only conclude the original premise which is "God is unknowable." But that would be non sequitur since he has not supported that God is unknowable with any other premises. So his entire argument failed. Checkmate, before its over, you will see that there is NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA arguments being made by atheists that can stand. Not a one. The well seasoned higher up atheists even admit it, it's just they don't tell other atheists...like you. Ask your atheist leaders if that is not a true statement." Err...okay....Hey Atheist Leaders!! Is this a TRUE Statement?? Is the Christian position really the clear winner here as he thinks it is? Or has Homer Simpson here been smoking somethin' funny? [ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

05-13-2002, 09:52 AM	#2
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Er... I can see why you're baffled. I am, of course, only an Lieutenant-Colonel Third Class, in the Ontario Cadre of Atheist Dominion. But could you give the url for this, so I can get a look at the argument alluded to? What's the second premise, for instance? Thanks. If I can't explain this for you, I'll pass it along to my superiors, who are currently away at the leadership summit meetings... [ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

05-13-2002, 10:13 AM	#3
chekmate Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Downriver Detroit Posts: 1,961	Boy oh Boy did that make my head hurt to hear him say that! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000697&p=" target="_blank">Here's the thread</a> <a href="http://URL=http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000697;p=7" target="_blank">Here's the page where it was said</a> [ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: chekmate ]</p>

05-14-2002, 05:53 PM	#9
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	I would make a in-depth reply but Admiral Bill has me swabbing the deck. (speling) [ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2002, 10:45 AM	#4
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Alrighty, then! Here are a few points that may be worth mentioning. (1) There is no such thing as a 'contradiction fallacy', unless post-it just means that any statement correctly formalized as (p&~p) is false. But, well... nobody's said any such thing in this exchange. So it looks like he's pulling this out of his arse. (2) The notion of 'usable' premises is a figment of his imagination. Premises can be true or false; warranted or unwarranted; relevant or irrelevant; but usable? Again, he's just making shit up. (3) (Important!) Why the heck does the second premise get "disallowed"? What is that supposed to show? Take any argument at all and start arbitrarily disallowing premises -- golly, they're all going to end up committing "contradiction fallacies"! What a maroon. (4) There are actually two arguments in 99percent's post; one inference is made between the first and second statements, and another between the second and third. The first argument is valid. God is unknowable; hence, if you can know X, X ain't God. Yep, that works. The second argument is invalid. If you can know X, X ain't God; hence, necessarily there is no god. Yuck. You need a supplementary premise to make this work: Necessarily, any truth is knowable. But of course, no theist who thought that would have asserted the first premise in any case. So overall this is a lousy argument. (5) post-it's reply is full of shit. But a hyper-charitable reading of it would just take it to be the denial of 99's first premise. In fact, the via negativa conception of god is not widely accepted among Christians, though the Christian medievals flirted with it, and a rabbinical tradition tracing to Maimonides embraced it whole-hog (um, maybe not the best figure of speech. whatever.). (6) A way to make something forceful out of 99's point might be to point out instances of apologists covertly relying on the unknowable conception of God -- as in finessing the problem of evil, perhaps -- and then just note how poorly that strategy squares with any sense that one can know, for instance, that God is good, that God cares about humanity, or really, anything that one might believe on the basis of a supposed relationship with Jesus. (7) But, why bother? I am rationally justified in my positive disbelief in the existence of pink hippogriffs who do calculus on a contract basis while delivering pizza to the President of Ecuador. Because this is logically incoherent? Nope. Strong, or strong-ish, atheism does not require a demonstration of the logical impossibility of a god. My two cents. But who knows what the Dear Leaders of our colony will say about it?

05-13-2002, 10:49 AM	#5
daemon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 737	Ach! Zuper-zekret agent post-it hass obviously diskovered our zekret organization! Ve muzt get avay, mein infidel minions! As a more serious reply, premises don't have to be supported by a logical argument, they're assumed to be true in the first place, so post-it's thing about the premise "God is unknowable" is hogwash.

05-14-2002, 05:32 PM	#8
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Take me to your leader! Sorry, can't resist it.

05-14-2002, 06:56 PM	#10
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	And quite correctly, I would say. 99's first argument is valid but has a dubious sole premise (unless it's a response to someone earlier in the thread who espoused a via negativa view), and second argument is just invalid. Bad argument, bad response. Bad Religion, Bad Company, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Bad Minton... I bow to Clutch who is higher up in the Atheist chain of command <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.