Robert Bumbalough's Objectivism Naturalism Atheism

Common Fallacies Atheists May Encounter When Dealing with Religionists by Anton Thorn

2011-06-23T12:21:00.000-07:00

Fallacies are roughly defined as errors of cognition. As such, it is a kind of defect in an argument. No system of atheology would be complete without a ready reference to some of the more commonly encountered informal fallacies on which religious arguments often rely. Below are descriptions of what I consider to be the more prominent fallacies that you might have run into yourself when dealing with religionists in the past, but didn't quite know how to handle them. However, this list is by no means meant to be a complete survey of the many fallacies one may encounter. Below I give two links to other sites that offer a more complete inventory of informal fallacies. It is recommended that one pursue his research into the various informal fallacies beginning with these links.

Below I have divided these fallacies into two broad groupings: Fallacies of reasoning, or logical fallacies, involve some faulty form of reasoning (weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, etc.) upon which general conclusions are often established. Fallacies of strategy, or dialogic fallacies, in which the relevance between an argument's premises and conclusion are suspiciously questionable at best, are primarily debating devices - used either verbally or in writing, but typically in some kind of dialogue - committed by arguers in an effort to attack, deceive or undermine their opponents or their opponents' position. Each fallacy is defined and presented with examples pertinent to submitting god-belief claims to atheological review. It is important to note that these fallacies are by no way restricted to those defending theistic claims; non-theists often commit these same fallacies, too. However, for purposes of offering non-believers an intellectual defense against such claims, this survey is presented here.

Fallacies of Reasoning: (Logical Fallacies)

While it is true that all fallacies are essentially defects of logical processes, some fallacies involve presumptive and inferential errors (here called 'fallacies of reasoning') while others involve an error of relevance (here called 'fallacies of strategy'). The reason for these designations should be clear in context of critical review of god-belief claims (usually involving fallacies of reasoning) and encountering apologists in verbal or written debate (wherein one is likely to encounter the use of strategic fallacies). Below are the fallacies of reasoning most pertinent to the Objectivist atheological discussion:

Stolen Concept
Circularities
Package Deal
Frozen Abstraction
Context-Dropping
False Dichotomy
False Cause
Non Sequitur
Weak Analogy
Equivocation
A list of fallacies of strategy follows after a discussion of the fallacies of reasoning.

Stolen Concept: First identified by Ayn Rand, a concept is 'stolen' when one asserts a concept while denying or ignoring its epistemological or genetic roots.
The most common instances of this fallacy that one will encounter in debates with religious apologists usually entail a denial - almost always implicit - of the fact of existence. For example, in constructing arguments of a cosmological nature, the apologist will attempt to posit either causality or consciousness as if they were not dependent on existence – as if they could ‘exist’ prior to - and therefore without - existence. This is the primary fallacy exposed by the Argument from Existence.

This fallacy can be graphically compared to one trying to lift the stool he's sitting on - it can't happen and it won't happen. Similarly, how can one posit a concept while denying its prior roots? The religionist, of course, will not admit to committing this fallacy for he usually does not see the breach; after all, he might not say outright that existence does not exist. However, this is exactly what he does say when he argues that he requires an explanation for existence (cf. "Why does anything exist?" or "How does the non-believer 'account for' existence?") or that the universe itself had a beginning. Fundamentally - if the religionist were consistent in his principles - the only appeal that could satisfy such arbitrary questions would be to non-existence, which cannot account for anything.

Identification of this fallacy is one of the most critical steps in dealing with the fundamental errors of god-belief. A firm grasp of this fallacy, what it means and how to correct it are essential in understanding the Argument from Existence. For a more detailed study of this fallacy, how it is necessarily entailed in the construction of any god-belief assertion and why the commission of this fallacy at the root level (axioms) of a philosophic code commits one to a whole series of further errors throughout consequent philosophic doctrines, see the section on the Argument from Existence.

This fallacy was first identified by Ayn Rand. See Atlas Shrugged - particularly John Galt's Speech, Philosophy: Who Needs It, specifically chapter 2, "Philosophical Detection", and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, specifically the chapter titled "Axiomatic Concepts".

See also: The Stolen Concept by Nathaniel Branden, and Floating Abstractions and Stolen Concepts by J. William Pierce.

Circularities: A circularity (often called ‘begging the question’ or ‘petitio principii’) occurs when an arguer uses some form of terminology or phraseology that is intended to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. The argument itself is normally valid in construction, however the fallacy itself occurs when truth of a key premise is asserted even though it is questionable at best. The most common instance of such an argument is one in which the premises assume the truth of the conclusion. For instance, I encountered the following argument in an exchange with one apologist:
Apologist: "God exists."
Skeptic: "Okay, prove it."
Apologist: "Creation proves it."
Skeptic: "How do you know existence is a ‘creation?’"
Apologist: "Because God created it."
Premise 1: Creation requires a God.
Premise 2: The world is a Creation.
(Premise 3: The world exists.)
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
The questionable term, of course, in this argument is the term ‘creation’ which naturally requires the asserter to posit a ‘creator’ in order to justify its use. The arguer in this case did not make any attempt to show how premise 2 could be correct; it is simply assumed to be true without validation.

Another example of a circularity, this time at the axiomatic level of cognition, will be supplied by John Frame. John Frame is a spokesperson for what is called the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (often referred to as ‘TAG’), which achieves nothing but to argue from the presumption of God's existence, not for God's existence (hence the associated nomenclature "presuppositionalist apologetics"). In one exchange in a debate with Michael Martin, representing an atheistic point of criticism of TAG, Mr. Frame stated that "Logic presupposes God and God presupposes logic." This is a blatant and interminable circularity – like a dog chasing its own tail. In the very same exchange, Mr. Frame seemed to recognize the error of asserting circularities in axiomatic concepts when he stated that "the chain of justification [i.e., of axiomatic reduction], of course, must end somewhere," but he failed to apply this principle to his own system. If axiomatic reduction must resolve in a terminus establishing an irreducible primary, then it cannot be true that "logic presupposes God and God presupposes logic."

The late theologian Cornelius Van Til (CVT), the supposed 'father' of "presuppositionalist apologetics", openly declared his embrace of employing circularities in his arguments. Click here for my response to an excerpted paragraph from one of CVT's books which one individual sent to me.

Package Deal: An improper and suspicious equation of essentially distinct terms or concepts. A package-deal is "the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or ‘package,’ elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (Leornard Peikoff, editor’s note to Ayn Rand’s "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.) A package-deal uses "the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting non-essentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating the differences." ("How to Read (and Not to Write)," The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 26, 3.)
This fallacy is more often encountered than is usually detected, and detecting its occurrence sometimes requires great acuity. Since the fallacy is not restricted to any one particular level of conception, package-deals can be discovered between particulars as well as between broad abstractions, or even entire doctrines.

Common instances in today's culture is the equation of the vague, over-used bromide "family values" with the concept morality, often asserted when the speaker probably means virtue, which is the means of achieving values. Another instance is the equation of the "common good" with the concept just policy. Yet another instance would be the equation of economic power with political power. Each of these package-deals has been repeated and emphasized with the endorsement of high-standing politicians and media spokespersons so frequently that to question them seems socially blasphemous.

In more sophisticated religious apologetics, a frequently met package-deal is the equation of concepts with their referents. This package-deal finds its roots in Platonic intrinsicism in that it is an attempt to erase the distinction between an object and the concept identifying it. The catchphrases to watch out for might be terms like 'immaterial entities', 'conceptual entities', or 'abstract universal entities' (cf. Plato's non-material 'Forms'). Such package-dealing results from the attempt to treat concepts as if they were concretes existing externally, rather than abstractions or mental integrations. Acceptance of this distortion of reality allows the religionist to posit knowledge independent of man's consciousness, knowledge whose source does not belong to this world, but to another, supernatural point of origin. The famed Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen is well noted for his heavy dependence on this particular fallacy in his debates with non-Christians, calling the Laws of Logic examples of 'immaterial entities'. The root of this error is a package-deal.

Frozen Abstraction: This fallacy occurs when one attempts to substitute a particular concrete or concept for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. One of Ayn Rand's prime examples of this fallacy is the substitution of a specific doctrine of ethics, such as altruism, for the wider abstraction 'ethics' itself, as if the two were interchangeable, conceptual equals. Religionists commit this very error when they argue that all ethical norms must be pious in nature, usually entailing the advocacy of sacrifice at its root (just as altruism does).
Examples of frozen abstraction fallacies abound in conversations with religionists. The tendency of religionists to treat all moral virtues, for instance, such as justice or righteousness, as necessarily god-centered (belonging to not just any god-belief, but to their version of god-belief specifically to boot) is a prime example. Another example would be when sectarian Christians argue that their version of Christianity constitutes all of Christianity proper, while in fact there are so many versions of the same religion, each claiming to be Bible-based, that it's virtually impossible to keep track of all the variations on this theme. To put it into terms of concretes: While all apples are fruit, not all fruits are apples. The frozen abstraction fallacy abnegates this fact.

Another favorite frozen abstraction used by many religionists is the notion that atheism can only be defined as "the rejection of God". It is true that the concept 'atheism' includes the rejection of gods and god-belief, however this condition does not exhaust the essence of the concept. Atheism is defined as absence of god-belief. This includes outright rejection as well as lack of belief due to ignorance of god-belief claims (such as a newborn, who cannot possibly have a god-belief, or someone raised in an insulated society wherein no god-beliefs have developed and survived). Rejection of god-belief presumes both the familiarity with god-belief notions and god-belief claims as well as a decision not to accept those claims. If the concept 'atheism' applied only to those who had familiarity with god-belief notions and claims but chose to reject them, what concept would cover those who had no god-belief because of their non-familiarity with god-belief claims, such as newborns and individuals who have never heard of gods or god-belief notions? Certainly the concept 'agnosticism' could not apply here, for agnosticism entails this familiarity but a failure to decide one way or another instead of a decision to reject god-belief. Beware of this frozen abstraction; many atheists commit themselves to it, too, having bought the lie from the influence of religion.

Context-Dropping: The fallacy that occurs when an arguer omits the context or portion of the context surrounding the issue of his concern in order to draw a desired conclusion that the context does not support when held intact.
Whenever you tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid.
A context-dropper forgets or evades any wider context. He stares at only one element, and he thinks, 'I can change just this point, and everything else will remain the same.' In fact, everything is interconnected. That one element involves a whole context, and to assess a change in one element, you must see what it means in the whole context." (Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series (1976), Lecture 5.)
Ascribing many of the Old Testament prophecies to foretelling the birth and ministry of Jesus, for example, are shown under examination to be instances of dropping the context of the Old Testament passages from which they were extracted. A brilliant, easy-to-understand exposé of this clumsiness among Christian apologists can be found in Tim Callahan's book Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? (Millennium Press, 1997).

Context-dropping may be difficult to detect since it is possible for an arguer to hide or suppress some aspects of the context involved in order to argue his point. Therefore, extreme caution and scrutiny are recommended to those assessing god-belief claims so that proper recognition of any deceptive or evasive measures on the part of an opponent may be exposed.

There is virtually no limit to the scope and breadth that some religious defenders will go to in order to protect their god-beliefs from rational scrutiny. Consider the following example of a grotesque commission of context-dropping, which is quite involved. In my correspondence I have encountered Christian apologists who have persuaded themselves to believe their system of theology is sufficiently equipped to deal with the philosophy of Objectivism, particularly the Objectivist arguments against supernaturalism, god-belief and the like. While trying to wrestle with the significance of the fallacy of the stolen concept, first identified by Ayn Rand, one such apologist - in his glaring misunderstanding of what Rand meant by "stolen concept" - argued that any non-Christian philosophy employing rational means in its epistemology is guilty of 'stealing' from Christianity proper (as if Christianity were both built on reason and advocated reason, as well has held a philosophical monopoly on all legitimate appeal to reason).

When it was pointed out to this person that god-belief claims, such as those belonging to Christian philosophy, commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (as Rand identified it), this person replied, "They'll accuse us of engaging in "stealing concepts". Kind of strange, given that Christianity predates Plato and Aristotle, much less Ayn Rand…" When asked by another Christian (!) to defend this statement (who cited the facts of history, that both Plato and Aristotle predate Christ!), this apologist offered the following time line, calling it the "covenantal approach":

Plato: (427 BC - 347BC)
Aristotle: (384 BC - 322BC)
Jesus: (6,000 BC)
How well do the facts of history confirm this hopeful confabulation? By what sound method of reasoning - reasoning that does not commit itself to intentional carelessness in terms of its consideration of the context of relevant facts - can arrive at such a conclusion? Only by indulging in a blatant disregard for reality and context can one hope to arrive at such absurdities as this, and it is exactly this kind of 'reasoning' that non-believers are up against in defending their minds from the fierce dogmatism of religious distortion.

False Dichotomy: (Also called bifurcation, false dilemma or false alternative.) False dichotomy is committed "when one premise of an argument is an 'either… or' (disjunctive) statement that presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (i.e., as if no third alternative were possible). One of these alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer." (Patrick J. Hurley, , Introduction to Logic, Wadsworth Publishing, 1988, p. 141.)
A classic example of a false dichotomy statement occurs in Matthew 12:30, which attributes the following words to Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me" (KJV). This statement, attributed to the messianic figure of Christianity by one of his followers (the gospel author), presents as jointly exhaustive two fundamental positions - total allegiance or total enmity - when in fact other positions are possible. In addition to these two positions presented by the gospel writer, one may: a) not even know of Jesus; b) have heard of him but has no idea who he was and what he was talking about; c) have a limited understanding of who Jesus was and his message, but not care enough to have a definite position; d) know who Jesus was as well as his message, yet view him and his message with an objective understanding of the historical context of the times in which Jesus lived, etc. Total allegiance and total enmity do not describe either of these possible positions, so the alternatives Jesus gave are not jointly exhaustive. Classic bifurcation.

Many theistic arguments regarding metaphysics are built on the false dichotomy entailed in the typical religious view of causality. Causality, argue many religionists, consists either of chance or design. This dichotomy boils down to two extremes: causeless or random action vs. supernatural intent. It is through the construction of such illegitimate alternatives that the religionist opens the door to posit the existence of the ruling consciousness which his particular religious code endorses. This bifurcation can be quite effective against skeptics who accept its unspoken premises and fail to prepare themselves with a rational answer in response. Should a skeptic accept this false alternative, he puts himself in the vulnerable position of defending an accidental universe riddled with random, causeless action, action whose causes cannot be identified or evaluated, action that can occur spontaneously without regard to the identity of the entities involved. Thus, acceptance of this common fallacy results in the skeptic's epistemological surrender.

The proper answer to this distortion is to recognize that causality is identity applied to action. No action can occur which is contradictory to the nature of the entities involved in the action. All action has identity (i.e., is not causeless), however not all action depends on the design, intention or will of a consciousness. Only when one speaks of man does these concepts become a legitimate issue.

The chance vs. design dichotomy can be seen to consist of two prior fallacies entailed in the word 'design'. The first fallacy is an equivocation on the term 'design' to equal 'supernatural will' (i.e., abnegating the fact that 'design' as a product of volition and intellect is only appropriate in discussions concerning man). The second fallacy is a frozen abstraction fallacy (see above) substituting 'design' for the broader concept 'causality' as if all legitimate causality necessarily involves a form of conscious intent (for this is the religionist's intended conclusion). Thus, the planets could not revolve around the sun because of their individual identities and their relationship to one another. Instead, there must be some intelligent influence at work which makes it all happen. Hence, argues the theist, a supernatural ruling consciousness (i.e., 'god') is responsible for these phenomena, and these phenomena serve as witness to its existence. The entire line of argumentation incorporating this particular use of bifurcation thus amounts to one large question-begging invention (see fallacy 2) Circularities above).

In a more broadly reaching example of bifurcation, it should be noted that many Christians are of the persuasion that there exist only two worldviews: the Christian and the non-Christian, or, the Christian and the materialist. This position carelessly overlooks numerous facts. For instance, this view fails to take into account that outside Christianity there are a plethora of different philosophies and schools of thought open to man. The term 'non-Christian' does not specify any one of these any more than it may serve to contrast it from Christianity proper. However, even this distinction is far from adequate in identifying the differences between, for instance, Platonism and Aristotelianism, both of which are not specifically Christian, yet are quite diverse between themselves. Quite simply, there is no particular "non-Christian worldview"; such a designation could only constitute a class of particulars, in this case a number of worldviews that are not Christian.

Furthermore, acceptance of this false dichotomy, Christian vs. non-Christian, (or Christian vs. materialist, etc.) inasmuch as it is taken as a jointly exhaustive categorization of possible viewpoints, also fails to take into consideration that vast amount of fragmentation and splintering within Christianity itself. There are tremendous disagreements, schisms, polemic and division among Christians, resulting in hundreds of distinct sects and denominations, each claiming to be the 'true' form of Christianity. Acceptance of this false dichotomy indicates the ready acceptance of a frozen abstraction (which see) of a particular strain of Christian theism.

False Cause: A false cause fallacy is essentially a misidentification of the cause for an observed effect, and occurs:
whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all. (Hurley, p. 127.)
There are two basic varieties to the false cause fallacy, both known by their Latin designation. The first is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (lit. "after this, therefore on account of this"). The post hoc false cause fallacy is committed when something is said to be a cause of something else simply because the first thing (said to be the cause) happens before the second thing (said to be its effect).

For instance, one may say, "The weather has gone crazy since man was on the moon." While it may or may not be the case that an increase of certain troublesome weather conditions has been noted since the late 1960's, to attribute such a phenomenon to man's landing on the moon is arbitrary and deceptive. However, since there is a temporal relationship between man's landing on the moon and the drastic changes in weather conditions on earth, a causal relationship is concluded, however erroneously.

Or, let's say the mailman rang the doorbell an instant after I switched on a desk lamp and I concluded that turning on the lamp caused the mailman to ring the doorbell. Similarly, when a believer sends a contribution of $25 to his favorite televangelist and gets a promotion at his job the next week, concluding that God is rewarding him for his generosity, this too would qualify as an instance of a false cause fallacy.

The second variety of the false cause fallacy is known as non causa pro causa ("not the cause for the cause") is committed when something is erroneously posited to be the cause of something else, but in this variety the conclusion is not dependent on the observed temporal relationship between the imagined cause and its effect (as is the case in post hoc).

For example, attributing the eruptive activity of a volcano to the anger of the sun god constitutes a misidentification of the nature of the cause and effect chain in question. Geothermal and tectonic activity of the earth are not the result of a grumpy god. However, early primitives, operating on a primacy of consciousness view of reality, mistook the effect (volcanic eruptions and earthquakes) as arising from some intelligent, 'intentionalizing' source.

Before the Age of Enlightenment, when western civilization began to open its eyes to Reason and its benefits for man, it was common to attribute mental disorders and physical impairments such as blindness and deafness to the work of demons or angered gods. Without the benefit of understanding the biological functions and needs of the human organism, pre-Enlightenment man felt completely justified in calling persons afflicted with abnormal behavior 'witches', 'possessed' or 'of the devil'. With the application of reason to the problems associated with man's existence on earth (a topic with which some parts of the Bible seem all too unconcerned), modern scientists and doctors have been able to determine the real causes of many illnesses and afflictions, and have even been successful in eradicating their threat to men in some cases. Religion and faith did not make this success possible.

The notion 'prayer' - insomuch as it is accepted and argued to be a means of communicating with the divine in order to persuade benevolent and enriching answers or favors in return - essentially entails a hope in the realization of a false cause fallacy. Prayer is basically a believer's begging plea to the supposed ruling consciousness either to change the facts of reality or even the laws of nature just for him. Again, such false cause notions stem from a primacy of consciousness view of reality, the idea that reality is contingent on some form of consciousness.

In at least one way, god-belief in general can be seen as one entire false cause argument, positing the universe as the effect or 'creation' of an 'eternal deity' hiding in a supernatural realm, that all existence was somehow 'created' (i.e., caused) by a 'ruling consciousness'. Such positions may be very enticing for some individuals who are easily seduced by the primacy of consciousness view of reality, for such a view preconditions an individual for accepting the notion of a ruling consciousness to the extent that he accepts it and confirms it in his conscious relationship to reality, often regardless of the resulting costs.

Non Sequitur: A non sequitur is committed when an arguer attempts to draw a conclusion from premises which do not logically connect to it and therefore do not logically justify its assertion. This fallacy is rampant throughout apologetic literature and rhetoric.
For instance, it may be argued that God exists because man is capable of moral judgment. While some theistic arguments virtually take this form, it is quite evident that the conclusion "God exists" does not follow from the fact that man is capable of moral judgment. A similar variation on this model would be any argument that attempts to establish the existence of God or gods on other facts of reality. For instance, it is argued by some that man can be certain that God exists (in one variety or another) because of the fact that man is capable of reason and science. This type of argument and its converse notion that reason and science are only possible because a god exists also commit the non sequitur fallacy, since the conclusion in either variant does not follow from its prior proposition. Some non sequiturs such as these have been developed to such a degree as to rely more so on overwhelming an opponent with confusion and sophistry than on any attempted logical connection between the argument's premises and its conclusion, thus appearing to seem true, while in essence it is merely a disguised fallacy or series of fallacies.

Weak Analogy: Patrick Hurley writes that "[t]his fallacy affects inductive arguments from analogy… [A]n argument from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or situation. The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn." (pp. 129-130.)
Hurley also provides a splendid example of an argument built on a weak analogy in order to establish its conclusion. He writes,

The flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through a pip. When water runs downhill through a pipe, the pressure at the bottom of the hill is greater than at it is at the top. Thus, when electricity flows downhill through a wire, we would expect the voltage to be greater at the bottom of the hill than at the top. (Ibid.)
For obvious reasons, the attempt to compare the behavior of electricity to the behavior of water is erroneous, specifically because water, unlike electricity, is strongly affected by its reaction to the gravitational pull of the earth. However, it is just this kind of argument that is often employed by religious apologists in some of their arguments to defend their god-beliefs.

Douglas E. Kreuger, in his book What is Atheism? A Short Introduction (Prometheus Books, 1998), exposes the weak analogy essential to the famous evidentialist argument from design (also called the teleological argument ['teleology' is the doctrine that purpose is inherent in nature]). The teleological argument argues that, since nature exhibits evidence of design, then there must be a designer. The designer said to be established by this argument is said to be God. The argument is usually punctuated by an analogy between a known artifact, such as a pocket watch, and the universe as a whole, in order to show why it (the universe) must be the product of a designer.

Regarding this argument, Kreuger writes [pp. 138-139],

The argument from design is an argument by analogy. The more common the similarities between the analogates (the things compared), the stronger the analogy, and, consequently, the stronger the argument. The fewer similarities, the weaker the argument. Important to the argument from design, then, is the number of similarities between the analogates. In this case, the analogates are human artifacts and the universe. How much do they have in common?
All the artifacts in our experience have been made of preexisting material. If the universe is like an artifact, then, it must have been made of preexisting material. But the theist denies this and claims that god created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing.
All the artifacts we have seen have been built by beings with physical bodies. Thus, we may conclude that the universe was built by a being with a physical body. But the theist denies that god has a physical body.
Our experience with artifacts shows that they are built by labor, by physically moving material together or apart. Thus, we should conclude, if the universe is like an artifact, that it was built by labor. However, the theist, especially the Christian, denies this and says that the entire universe was created by god uttering magic words (see Genesis, chapter 1).
Large and complex ships, houses, buildings, and other constructions are built by groups of people working together. Thus, the universe, if it is like a large and complex artifact, must have been built by many gods working together. But the theist denies this. Polytheists, perhaps, would not deny this.
If an artifact has flaws, one can conclude either that the designer or builder was ignorant, sloppy, or just did not care about the outcome enough to put more work into it. The universe has stars explode and collide; there are earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and other natural disasters which cause huge loss of life, and which are not in any way caused by human action; there are genetic disorders such as spina bifida which kill humans and cause intense agony; there have been several worldwide extinctions in the past which resulted in the deaths of 90 percent or more of the species existing in the world at that time, and so on. Thus, we may conclude that god was either ignorant, sloppy, or just did not care enough about the outcome to make the universe any better than it is. But the theist denies this.
There are many other disanalogies between the universe and an artifact, but it should now be clear that the theist denies that the universe is like an artifact in many important ways. Thus, the analogy between the universe and an artifact seems to be simply the result of the theist's selection of one aspect of what we know of artifacts - that they are often orderly - and the denial of may other characteristics about artifacts. The theist must admit that the universe and artifacts are more dissimilar than similar. Since the theist makes the analogy only with regard to a single trait, the analogy between an artifact and the universe is incredibly weak, and, as a result, so is the argument as a whole.
In fashion similar to Kreuger's critical scrutiny of the teleological argument, you, too, can learn to detect the fallacies inherent in any theistic argument with the proper know-how.

Equivocation: The fallacy of equivocation is committed "when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that one or more words are used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Either such arguments are invalid or a premise is false and the argument is unsound." (Hurley, p. 144.)
A common example of an equivocation occurs in English with the word 'faith'. Consider the following dialogue:

Person A: I've known Jim for many years. I have a great deal of faith in his integrity.
Person B: I thought you said you do not accept things on faith?
Here Person B exposes the fact that he's accepted a common equivocation on the term 'faith' which has two separate applications. In the first application, demonstrated by Person A, 'faith' in this case is equivalent to confidence, which is a moral assessment. Person A states that he has familiarity with the character of Jim and vouches for his integrity, which presumably has been demonstrated to Person A over the course of their acquaintance. Person B, on the other hand, assumes a different meaning for the term 'faith', a meaning linked to the subject of epistemology, for Person B alludes to faith as a method of claims acceptance. Faith in this case does not mean confidence, as Person A used the term, but the rejection of reason, an epistemological matter and as such a matter completely different from the former meaning of the term. In such a way, many religionists may attempt to argue the point that even non-believers practice faith-based thinking when in fact that may not be true at all.

The equivocated term in the example above is relatively easy to spot, and if all equivocations were so explicit, religionists and other practitioners of fallacy-craft would quickly abandon their use. "Most actual occurrences of the fallacy of equivocation do not, however," Hurley properly points out,

occur in succinct straightforward arguments… Rather, they occur in protracted, drawn out arguments of the sort found in political speeches [or apologetic sermons - A. Thorn]. If a certain word gradually shifts in meaning throughout the duration of a lengthy speech, and different conclusions are drawn from the different meanings, detection of the fallacy becomes more difficult. (Ibid.)
Some of the terms which are often equivocated in theistic apologetics include:

'existence' (which may mean all existence at one point, then gradually taken to mean only matter at another);
'law' (which can mean principle in one instance and later mean commandment or divine will at some point thereafter);
'infinite' (which the religionist often takes to refer to matters of identity and temporality interchangeably);
'soul' (which may refer either to legitimate concepts such as consciousness or to arbitrary notions such as supernatural spirit, depending on the religionist's intended goal);
'contingent' (which can mean dependent upon (something prior) or possible at different times);
'personal' (which may signify a virtue when referring to a deity, as in the case of "a personal God', or a vice when referring to man, meaning subjective);
etc., etc., etc.
The temptation for defenders of god-belief claims to rely on the fallacy of equivocation may be so extreme that the apologist is beyond all hope of ever seeing the error himself. This is primarily due to the fact that religious terms and claims in general are intentionally elusive when it comes to matters of definition. One of the most important points non-believers should bear in mind is the fact that holy books, such as the Koran and the Bible, fail to define their terms. Because of this carelessness, the believers themselves usually inherit the task of either defining their doctrines' terms, or seek out those definitions established by someone they feel confident in calling an authority on the matter (e.g., priests, sermonizers, theologians, etc.). There is no substitute for definitions and their consistent use, however religious zealots are keen to sacrifice the meaning of terms whenever they feel their mystic interests may be threatened. For these reasons, this fallacy could easily qualify as a dialogic fallacy of strategy; however, because of its especially destructive impact in context of logical development, it is best categorized as a fallacy of reasoning.

Fallacies of Strategy: (Dialogic Fallacies) Back to Top

Fallacies of strategy, often called dialogic fallacies because they are most effective in the verbal discourse or written debate (dialogue), usually entail the assertion of a conclusion that is irrelevant to the premises presented in support of it, even though they have been dressed to appear as though they are logically relevant. Many theistic apologists are so skilled at what I have come to call 'fallacy-craft' that they themselves are not even aware that they are committing themselves to cognitive errors by their use. Consequently, although the flagrancy of the use of fallacies is often extreme, the errors themselves are more often than not seamlessly grafted into the rhetorical and syllogistic devices employed by theists in defending their god-belief claims. Hence, they may be difficult to detect for many non-believers, even those non-believers who have trained themselves to detect the instances of fallacy. But be assured, if a person is trying to use logic and reason to conclude that god or gods exist, there will be at least some retreat to fallacy which affords theism the only 'safety' open to it in the court of Reason.

The more common dialogic fallacies you can expect to encounter when dealing with advocates of god-belief include the following:

Allegation of the Neglected Onus
Ad Hominem
Complex Question
Red Herring
Straw Man
Appeal to Force
Again, it is recommended that those interested in continuing their enlightenment of informal fallacies visit the sites at the two links provided at the bottom of this page.

Allegation of the Neglected Onus: (Note: I have encountered this particular fallacy with such regularity among some religious apologists that I have taken it upon myself to give it a name and define it explicitly. It is unlikely that any other reference on fallacies will give this deceptive debating device its own designation, so you're most likely seeing it identified here for the first time. - A. Thorn)
The fallacy known as the 'allegation of the neglected onus' occurs when an individual charges that his opponent's position does not sufficiently deal with an obligation that has not been shown to properly belong to the opponent's position. It can also be called the charge of neglected incumbency. As such, it constitutes an illegitimate attempt to discredit a position by asserting a charge that such a position does not sufficiently deal with an issue that does not legitimately belong to it. Inasmuch as this fallacy entails a mischaracterization of one's position, it resembles the straw man fallacy detailed below.

For example, a 'creation scientist' might assert that 'evolutionary theories' offer man nothing to resolve the problem of universals - the so-called 'problem of the one and the many' which has eluded many philosophers and schools of thought, thus implying that advocacy of 'evolutionary theories' amounts to the advocacy of failure in this regard. Obviously the statement to the effect that 'evolutionary theories' do nothing to resolve the problem of universals can be said to be true, however this does not constitute a failing on the part of evolutionary theories. The task of evolutionary theories (in biology) is of narrow scientific scope; their task is not to deal with problems of epistemology. An individual imputing evolutionary theories with this failure or negligence improperly imparts an essential epistemological task to a set of scientific theories. By its very nature as a study of specific scientific scope, evolution is not intended to offer man epistemological solutions, and to hold it to such obligations is indeed highly suspicious.

In some ways, allegation of the neglected onus resembles other common fallacies of relevance, specifically missing the point and straw man fallacies. This fallacy is akin to missing the point (ignoratio elenchi) for it often fails to take into account the fact the essential nature of a position (e.g., evolution or evolutionary theories) does not logically apply to the conclusion the arguer is trying to draw (i.e., failure of epistemological tasks). This fallacy also can resemble a straw man argument for it essentially entails a mischaracterization of the subject matter in question (e.g., evolution). Evolutionary theories are no more suited to handle epistemological issues than aerodynamic principles or geological theories.

Ad Hominem: The ad hominem argument (known in full as 'argumentum ad hominem') always involves two arguers. One will assert an argument for a particular position, but the opponent responds - not by dealing with the argued position - but directing the focus of the debate onto the person who asserted the argument. This is an evasive tactic fallacy and usually occurs because the opponent either does not possess the intellectual equipment needed to deal with the position argued, or simply chooses not to deal with it and instead chooses to attack or discredit the individual asserting the position. Ad hominem occurs in three basic forms:
The first form of ad hominem is known as ad hominem abusive. In this form the opponent attacks the arguer with verbally abusive language instead of attacking the arguer's argument with reasoned discourse. Ad hominem abusive is quite commonly encountered in today's intellectual vacuum, and is modeled constantly in our media. (Listen to a radio talk show sometime and you might be able to pick out a handful of ad hominem retorts in a matter of a few callers.)

Ad hominem abusive is commonly met on the battlefield between religious believers and non-believers, for each side may feel that the other is completely open prey for such insult. For instance, when I had presented one particular theist with a sound refutation of the outworn and dubious 'cosmological argument' (a standard apologetic argument), the theist found himself stuck and unable to recover his argument, and therefore decided to attack me verbally by saying, "Well, you're just an atheist! You have no love or God in your life!" Many theists believe such verbal abuse is wholly justified, even though it merely signals recognition of defeat.

But an ad hominem does not necessarily have to take the form of a verbal assault against an opponent. In the second form, known as ad hominem circumstantial, the opponent attempts to discredit the arguer's position by trying to discredit the arguer for some reason, usually one completely unrelated to the issue at hand. This form of ad hominem is quite common with many educated theists today.

Consider the following exchange I recently had with an advocate of Christian philosophy. The background to this moment in the dialogue is as such: While discussing the issue of axioms I had asserted that the only proper place to begin is with the fact of existence (this is the Objectivist position). My opponent, H-8984, argues that the only proper place to begin is with the notion of God, specifically the Christian God. At this point I asked my opponent the question, "Is existence contingent?" (Which essentially means: Is existence dependent on something prior to it?) My opponent, H-8984, responded: "Finite existence is contingent." Seeing that my opponent walked right into the snares of his own errant philosophy, I ceased the moment to inquire on the notion of 'finite existence' further. I asked, "'Finite existence' as opposed to what?" My opponent, H-8984, responded, "Infinite existence."

At this time I pointed out arbitrary nature of such a distinction, 'finite existence' vs. 'infinite existence'. I argued that to exist is to have identity, which is necessarily finite; to be something is to be that something. When I asked my opponent, H-8984, for him to define 'infinite existence', he merely replied with the statement, "God is infinite existence" (more begging the question here, by the way). The dialogue continues from this point below (this example also serves to demonstrate a classic red herring fallacy as well):

("T/box" refers to me, Anton Thorn)
T/box: H-8984, "to be = to exist."
T/box: H-8984, to exist is to be something, something that has identity.
T/box: H-8984, if A exists, it MUST be A.
T/box: H-8984, that's a corollary to the principle of identity.
H-8984: Tindr, How do you know your mind is a reliable guide on this, if it is changing?
Notice my opponent's last statement here (in bold). Instead of dealing with the principles I had provided that completely challenge to the point of obliteration his notion of 'infinite existence', H-8984 instead turns the debate from the issue at hand to that regarding the stability of my mind, hence thinking he has effectively discredited me and my position. This is a classic ad hominem circumstantial. (It is interesting that the same individual who committed this ad hominem circumstantial [H-8984] also recently stated to me in the same conversation the following comment: "Ad hominem is a nice escape, isn't it." The fact that this individual phrased his statement using the words he chose and punctuating it as an assertion rather than a question is quite telling, I think.)

The third type of ad hominem is known as "tu quoque" (Latin for "you too"). A tu quoque retort is basically a tacit concession on the part of the opponent committing this fallacy to the position submitted by the arguer, but with the attempt to discredit the arguer by asserting in some manner that the position argued applies to the arguer himself as well. The tu quoque ad hominem may also be called the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

For instance, many religionists are confronted with the fact that faith-based claims cannot by nature be validated by sound reasoning - they must be accepted on faith (hence they're called faith-based claims). While many religionists accept this fact as true, some will respond that the non-believer also holds to an irrational position for, it is argued, he must accept the claim that there are no gods on faith as well, thus attempting to put the non-believer on the same intellectually questionable plateau as the religionist finds himself. While the error of such an assertion should be readily visible (it takes no more 'faith' to accept the fact that there are no gods than it does to accept the fact that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy), what is important here is the recognition of the opponent's evasiveness. The fact that virtually all western theistic religions - especially Christianity - assert their claims explicitly on the basis of faith, puts today's religionists in a very uncomfortable and embarrassing position. There is little wonder that contemporary apologists are virtually silent when it comes to identifying faith as the acceptance of allegations without evidence and even in spite of evidence and/or reasoning to the contrary. There is also little wonder why contemporary apologists, having set before themselves the unattractive task of defending those same faith assertions, so often resort to ad hominems as an evasive tactic in their conversation with prepared non-believers.

Complex Question: This fallacy is committed when:
a single question that is really two (or more) questions is asked and the single answer is then applied to both questions. Every complex question presumes the existence of a certain condition. When the respondent's answer is added to the complex question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed question. Thus, although not an argument as such, a complex question involves an implicit argument. This argument is usually intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge." (Hurley, p. 139.)
For instance, the common example, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presumes at least two things that may not yet be established: a) that you are married to a woman, and b) that you've had some history of beating her. It could be the case that you are not even married, or, that you are married but have never violently attacked your wife. Since the question is asked as a yes or no kind of question, no simple answer - if either of these presumed conditions is not fulfilled - is possible. A complex question of this nature may have tremendous psychological impact in the minds of an audience of a debate, or in the minds of members of a jury if asked during a trial, since guilt of the presumed conditions may appear to be established just by the asking.

Some so-called 'creation scientists' - i.e., Christian apologists disguising themselves as men of science - have been known to ask non-believers complex questions on occasion. The following is typical: "How do you account for evolved swamp gas being capable of conceptual thought?" While such a question on the face of it may appear to be legitimate in the eyes of unprepared non-believers, this question indeed presumes that the non-believer has accepted certain positions which he may or may not advocate. However, one need not go into the details of biological facts to determine that 'swamp gas' is not capable of conceptual thought to see the fallacy being committed here. The questioner in this case is presuming that his opponent is aligned with the characterization of evolutionary theories popularized by Christian authors like C.S. Lewis (though not completely without justification, considering some of the non-objective secular philosophy that abounds today). However, I have yet to meet any non-believers myself who believe that 'evolved swamp' gas is capable of awareness or thought (although there may be some who do believe this). Such mischaracterization as this is frequently met in dialogues with defenders of religious dogma, and such mischaracterization is repeated emphatically by these zealots without the slightest regard for intellectual honesty or compunction. (Furthermore, the notion 'evolved swamp gas' could only be argued by an exercise of extreme context-dropping.)

Red Herring: A very common fallacy of relevance, a red herring argument is designed to draw a listener's or reader's attention to a topic unrelated to the issue at hand. Once the transition to the new topic has been accomplished, the tendency is for the arguer to assert some conclusion that usually lends itself as convenient support for his position. Usually an arguer resorts to the usage of red herring when the depth of the topic at issue has exceeded his ability to deal with it and seeks to escape the issue altogether.
An example of an obvious red herring is the following:

For years surgeon generals have put out warnings about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Recent statistics show that these warnings are not being heeded. What politicians should do is make people's health their number one issue. Therefore, we should all advocate the passage of anti-tobacco laws and ban this nasty habit.
This argument starts out on the issue of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, but concludes that smoking should be banned because government warnings are not being heeded. This example shows how easy it can be to argue for one cause (restricting individual rights) by prefacing it with a potent emotional issue ('harmful effects' in this case). Arguments of this fallacious nature abound in our society today, and unfortunately they tend to continue without counter.

Some red herring tactics may actually include one or more fallacies in order to draw one's opponent off track. Note how many fallacies can be found in the following argument:

Atheistic worldviews necessarily lead to an immoral lifestyle. Belonging to gangs, committing robberies and lying to one's elders are indisputably immoral acts. These immoral acts have seen a rise in their occurrence in the past twenty years, so it should be clear that a return to God's way is in order if this country is to find favor in His eyes again.
The initial topic was how atheistic worldviews lead to an immoral lifestyle but immediately switched from this topic to one of crime and vice. Then the topic is again switched, this time to a more proselytizing theme, thus drawing the listener or reader off the topic. However, notice how the argument commits at least one non sequitur (notably in the last sentence), as well as implying two false cause arguments (first, that the immoral acts listed in the second sentence somehow arise from the atheistic worldviews mentioned in the first sentence; and second, that a return to God's way will stem the tide of rampant immorality inferred to be wreaking havoc on this country). This argument also plays on a 'guilt by association' ploy which is frequently encountered in arguments where reason must be jettisoned and replaced by subterfuge in order to persuade listeners. Religious advocates, especially in America, have long pointed to the Soviet Union, for instance, as the end result of rejecting their god-belief claims. However, such arguments are entirely specious (see the future article [still under construction] on this very topic here to see why this kind of argument cannot succeed).

A red herring ploy can be especially easy to accomplish if clarity of the matter is easily obscured. The potential for murkiness is often present when dealing with individuals whose view of reality is fundamentally opposite to yours. The meanings of terms, often unclear themselves in the hands of religionists, are constantly shifting (see the fallacy of equivocation above). This shifting in meaning, if not checked, can be the ruin of any debate as no certainty is possible.

(Click on this link a good example of a red herring that qualifies simultaneously as an ad hominem circumstantial.)

Straw Man: A straw man argument occurs when an arguer attacks an opponent's position by misrepresenting that position and then attacking it, thereby concluding that the actual position has been refuted or demolished. A straw man argument is often the result of an arguer's lack of confidence to deal with the real issues entailed in his or her opponent's position.
Probably the most common straw man arguments that non-believers should expect to encounter when dealing with persons committed to defending god-belief claims is the misrepresentation of atheism. While it is true that many atheists themselves are unaware of an objective definition of the term atheism, many religionists are often even more confused about its meaning and are quite apt to use this confusion in constructing arguments against non-believers as a result. The atheist's own lack of understanding in this area may only be taken as an endorsement of the theist's straw man argument.

Atheism is, quite simply, the absence of god-belief. Atheism per se says nothing about what one does believe; it is merely a negative as far as the question of god-belief is concerned. Usually atheism is taken to mean the explicit rejection of the existence of God or gods, or an advocacy of some sort or another. While these positions certainly may belong under the category 'atheism', neither of these exhaustively define the term proper. The idea that atheism means the explicit conscious rejection of gods exclusively is an instance of the frozen abstraction fallacy. Rejection of gods is a species of atheism, not the genus itself.

However, in spite of the fallacy involved in this view, many religionists repeat it anyway, often unaware that they have accepted a fallacious position, and then proceed to add to that construct of 'atheism' an entire worldview system! Theists defending their religious view of the world will quite often treat atheism per se as a competing worldview in and of itself, which is fallacious, and then argue that this worldview is necessarily a form of naturalism (which is rarely defined), materialism - whether mechanistic (e.g., Hobbes et al.) or dialectic (e.g., Hegel, Marx, Cornforth, et al.) is not specified, or some form of 'rationalism', which they usually fail to define as well (and is completely ironic, especially coming from those representing so-called 'reformed' theology, for their 'transcendental presuppositionalism' has far more in common with rationalism as Rand identified it than Objectivism, which shares none of its traits).

Notice at this point that the theist embraces yet another bifurcation: atheism equals either 'naturalism' or 'materialism', which, many religionists would argue are one and the same. This view bolsters the previously identified bifurcation (see above): either you embrace a Christian worldview or a materialist worldview.

Once the theist has established his equation of atheism with either of these worldview variants, 'naturalism' or materialism, he then sets out to knock them down and claim a false victory for his worldview, completing his straw man argument. If theistic worldviews can only establish their 'truth' on ruins achieved by using straw man arguments, then what good are they in the first place? Can the Christian worldview not stand on its own merits? Or, must its representatives pursue its unearned, unmerited credibility by fallacy-craft?

The solution is for the religionist to realize that his generalities do not exhaust the possible choices open to man as far as which worldview he may adopt as his guide to reality. This is most likely the case because he has not identified his essentials - a skill that he cannot achieve by believing in deities, demons and devils. Furthermore, it is completely apparent from his acceptance of the Christian vs. materialist bifurcation that the theist is most likely completely unaware of Objectivism, the philosophy of Reason.

Appeal to Force: An obvious confession that reason is not sufficient to establish a desired conclusion is the appeal to force fallacy (argumentum ad baculum, or "appeal to the stick"). This fallacy occurs
whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept that conclusion. The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may either be a single person or a group of persons. Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so any argument based on such a procedure is fallacious. The ad baculum fallacy often occurs when children argue with one another. (Hurley, 107-108.)

From this description of what the appeal to force fallacy entails, it should be obvious which particular appeal to force fallacy has lasted the longest in western history. It has been noted that neither the Old nor the New Testaments offer any arguments for the existence of God; this presumption is taken as fact throughout their pages without question. However, if it could be said that there is at least one argument presented in the Bible for the truth of its doctrines, it would be the ad baculum "Believe, or go to hell!" The New Testament is rife with threats of hellfire (Matthew 5:22, 29, 10:28, 11:23, 18:9, 23:33; Mark 9:43, 45, and 47; Luke 10:25, 12:5, 16:23; James 3:6; II Peter 2:4; and Revelations 1:18 to name a few). And this threat - of perpetual, unrelenting physical and psychological anguish, torture and suffering - is what the Bible offers to back up its claims.

While apologists vainly busy themselves with the construction of fantastically sophisticated and obfuscating rhetorical machinery - which even they themselves cannot understand, turning logic into a pretzel in order to establish the alleged 'truth' of their god-belief claims, the inevitable card at the bottom of their stack of arguments is the appeal to force. This much is indisputable, and no apologist for Christian theism can escape this fact, no matter what series of fallacies he decides to use in covering his conclusions.

For a synopsis of why all faith claims ultimately must rely on ad baculum threats, the reader is referred to Ayn Rand's essay "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World" in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It.

® 1999 by Anton Thorn. All rights reserved.

More complete treatments of informal fallacies can be found at the following sites:

http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Back to Top

Back to Anton Thorn's main page.

Posted July 4, 1999

Reply to Shannon Jacobs @ Dubya's UnRead Books re The God Delusion

2010-11-14T08:42:00.000-08:00

Hello and greetings: This message comes to you from Robert Bumbalough, a strong atheist. I have enjoyed your review and have typed my comments below. I will italicize your statements to make it easier to read.

You wrote We can acquire more knowledge, but we can never acquire absolute knowledge of the actual world.

I don't understand what you mean by "absolute" or "knowledge". Your statement here seems ambiguous (as does most of the rest of your review) and may be a constructive equivocation or sorts. However, indexical empirical experiences are 100% certain given healthy sense perception. Brain states are events that can neither be falsified or ratified, but such events are integrated into our cognition by conceptualization. Assigning symbols to our concepts allows us to then form propositions that predicate something about a subject. Non-contradictory means of identification, logic derived from material existence, employed then validates or repudiates one's propositions. If the former, then 100% certainty ensues.

I am now typing. I introspectively recall that I commanded my fingers to strike the keys. These propositions predicate that typing was actively occurring by my own actions. I conclude that I have 100% complete certainty that this just happened because my memory of typing is both a basic foundational belief that is coherent with the evidence of seeing typing on the screen. Thus my introspective memory and the current experience of seeing typing constitute evidence that can only exist if I was actually typing. There is a chain of casualty from the evidence to a conclusion that I am 100% justified in believing I was typing when I typed "I am now typing. I introspectively recall that I commanded my fingers to strike the keys."

Epistemology using both foundationalism and coherentism in non-contradictory ways coupled with explication of how 100% certain evidence logically causes a conclusion due to casualty of material existence yields 100% certain belief or true justified belief. If true justified belief is knowledge, then multiple combined coherent and foundational streams of evidence from material existence that provide strong support for a hypothesis can yield 100% certainty the hypothesis is indeed true because reality is casual due to the law of identity, A=A.

That existence exists, and that which exists is something having attributes, and that one is consciously aware of existence cannot be evaded. Any attempt to circumvent foundational objective axioms of reality, must use those same foundational objective axioms to do so thus rendering its own argument spurious by virtue of some type of stolen concept fallacy.

Your assertion that The world of mathematics is a special case--but as noted below, it lacks the attribute of existence. Mathematicians will argue vigorously against your position. And even if an ontology of information can be shown to only comprise encodings between material, physical elemental units due to casual interactions and relative juxtapositionings of brain events, reality's allowable operations stemming from A=A law of identity and casualty still means that if there were no human beings, maths would still be discoverable and encodable and thus still exist. The distinction where your point fails is between actual and potential. With physical brains figuring out maths (or logics), maths (or logics) are actual, without brains, then maths are only potential. But in either case they still exist. Or so I think at any rate.

Mostly for the sake of politeness... This is funny. You previously wrote You religious fanatics are crucially unable to deal with the reality of truth in the limited way we humans can deal with that truth. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to accuse your religious readers of being non-human and then offer an olive branch of politeness?

I think that a super-intelligent god would have been aware of information theory before we discovered it in the last century.... I think you're confusing omniscience with intelligence. They are not the same. O means God knows all true propositions. A proposition is a predication of something about a subject. A predicate is an assertion of something about a subject in a proposition. Since God does not have sensory abilities, it is then thought to actively predicate what reality is or is not. That is what is meant by Creation. Intelligence means "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity." God, according to nominal Christianity, cannot learn because it knows all true propositions and thus predicates reality. God cannot reason or understand because it is immutable, unchanging, and transcendent. Spatiality and temporality are required for casualty. Casualty is necessary for reasoning or understanding. God cannot be intelligent. You're importing common Christian fallacies and ambiguities about the nature of Christianity's God to your argument. But that is not at all surprising as Christianity is a conglomerate of Hellenistic and Jewish mysticism wrapped in ritual and obfuscated by superstitious veneration.

I also regard myself as an agnostic, though basically because a negation cannot be proven. Square circle? That which is self-contradictory cannot exist.

such a diabolical god who would lie to our faces on such a scale... According to the Christian fairytale. God cannot lie. To reconcile this with omniscience means that if God is real, then we are not. If reality is the product of God's imagination, then nothing exists independent of God's imagination and there is no truth other than God. So whatever God predicates would then be not even true or false because false only occurs in contradistinction to true, and true happens, if and only, if existence is independent of consciousness. Dawkins has almost no understanding of Christianity. I'm only now, after studying it for several years beginning to get it. Christianity is an insidious evil because it teaches that we are only fantasies in the mind of God. How sick is that?

and even physical space itself is ultimately curved and 'imperfect'. Imperfect compared to what? The platonic realm of the gods from whence cometh information? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can't know reality with "absolute certainty", you can't know some other reality with sufficient certainty to make a comparative judgement regarding perfection. What does perfection mean anyway? Isn't the notion of perfection itself ambiguous sort of like Anselem's quality of greatness?

...child's faith in the parents... Christianity conceives of faith as hypostatization of the hope believers hold for a reward in an afterlife. A child's set of brain events encoding evidence-feedback-action-reaction constitutes integration of facts drawn from material existence by sensation, perception, conceptualization. This is not faith. True justified belief based on evidence occurs by reasoning from facts of reality.

...He wants to change our consciousness in hopes of influencing people, so that more people would be aware of the possibility of changing their religious beliefs.... Why would you care what Dawkins wants regarding religious people, if you think them hardly human?

Faith also addresses the reality that they are also intellectually lazy and foolish, though most of them are less willing to admit to those traits. I use my evolved ability to suspend disbelief and to believe any proposition to divide my mind into multiple personalities. One me, is very useful as a watchdog over the other me to prevent the later me from making quite so many mistakes in our various endeavors. Faith can be a virtue when properly used for one's own benefit. We make our own mythology and are better for it.

...we don't have the time to check the evidence for everything, so we have to start by taking a lot of things on faith. Presupposing Hume was right about induction flies in the face of the fact that reality is not fictional. Randomness associated with chaotic, non-linear dynamic perturbations in harmonic phenomena and that ostensibly stemming from experimental setup variance is part of material existence and can be counted and specifically compensated. This has nothing to do with faith. Stop borrowing from the Christian world view.

However, the more important attribute of the rare great scientist is an ability to figure out WHICH evidence to search for. Sometimes it involves looking at old evidence differently. In that case, the evidence exists, but no one else can see its true meaning. What distinguishes "looking at evidence differently" from mathematics? Why does one exist but the other lack such an attribute?

...while the religious fanatic is looking for 'absolute' meaning as a handout from some god. Contrasting methodological naturalism's basal doubting with the religious person's desire for emotional comfort stemming from personal assurance is a category mistake founded on a stolen concept of certainty. Again you can't have your cake and eat it too. If reality is not understandable due to inescapable randomness, as would be the case if inductive reasoning can not be trusted, there can be no epistemic justification for any claim couched as 100% certain. If one constructs Bayesian probability arguments from strong priors, however, a rational case can be adduced. Such an approach can be more productive in dealing with believers as opposed to insulting them.

about Hitler and Stalin.
I like Ayn Rand on the subtle distinctions between Hitler and Stalin.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html

A cult is defined as "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cults?r=75

Hitler's Nazi Party were mostly economic religions, but they were following the traditional historical trajectory of rapid growth followed by suppression leading to a militaristic and extremist response. I think this is another fallacy in Dawkin's reasoning. Economics is the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. This presupposes that humans have fundamental rights stemming from our interaction with existence. Characterizing economics in any form as a religion, (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe), in context of bashing such beliefs is to construct a package deal that abrogates fundamental human rights to self, to life, to one's own reasoned determinism. To do this in a discussion of totalitarian cruelty is to setup a contradiction. Dawkins could have made his point in other ways without the contradiction.

Yes, I'm personally sure that objective reality will eventually grind their fantasies to dust, but that's the way of the world, after all. I think its a contradiction to argue from inductive uncertainty and then invoke objectivity as these are mutually exclusive concepts.

I think this book is an interesting and thoughtful summary of many complicated topics. Having read the book three years ago, I agree with your summary. Perhaps, I'll read it again next year. The night stand has 14 books on it now, so off I go to catch up a bit. I have enjoyed your review, and although we disagree on many issues, we do share an essential optimism for our future as a species. Best Wishes for Your Success.

Torah Law & Angels and Leviticus 7:22-25 vs 1 Cor 11:23-25

2010-10-31T15:20:00.000-07:00

The Author of Acts thought the Torah Law came from an angel. In Acts 7:37-38(RSV) Stephen's speech reads in part: “This is the Moses .... This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living oracles to give to us. “

The Apostle Paul thought that the Torah Law came from angels. In Gal 3:19 (RSV) “Why then the law? ... and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.” , Paul directly stated this.

The author of Hebrews thought the same. When discussing the Torah Law in Hebrews 2:2 (RSV),
"For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;”, he ascribes the Torah to angels.

This is how the Paulian Christians were able to get around the assertions of the earlier Jewish Christians that the Torah Laws had to be obeyed. Paul's special pleadings would have carried no argumentative weight if his opponents could appeal to the words of the divine Yahweh. If there were no word's of the divine Yahweh in the Torah Laws, then Paul's contentions were as good as those of the Jewish Christians in the James, Mandean, Nasoraean, and Ebonite cults. The problem then facing the Paulian Christian was to steal the concept of the Passover Paschal Lamb sacrifices that under gird the doctrine of the Atonement while simultaneously denying it . If the Torah Laws found at Exodus 12:43-50 and Numbers 9:9-14 were given by angels, then they were never in actual effect by any god. The Paulist needs to assert the Passover Paschal Lamb sacrifices were in effect to vivify the doctrine of Atonement, but she also needs to deny validity of the Torah Law in order to makes Paul's special pleading to the doctrine of Grace seem valid. The early Catholics understood this and consequently they wrote the doctrine that angels delivered the Torah into the mouth of Stephen to facilitate Hellenization of Christianity.

If Yahweh actually exists, however, and is responsible for the Torah law, Christianity is false, and the way to relate to deity is via Judaism. An interesting pair of Biblical contradictions falsifies Christianity, and the archeological record to falsify Judaism. A contradiction entailed between the alleged revelations of Christianity and Judaism is the formers glorification and dependence upon symbolic consumption of blood offered in sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:23-25 relates " 23: For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, 24: and having given thanks broke [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25: In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink [it], in remembrance of me. "

Judaism's alleged revelation in Lev 7:22-27 states "22: And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, .... 26: And no blood shall ye eat in any of your dwellings, whether it be of fowl or of cattle. 27: Whatever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples."

Jesus is identified as Yahweh in the following passages. John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:58, John 10:30-31, John 10:38-39, John 14:9, John 20:28, Acts 20:28, Col 1:16, Col 2:9, 1 Tim 3:16, Titus 2;13, Phil 2:6, Heb 1:8, Rev 1;17, and Rev 22:13.

The Bible assures the reader that Yahweh cannot lie as expounded in the following passages. Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, 2 Sam 7:28, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18.

The Bible also relates that the Law of Moses is a perpetual Covenant that cannot be rescinded ever. Gen 17:19, Ex 12:14, 17, 24, Lev 23:14,21,31, Deut 4:8-9, 7:9, 11:26-28,1 Chron 16:15, PS 111:7-8, Psalm 119:151-2, 160, Mal 4:4, Matt 5:18-19, Luke 16:17.

If Yahweh exists, then either Judaism is a true revelation or it isn't. If Moses got a true and correct revelation, then that revelation is incompatible with and contrary to Christianity, and Jesus and Paul were wrong, self-deluded, and Jesus cannot be equal to Yahweh. On the other hand if Moses was a deceiver or a myth, then Judaism is a fictional religious fairy tale, and Jesus and Paul were incorrect, self-deluded, and Jesus cannot be Yahweh because Christianity presupposes Judaism to be a true revelation. Either way Christianity is false, and Jesus is not Yahweh.

If Paul had the truth and his Law of Moses as schoolmaster argument (Gal. 3:24) was true, then either Yahweh lied to Moses or the New Testament's assertion that Jesus equals Yahweh is false. Either way the Passover Paschal Lamb sacrifices, that under gird the doctrine of the Atonement, found at Exodus 12:43-50 and Numbers 9:9-14 would be invalid and the entire pretext of Christianity would evaporate. Additionally, if Yahweh is a liar, then it is not most worthy of worship, and . If Yahweh is not most worthy of worship, then it cannot be God and the Christian God must be something else. If the Bible's assertion that Jesus equals Yahweh is false, then Christianity's dependence upon a truthful historical Judaism is also a lie and the use of Old Testament proof texts to support Christian claims is fallacious and there could not then be Christ as Jewish Messiah.

Both Moses and Paul cannot be correct, but both can be wrong. If Moses, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan, the Davidic-Solomon-Reboaham unified empire are myths cooked up by the eighth century BCE Judean Yahweh cultists in response to the prosperity of the Omri-Ahab dynasty of the northern Israel kingdom and territorial encroachments of the Assyrian empire, then the Mosaic Law and the Torah are human fabrications. And Jesus, the Jews, and Paul were wrong and self-deluded. Christianity presupposes and requires Judaism to be a true revelation from Yahweh, but if the Bible minimalists are correct, as they appear to be, then Judaism is just another mythological religious fairytale, and the New Testament's equivocation of Jesus and Yahweh is a lie, and there was never a first Passover. Without a first Passover as per the story in Exodus 12, there is no basis for the Passover Paschal Lamb sacrifice laws. This would be fatal for Judaism and Christianity.

About Papias and the Gospels

2010-10-29T09:51:00.000-07:00

I crafted this quote heavy essay two years ago for a message exchange with a Christian guy named David on Dawson Bethrick’s blog Incinerating Presuppositionalism regarding Papias and Christian origins.

David: "you should wonder why the early church leadership chose to attribute Marcan authorship when they knew he was writing down Peter's words. Why not put Peter at the wheel, if you know that this will guarantee the story gets in the stack?"

David’s query begs the question in several ways. By asserting that I should be concerned about (presumably) the Jesus myth case because of Christian apologetical assertions that canonical Mark was authored by the legendary secretary John Markus to Simon Peter the Apostle and that putting Peter at the wheel gets the story into the stack is circular reasoning because that is to assume the gospel stories are historical. The historicity of the Gospel story is, however, the issue at question.

It is Petitio principii to think there was “leadership” in early Christianity because doing so assumes a “big bang” origin of Christianity with a legendary founder, Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Christianity was always a schizophrenic diversity of cultic expression characterized by many sects each with a writhing, squirming, wad of competitive would be prophets and apostles. Christianity was never a single organization prior to the darkness of total Catholic control. Asserting there was 2-nd century consensus begs the question.

To suggest Irenaeus’ agenda of establishing his four gospels as authoritative was contested is to ignore the Sitz im Leben of late second century Catholicism and to assume that the other types of Christianity then extant would be in any way influenced by what they considered gross error. Would the Gnostics or Jewish-Christian sectarians have been influenced by Irenaeus? Of course not. Who was there in the 2-nd century to say what was scripture and what was not? The religious landscape of 2-nd century Rome was a free-for-all. There were Holy Ghost’s, Prophets-Of-The-Real-Gods, Apostles-O-Christ-du jure on every street corner. Vast numbers of phony preachers and cult leaders competed for followers and their loot, and there was no end to the fools and loons who willingly followed. The much later Church Councils and Synods of the fourth century were 150 to 200 years yet to come relative to Irenaeus. However, his writings were influential with third and fourth century Catholics in establishing preferred dogma. The later churchmen then accepted Irenaeus’ recommendations (an reliance on Papias) because his gospels told the story in a manner compliant with their desire to create an authoritative institution issuing command catechism. Irenaeus’ claim regarding authorship of Mark stem from Papias. However, the zany notion that the canonical Gospel of Mark was authored by the legendary secretary John Markus to Simon Peter the Apostle as per Papias cannot be substantiated from what historical data we have.

Since the four canonical gospels do not show up in the literary record prior to Irenaeus naming them in "Against Heresies,"

"After their departure (death of Peter & Paul), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." - (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

we can reasonably accept a strong prior probability that were canonical Mark and Matthew in circulation prior to Irenaeus, that Quadratus of Athens, Aristides, Marcion, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and other early 2-nd century apologists would have used them. But the early 2-nd century Christian churchmen do not cite or quote canonical Mark and Matthew.

It is likely that Irenaeus ascribed authorship of what we think of as the canonical Gospel According to Mark to Presbyter John’s Mark based on data from Papias about a quite different document. Paul Tobin’s case thoroughly refutes evangelical assertions that canonical Mark was the document thought to be known to Papias. He explains:

"The first explicit references to the supposed authors of the gospels were from Irenaeus (c130-200). Thus we see him making references to the gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in Against Heresies (c 180)

Against Heresies 3:10:5 Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God..." [Mark 1:1]"

The earliest attempt to give the names of the authors of some of the gospels came just before the middle of the second century. This is the witness of an early Christian named Papias, bishop of Heirapolis. He wrote a now lost work entitled The Five Books of Interpretations of the Oracles of the Lord. The actual time of his writing is unknown, and is now available only in fragments quoted by later Christians. Most scholars place it around 130 CE, but it could well be as late as 150 CE. In any case, this is what Papias wrote - as quoted in Eusebius's (c275-339) History of the Church:(Book III, Chpt.39, Art.1)
Quoted in History of the Church 3:39:15
And the presbyter said this: Mark the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly, but not in order, what he remembered of the acts and sayings of the Lord, for he neither heard the Lord himself nor accompanied him, but, as I said, Peter later on. Peter adapted his teachings to the needs [of his hearers], but made no attempt to provide a connected narrative of things related to our Lord. So Mark made no mistake in setting down some things as he remembered them, for he took care not to omit anything he heard nor to include anything false. As for Matthew, he made a collection in Hebrew of the sayings and each translated them as best they could.

His source for this information is one Presbyter John. Who is this mysterious person whom Papias quoted? We do not know. We do know that he was not one of the apostles, as earlier in the same work Papias wrote this:

Quoted in History of the Church 3:39:3-4
And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.

Note that the presbyter John is not included in the list of the apostles and is not to be confused with the apostle John who was mentioned earlier in the sentence and in the past tense. There is a further point we should note about the witness of Papias. According to Eusebius (History of the Church 3:39:13-14), Papias was a man "of very limited understanding" who "misunderstood apostolic accounts." In other words he must have been, even for his age, quite credulous. We do not foresee such a person counter-checking the reliability of the information given to him by the presbyter. He probably just accepted what was told to him verbatim.

[Robert_B: Presbyter John’s story is that his Mark took notes from speeches delivered by Apostle Peter. Our canonical Mark is a narrative story, not a collection of logia sayings.]

Whatever the case may be as to the reliability of this tradition (which we will consider below), Papias' testimony tells us that the name Mark was attached to the gospel around 130-150 CE. Prior to this the document we call the Gospel According to Mark circulated anonymously. It is unlikely that our Gospel According to Mark was the same document Papias referred to. Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" (Eerdmans 2006) admits that modern scholars have regarded Papias testimony on Mark as "historically worthless." (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: p203) – Paul Tobin’s web article Was Papias a Reliable Witness?

[Robert_B: We know about Papias from Irenaeus through Eusebius. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius are known to have exaggerated and must be approached skeptically

It is quite certain that the Christian landscape of the 2-nd century was saturated with itinerant, vagabond, preachers-teachers-prophets-apostles who traveled about swindling credulous Christian believers. Even Paul warned about such in 2 Cor 11:4. The Didache warns against such itinerant apostles..

Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

[Robert_B: We cannot, therefore, rule out that presbyter John was not a swindling con-man who targeted Papias as a mark.

Richard Packham in "Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity" notes regarding Papias that: "The testimony of Papias is the earliest authority for the authorship of the Apostles, but it is scarcely "solid." We do not even have Papias' direct testimony, since his writings are lost. Our information about Papias' testimony comes only by way of Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, and who portrays Papias as being somewhat gullible. The "John" of whom Papias was a student was more likely John Presbyter than John the Evangelist (or John the Apostle, if they can be proven identical). In short, the "solid" evidence is not as solid as Montgomery would like us to believe."

Supernatural Religion: An Inquiry Into the Reality of Divine Revelation (full view available on Google Books) Walter Richard Cassels presents a thoroughly convincing case that canonical Mark is not the same document as that spoken of by Papias. The argument starts on page 276 and runs through 286.

Cassels concluded that: "It is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work referred to by the Presbyter John disappeared, and the present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it. The merely negative evidence that our actual Gospel is not the work described by Papias is sufficient for our purpose. Any one acquainted with the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, and with the literary history of the early Christian Church, will readily conceive the facility with which this can have been accomplished. The great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptic Gospels have assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works. These changes have not been effected without traces being left by which the various materials may be separated and distinguished ; but the more primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared, naturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions. The critic, however, who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not bound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals, or accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the primitive Gospel.

Tischendorf asks : "How then has neither Eusebius nor any other theologian of Christian antiquity thought that the expressions of Papias were in contradiction with the two Gospels (Mt. And Mk.)?"

The absolute credulity with which those theologians accepted any fiction, however childish, which had a pious tendency, and the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they indulged, render their questioning application of the tradition of Papias to our Gospels anything but singular, and it is only surprising to find their silent acquiescence elevated into an argument. We have already, in the course of these pages, seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical character of the Fathers, and we cannot afford space to give instances of the absurdities with which their writings abound. No fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification. No period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master himself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery. False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were unscrupulously circulated, and such pious falsification was not even intended, or regarded, as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of edification. It was only slowly and after some centuries that many of these works, once, as we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were excluded from the canon; and that genuine works shared this fate, while spurious ones usurped their places, is one of the surest results of criticism The Fathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have been of value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted is of no critical value. In an age when the multiplication of copies of any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter of difficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what facility the more complete and artistic Gospel could take the place of the original notes as the work of Mark." – Cassels, "Supernatural Religion" p.285-286

Charles B. Waite in his definitive - "History of the Christian Religion: To the Year Two Hundred" wrote the following about Papias’ alleged witness to the Gospels According to Mark and Matthew.

*Such is this far famed testimony (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. bk. 3, ch. 89.)
That portion relating to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, may be stated as follows: Eusebius says, that Papias said, that John the presbyter said, in what manner certain writings of Mark and Matthew had been constructed. The value to be attached to any statements of Eusebius, will be considered hereafter. One important circumstance will be noted, in the evidence, as it stands: Notwithstanding this explanation of the apostolic origin of the books, it appears that Papias considered them, as evidence, inferior to oral tradition. That, too, a hundred years after the time, when, as is claimed, they were written. Again, it is contended by able critics, that the language here attributed to Papias, concerning the book written by Mark, cannot be applied to the gospel which bears his name. ' They insist that it must be referred to the Preaching of Peter, or some other document more ancient then the Gospel of Mark. So also of the logia, oracles or sayings of Christ, by Matthew, which were not the same as the Gospel of Matthew.* - "History of the Christian Religion: To the Year Two Hundred", By Charles Burlingame Waite (full view on Google books)

Papias’ credulity did not escape Eusebius who wrote of him that: 13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. Church History (Book III, Chpt.39, Art.13) That Papias would accept anything is evident by the surviving *fragment of Papias’ writing, preserved by Apollinarius of Laodicea, a fourth century Christian bishop, tells of the fate of Judas. It is important to read this passage in full:

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. And this the Acts of the Apostles makes clear, that falling headlong his middle burst and his bowels poured forth. And Papias the disciple of John records this most clearly, saying thus in the fourth of the Exegeses of the Words of the Lord:

Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth. [4]

Anyone who reads this will immediately notice a few things. Firstly this is a harmonization of the contradictory readings from Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:18-19. [b] Secondly the additional details, like his swollen head, sunken eyes, bloated genitalia, body flowing with pus, emanation of worms and terrible stench are typical motifs used by ancient authors to describe the deserved sufferings of evil men before their deaths. Josephus in Antiquities 17:6:5 described Herod the Great’s suffering before his death to include putrefied genitals, emanation of pus and worms and bad stench. Acts 12:23 describes the death of Herod’s grandson, Herod Agrippa I by stating that he was struck by an angel and was "eaten by worms." In other words the story about Judas suffering is an expected folkloric expansion of the brief accounts given in the Matthew and Acts. [5]

Obviously this fable recounted by Papias certainly did not come from eyewitness accounts. Yet he presented it quite matter-of-factly as though he was recounting real history!

There are further examples from available fragments of Papias’ writing of the basic unreliability of his writings. He was a teller of tall tales. In the fragment preserved by Philip of Side (c. 380 - c. 439), we hear of the daughters of Philip who would drink snake venom with no ill effects, of a woman resurrected and of those who were raised by Jesus surviving until the early second century!

The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian. [6]

We can now see why Eusebius noted that Papias writes of "strange parables" and "mythical tales." The latter’s credulousness is strong evidence that Papias was as Eusebius described him: someone of "limited understanding." As for his claim of diligent collection and remembering of the Jesus tradition from the elders, we have an example of this in Irenaeus. Irenaeus cited Papias as his source for this saying of Jesus about the millennium:

Against Heresies 5:33:3-4
As the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine…And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him

The source of this saying attributed to Jesus is not from any extant Christian writing or oral tradition – but Jewish apocrypha! Compare the passage below from 2 Baruch, a late first century or early second century Jewish pseudepigraphical text.

2 Baruch 29:3-6
And it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that was to come to pass in those parts, that the Messiah shall then begin to be revealed. …The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each (?) vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of wine.

The above evidence tells us that Papias was not a careful historian but a credulous second century Christian who seemed eager to believe anything that confirms his faith in Jesus.* - Paul Tobin Was Papias a Reliable Witness?

In light of this stuff, the question of Peter-Mark-Papias is moot, for Papias was an unreliable witness. His testimony cannot be taken seriously by any honest exegetical investigator.

Randel Helms from Gospel Fictions on Jesus' last words.

2010-10-29T04:31:00.000-07:00

I typed this a couple of years ago after reading Randel Helms great missive. Gospel Fictions

In the second chapter Helms points out that in three of the four canonical Gospels that the alleged final dying words of Jesus are recorded differently, and Matthew spins the words for his own purposes. I will cite the text at length as Helms is a better writer than me.

"For example, according to Matthew and Mark, the dying words of Jesus were, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" According to Luke, Jesus' dying words were, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." But according to John they were , "It is accomplished." To put it another way, we cannot know what the dying words of Jesus were, or even whether he uttered any; it is not that we have too little information, but that we have too much. Each narrative implicitly argues that the others are fictional. In this case at least, it is inappropriate to ask of the Gospels what "actually" happened; they may pretend to be telling us, but the effort remains a pretense, a fiction.
The matter becomes even more complex when we add to it the virtual certainty that Luke knew perfectly well what Mark had written as the dying words, and the likelihood that John also knew what Mark and perhaps Luke had wrote, but that both Luke and John chose to tell the story differently."

[The interesting thing here is that both the Lukian and Johnine writers were working from Mark and other source documents, but they choose to tell the story in very different ways for doctrinal and theological reasons related to the needs of their faith communities. This argues against historicity and reliability of the Gospels because if the evangelists were relating events involving the Son of God or God Incarnate they would have taken pains to ensure accuracy rather than incorporate many discrepancies and contradictions between the various Gospel accounts. Helms continues.]

"The Gospels are Hellenistic religious narratives in the tradition of th Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which constituted the "Scriptures" to those Greek-speaking Christians who wrote the four canonical Gospels and who appealed to it, explicitly or implicitly, in nearly every paragraph the wrote.
A simple example is the case of the las words of Christ. Mark presents these words in self-consciously realistic fashion, shifting from his usual Greek into the Aramaic of Jesus, transliterated into Greek letters: "'Eloi eloi lama sabachthanei (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Mark 15:34). Mark gives us no hint that Jesus is "quoting" Pslam 22:1; we are clearly to believe that we are hearing the grieving outcry of a dying man. But the author of Matthew, who used Mark as one of his major written sources is self-consciously "Literary" in both this and yet another way: though using Mark as his major source for the passion story, Matthew if fully aware that Mark's crucifixion narrative is based largely on the 22 nd Psalm, fully aware, that is, that Mark's Gospel is part of a literary tradition (this description would not be Matthew's vocabulary, but his method is nonetheless literary). Aware of the tradition, Matthew knew that no Aramaic speaker present at the Cross would mistake a cry to God (Eloi) for one to Elijah - the words are too dissimilar. So Matthew self-consciously evoked yet another literary tradition in the service both of verisimilitude and of greater faithfulness to the Scriptures: not the Aramaic of Psalm 22:1 but the Hebrew, which he too transliterated into Greek - "Eli Eli" (Matt. 27:46) - a cry which could more realistically be confused for "Eleian". Matthew self-consciously appeals both to literary tradition -a "purer" text of the Psalms-and to verisimilitude as he reshapes Mark, his literary source. ..... Matthew certainly knew that he was creating a linguistic fiction in his case (Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.) though just as clearly he felt justified in doing so, given his conviction that since Psalm 22 had "predicted" events in the crucifixion, it could be appealed to even in the literary sense of one vocabulary rather that another, as a more "valid description of the Passion.
Luke is even more self-consciously literary and fictive than Matthew in his crucifixion scene. Though, as I have said, he knew perfectly well what Mark had written as the dying words of Jesus, he created new ones more suitable to his understanding of what the death of Jesus meant - and act with at least two critical implications: First, that he has thus implicitly declared Mark's account a fiction; second, that he self-consciously presents his own as a fictions. For like Matthew, Luke in 23:46 deliberately placed his own work in the literary tradition by quoting Psalm 30 (31):5 in the Septuagint as the dying speech of Jesus: "Into your hands I will commit my spirit" ("eis cheiras sou parathesomai to pneuma mou"), changing the verb from future to present (paratithemai) to suit the circumstances and leaving the rest of the quotation exact. This is self-conscious creation of literary fiction, creation of part of a narrative scene for religious and moral rather than historical purposes. Luke knew perfectly well, I would venture to assert, that he was creating an ideal model of Christian death, authorized both by doctrine and by literary precedent." - from "Gospel Fictions" p.15-17

Helms makes a good case throughout "Gospel Fictions", for there are many examples of this sort of purposeful editorial revisionism to assert midrashic theological-doctrinaire teachings. The last words of Jesus were and are of utmost importance to Christians as you yourself indicate by citing John 19:30. Yet each of the canonical Gospels tells it differently or spins it differently in the case of Matthew. This shows that the Gospel authors were self-consciously aware they were not dealing with history but rather with pious fiction. Taken together almost all content of the Gospels can be shown to be based on earlier Moses, Elijah, David stories or from bits of liturgical text form the Jewish apocrypha. I recommend Dr. Robert M. Price's book "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man". Price does a masterful job of illustrating the midrashic nature of the Gospels.

In "The Case Against Christianity" Michael Martin evaluates Dr George A Wells' argument against a historical Jesus and concludes:

“Well's argument against the historicity of Jesus is sound, and recent criticisms against his argument can be met. So on the basis of Well's argument there is good reason to reject not only Orthodox Christianity but even those versions of Liberal Christianity that assume that although Jesus was not the Son of God he was an ethical teacher who lived in the first Century.” ~ p.67, ISBN 0-87722-767-5

My point in all of this is to note that the story of Jesus is fictional. Whatever Jesus really was, we'll never know. He is lost to history, and all that remains is a sad caricature clothed in layers of obfuscatory religions doctrines hidden behind the stained glass of orthodoxy.

reply to Jayman

2010-10-28T09:14:00.000-07:00

Hello Jayman: I hope this message finds you well and feeling good. Nothing in this reply should be construed as an insult of ad hominem attack in lieu of argument. We can have a discussion even though we disagree on the issue. However, I respectfully agree with you when you wrote in response to Mr. Myers that “If you don't want to make arguments then don't make historical claims.”

Sir, the Christian apologist bears a strong burden of proof to validate the claim that the Canonical Gospels are historically reliable. A context for shouldering that burden can be achieved by employment of the Coherency Theory
truth wherein an exegete holds a “view that the truth of a proposition consists in its being a member of some suitably defined body of other propositions: a body that is consistent.”

Since modern people can know nothing of ancient history with certainty, a historical inquirer must seek to form arguments to the best explanation. That is assisted by demonstrating a rational Beysian probability that the Canonical Gospels are most likely true (or not) as historical accounts. To do that it is required to determine the prior probability of that hypothesis given the evidence we do have using the Coherency Theory of truth. All the facts must be coherent and fit with the main hypothesis.

Bayes Theorem is expressed as

P(H|S)={P(S|H)*P(H)}/P(S)}

where for present purposes

P(H) is the prior probability of the Gospels being historically acurate.

P(S) is the prior probability of the non-Christian silence regarding Jesus or the rise of Christianity in the first century.

P(S|H) is the conditional probability of the non-Christian silence given historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts.

P(H|S) is the conditional probability of historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts given the non-Christian silence regarding Jesus or the rise of Christianity in the first century.

No non-Christian testimony for Jesus or the rise of Christianity can be reliably counted upon to support the hypothesis that the Gospels are historically accurate. Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan showed he knew nothing of Jesus or Christianity for he had to torture the female slaves to obtain information that he termed “excessive superstition”. Yet the Christian story says that the religion spread quickly and widely throughout the regions of the eastern Mediterranean. If that were true, sophisticated elite ruling class officials would be expected to be acquainted with the religion especially in light of the Ignatian story. This fact as well as the other unexplainable silences regarding Jesus, Paul, and the alleged rapid spread of Christianity contradicts the Gospel and Acts stories. And since all religions are known to be based on fictional stories and since it is very easy to make up fictional stories and since form criticism identifies the Gospel stories as compliant with the archtypical form of widespread redeeming hero mythcial savior deities or demigods, then it is very likely the Gospel stories are fictional midrash, and that means the P(H) is very small.

P(S) however is very large because if the stories are indeed fictional midrash constituting contents of a mystery religion that was secret and only revealed to initiates, then it is to be expected that ancient chroniclers of then current events would not write about Christianity even though they were Johnny on the Spot and had every opportunity and motivation to write about it.

However, P(S|H) would be very small because if a Demi God or Divine being were striding about doing supernatural miracles in front of thousands, then the chroniclers should have and would have known and subsequently written about it. Its not every day that some Jewish Rabbi resurrects stinking rotting corpses or that Zombies rise from their graves an go ambling about in Jerusalem.

Then since P(S) is very large, and P(H) and P(S|H) are very small, P(H|S) is also very small. Thus it is rational to think the Gospel stories not historically accurate and to think them fictional midrash for a small unobtrusive mystery cult. This means asserting the Gospels accounts historically accurate or reliable is an extraordinary claim. To validate it, extraordinary evidence is needed. No such evidence is available. Only ordinary evidence can be mustered to support the apologetic case. The ordinary evidence available is not very good. So I think an exegete seeking to make a case for Christianity or historical reliability of the Gospels has a long row to hoe.

The forgoing constitutes and argument to the best explanation because it has good scope and parsimony with the known facts. To rebut this, an apologist should provide evidence of non-Christian testimony for Jesus, Paul, and the rise of Christianity. However the usual suspects have been dispatched. Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus

And the internal evidence of the New Testament documents fails for reasons Doherty, Price, Wells, Freke, Gandy, Murdock, Zindler and others have written upon in their books.

The facts are coherent and form a body of knowledge that is inconsistent with historical reliability of the NT Gospels. It is speculative that there may still have been a historical Jesus who was associated with the Q1 Kingdom of God preaching movement, but if so he would have more likely resembled a Hellenistic Cynic Sage type. But he would not have been the guy described in Gospel of Mark and that would be fatal for any form of Christianity dependent upon the Gospel Jesus character.

Best wishes, and regard to the readers, Robert Bumbalough

Excerpt from John C. Calhoun's Fort Hill Speech

2010-10-23T06:44:00.000-07:00

The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, “to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.” This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may—State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name—I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions. . .
John C. Calhoun Fort Hill, July 26 1831

Why Pedication of Establishment Clause Precludes USA From Being Christian Country

2010-10-22T07:19:00.000-07:00

Hello Mr ???????

I hope you're well and feeling good. Here's an additional thought that I can share with you right now. I may not be able to respond to your comments this weekend as my schedule is full. However here is an argument for the wall of separation.

The reason why predication of the Establishment clause by the Congress, the Senate, the President, the SOCTUS, the Constitutional Conventions, the State Ratification Conventions, the State Ratification Committees, and the expectation of the People of the States as indicated by almost total silence on religious matters in the Federalist Papers caused the Wall of Separation to obtain is that the intent of the Sovereigns, the People of The States, explicitly and unambiguously expressed the universal rejection of power to meddle in religious affair by the positive, explicit, endorsement of the Establishment clause by the Sovereign States in forming the United Stats of America means the ultimate Sovereigns, The People of The States, choose to not meddle in religious affairs. This predication specifically showed intent to configure the United States of America as a secular and free country. A secular and free country cannot be a religious country. Thus the intent of the Sovereigns was that the USA not be a Christian country.

Neither you nor I wish to live in a religious country anyways because a religious political entity that couples an welds Church and State together regulates all matters religious and compels religious observance in a manner like the ancient Roman Empire where citizens and subjects were compelled upon pain of charges of treason to worship the images of dead Ceasars as gods of the State or like Iran where people are required by law to practice Shia Islam. That is what a religious country would look like. Instead and happily, your religious practice is protected by law as is my choice to reject supernatural religion. You can worship your god freely. If the United States of America were a Christian County you would be forced by law to practice the official version of Christianity in lieu of your preferred faith. Since there are many thousands of versions or denominations of Christianity, it would be very likely you would find the official version offensive or undesirable. What if the USA adopted Calvinism as its official religion and surprised the world by producing a sacred scripture that stated that in order to be saved a Christian must pay 95% of all their money to the government and if they did not then they are not amongst the elect? What then if some resisted? Would not the government by fire and sword eliminate the non-elect from the population? After all eliminating infidels would be the will of God as expressed though the State. Is that what you really want? Would you desire to force everybody to bow down to a State Cult upon pain of some punishment, probably imprisonment or death? I think we're better off with religious freedom as Hamilton noted in Federalist No.1.

Its is my hope you prosper and find that which you seek.

Best Wishes and Regards

Robert Bumbalough

Is USA a Christian Country?

2010-10-21T05:26:00.000-07:00

I opened a new email exchange with a man who posts on a well trafficked blog on the question of whether the USA is a Christian Country. His post stated the following.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?,” O’Donnell asks. The answer? It ain’t there. The First Amendment, passed after the Constitution was adopted by a Congress elected under that ratified Constitution, reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Meanwhile, “established religions” were flourishing in several states, and so were multiple prohibitions thereof. In no way does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights establish a “wall of separation” between church and state.
Of particular note, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, supported a law in his native New York that prohibited Catholics from holding public office there. As I recall, the law was on the books until 1820.
Since 1789, activist courts have delighted in finding all sorts of “constitutional” principles that are not in the Constitution.

My initial rebuttal held that:

I disagree with your comment posted on the Lewrockwell blog. There is a wall of separation between State and Church specified in the Constitution for The United States cognizable by recognition of both a necessary and sufficient condition. The First Amendments prohibition on Congressional establishment of religion prevents the United States Federal Government from adopting any official religion. This is the necessary condition. However, The Establishment Clause is not a sufficient condition to rule out cultural inheritance of a defacto quasi official religion by means of commonality of shared traits. You correctly pointed this out in your comment by noting John Jay's support for religious tests of qualification for office holders.

You failed, however, to tell the whole story. The Supremacy Clause in Art VI Section 1, Clause 2 reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This makes articles of Treaties the “supreme Law of the Land”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Treaty of Tripoli's Article 11 reads “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Consequently, “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,” is to be understood “ As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This is a sufficient condition, and considered with the necessary condition of the Establishment Clause we are justified in concluding there indeed is a wall of separation between the United States of America and the obviously false and repugnant Christian religions.

Best Wishes and Regards

Robert Bumbalough

His subsequent response prompted additional thoughts on this matter.

Greetings from Robert Bumbalough.

Sir, I hope you are well and prospering. This third message is the second I am writing to defend that the United States of America is not a Christian country or nation and is in fact both free and secular in nature. But first allow me to clarify my own position, I am a Randian Objectivist and as such, I advocate a minimal minarchism in governmental structural organization although for me the jury is still out on the question of whether or not government should be monolithic or can be a plurality of competing free market enterprises a la Anarcho-Capitalism. Religiously, I am a strong or positive atheist because I know God, imagined as consciousness without existence and source of information, is impossible. I am a fan of all sciences. In no sense could I be described as a leftist, a liberal, a progressive, a socialist, or Marxist. However, I am neither a conservative or libertarian as those positions are fraught with error. I argue for Laissez Faire Capitalism and maximal personal liberty and responsibility.

To answer the question, “Is the United States of America a Christian Country?”, the terms Christian and Country need to be defined. I think a nominal Christian can be and only be a living human being that is capable of cognitive reasoning, volitional will, and has “faith” that at least one of either the Nicene, Athanasian, or Apostles Creeds constitute a proper profession of religious observance.

A country is a political entity, a state, and is constituted by sets or rules called laws. In no sense can a country be considered a metaphysical thing or a living human being, nor can it in any sense be considered as having a mind or capacity to reason. It is a schema of organization for a group of human beings who mutually desire to form an association to obtain benefits of civil governance.

Since countries cannot think and are not alive, they cannot be Christian or otherwise religiously construed even if the people who made the rules were religious. However, in the case of the United States of America its founding Charter, the “Constitution for the United States of America” clearly predicates in the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”. The Congress and Senate passed this amendment. It was signed by George Washington, and it was ratified by the States. These actions predicated a general sense that the United States of America were founded as a secular country. Jefferson made this clear in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” ~ (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)

In your original blog on Leerockwell.com you wrote

{“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?,” O’Donnell asks. The answer? It ain’t there. The First Amendment, passed after the Constitution was adopted by a Congress elected under that ratified Constitution, reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Meanwhile, “established religions” were flourishing in several states, and so were multiple prohibitions thereof. In no way does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights establish a “wall of separation” between church and state.
Of particular note, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, supported a law in his native New York that prohibited Catholics from holding public office there. As I recall, the law was on the books until 1820.
Since 1789, activist courts have delighted in finding all sorts of “constitutional” principles that are not in the Constitution.}~http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/67471.html

O'Donnell's and your own fallacy lies in thinking the wall of separation can be found in the Constitution itself. But your failure to understand stems from not knowing that both a necessary and sufficient condition is obtained for a man made rule by virtue of universal assertion of an axiomatic corollary. Such predication as was the case with the universal adoption of the establishment clause caused the wall of separation to likewise be established. That is the reason why the Treaty of Tripoli's Article 11 reading in part “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...” is true. The founders intended to set up a secular country where all people could have religious freedom or freedom from religion.

This view is further buttressed by the fact that nowhere in the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution for the United States is there a mention of the Christian religion or that the USA should be styled a Christian nation. The reference to God in the Declaration is to nature's God. This is not the Triune fantasy of Christianity known as Theos. Theos is the name of the Christian God in the the New Testament. The English word, God, used by Jefferson in the Declaration was a reference to the Age of Enlightenment's ideal of a personification of reason and creative energy as imagined by deists like Jefferson, Henry, Franklin, Voltaire, Madison, and Adams. Some of the founders were Christians, but those closely related to the Declaration were Deists and had no faith in Jesus so called Christ. Even if Jefferson and et al had been Christian fanatics, the text of the Declaration has no import or affect upon the nature of the United States, for it is still the case that countries cannot be religious. People can be and they can stipulate rules that require others to be religious upon pain of some punishment, but the USA does not have such rules.

In fact, Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution says “... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This is not how religious fanatics act in forcing others to adopt their faith as an official state religion. No country that is styled by its citizens as being religious in some way lacks an official or defacto official religion.

What about the Federalist Papers? Didn't they somehow entail that the people were expecting a religiously oriented country beyond The Articles of Confederation's complete silence on all matters religious save motivations for invasion by foreign enemies? NO! Jesus is not mentioned at all. God is mentioned twice. Once in context of a discussion of the ancient Greek god, Apollo, in reference to a discussion of Phippip of Macedonia (Alexander the Great's father) in Federalist No. 18 and once in Federalist No. 43 as a reference to the general Deist God of Nature referred to in the Declaration of independence. Madison was a Deist. Christianity is mentioned once as a time reference to the condition of the Germanic tribes just prior to the Carolinian empire in Federalist No. 11. So there is no evidence in the Federalist papers that the People expected a religiously oriented government or confederation.

Indeed, religion is mentioned several times in the Federalist Papers, however, but only once in a context of a national religion. Hamilton in Federalist No.1 wrote: “...nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” This warning about forcing others to accept one's faith was part of what was expected of the new Constitution. It was in the air in a general sense that the new and improved United States of America was to be a secular and free country.

I shall now address Mr ???????'s comments. The Bricker Amendment was never passed. The Senate defeated it. Eisenhower was opposed to it. A few years later, its champion, Senator Bricker was defeated for reelection. Those predications refuted the doctrine that Congressional approval of Treaties or Executive agreements is required.
Mr ???????, invocation of Missouri v. Holland does not help you. This case says the United States has power to implement Treaty obligations even if doing so would otherwise violate a State's Sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment. This is supportive of the Supremacy clause and enforces the Treaty of Tripoli's declaration that the United States was in no way founded upon the Christian religion. So if you wish to make a case that Treaty of Tripoli Art.11 is not the law, then you need something else. Missouri v. Holland helps my side. The United States is a free and secular country.

Mr ??????? mentioned the treaty powers in a general sense by writing “...the history of "Treaty Law,...” Please note that

“No part of any treaty has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court” and that

“The language of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which identifies treaties together with the Constitution and the laws of the United States as “the supreme Law of the Land,” was held to mean in Foster v. Neilson (1829) that a treaty must “be regarded in courts … as equivalent to an act of the legislature” (p. 254) and thus that a treaty is not valid if it contravenes the Constitution. The controversy engendered by the Bricker Amendment in the early 1950s resurrected fears generated by Missouri v. Holland that the treaty power might somehow be superior to constitutional restraint. In Reid v. Covert (1957), the Court held that civilian dependents of American military personnel overseas are entitled to a civilian trial, notwithstanding a contrary statute, and a plurality stated that no treaty or executive agreement “can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution” (p. 16). ~http://www.answers.com/topic/treaties-and-treaty-power

Since the Treaty of Tripoli Art. 11 has never been over turned, it is , via Foster v. Neilson to be regarded in court as equivalent to an act of the legislature and thus declaring the United States in no way founded upon the Christian religion is within the powers of Congress and the President as empowered by the Establishment clause that instantiated the wall of separation by universal predication by congress, Senate, President, and State Legislatures. The United States is a free and secular country.

Then Mr ??????? mentioned the “...facts of American history,...” The fact is that The United States is a free and secular country and has never had an official state religion nor can any country be religious as only people can be so silly.

Mr ??????? wrote: “Put bluntly: a treaty stating "down is up" is not therefore binding on the law of gravity -- nor does it reverse its application in the past.”
Treaties speak to man made states of affairs encoded in rules of conduct called laws. It is absurd to suggest any human can affect metaphysical reality by simply writing words on paper or saying something.

Mr ??????? wrote “In the case of the preamble you cite...” No preamble was cited. This is a casual exchange so exactitude is not necessary. But I did provide links for reference purposes.

Mr ??????? wrote “regarding the Tripoli language gives you grounds to assert that we are not a Christian nation” Sir, this statement indicates you do not understand what a nation is and why the United States is not one. A nation is a group of people who form a body politic for some purpose. Those who formed the United States of America are all dead. There is no nation here. The United States is a Country, a contract between States consisting of sets of rules, and cannot be Christian because only people can do that. Sets of rules can do nothing on their own. The language of the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11 is operative and is the Law.

Mr ??????? wrote “...300 years of history ...” The culture of Americans was not incorporated into the Constitution or Articles of Confederation before. Yet your claim here rests upon a false view of truth. If the religious beliefs of people were incorporated into the Constitution without any reference or specific enumerated power delegated to the Federal Government to establish an official religion, then how is it that all the other aspects of the cultures of the Colonial peoples were are not be be construed as part and parcel of the Constitution? Are we mandated to use candles and whale oil lamps for lighting because the Colonials of the 1780's did so? Your making the fallacy of Composition by assuming that one of traits of the populations which were designated We The People was somehow transferred into a contract made by their representatives even though they expressly did not do so. Just because a part has a property does not mean the whole has that same property. Your fallacy stems from a wrongful view of the Coherence Theory or Truth.

Mr ??????? wrote “...the Declaration of Independence...” I've already written about the Declaration. Jefferson was a Deist and the God references were to the God of Nature not Jesus, Theos, Jehovah, or YHVH. Besides the Declaration had no part in the formation of the United States of America. The USA #1 was formed with final ratification of the Articles of Confederation. USA #2 with final ratification of the Constitution. The assumption that the actions of the Continental Congress somehow made a country is wrong.

Mr ??????? wrote “...unless there are no rights, God-given or otherwise...” Rights presuppose Law and Legal context which in turn presuppose civil society and associations of citizens. Rights do not come from nature but rather from the minds of men. We mutually decide on what we will allow each other to do and those actions we shall be responsible for and are required for our cohabiting cooperation. Even if it were possible for God to exist, it could not make rights for us unless it forced us to do certain actions against our wills.

Mr ??????? wrote “...self-evident-truths like the Laws of nature...” Sir, are you a Christian? Do you believe that your god made the world, the universe, existence? Do you believe the Gospel stories of miracles and the Resurrection of Jesus? If so, then you must necessarily reject the idea of natural law or self-evident-truths. Natural Law means reality is only real if it still exists if there is no consciousness aware of it. Christianity's mythological worldview of a magical realm of miracles and teleology, means there can be no uniformity of nature and hence no possibility of induction and thus no self-evident-truths. Christianity is pure mental subjectivism asserted as primacy of consciousness over existence. The problem here for Christians is that consciousness is and only is awareness of existence and cannot make, modify, or terminate existence.

Mr ??????? wrote “...Nature's God...” Sir, {I should have wrote here that "Nature's God refers to the God of Deism and not the fantasy God of Christianity"}. God, as imagined by most Christians is impossible. Consider the following syllogism that I composed. (This is not a cut and paste job.)

1. To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for existence, the believer must imagine their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void, without matter, energy, location, dimensions, fields, concepts, knowledge, symbols, perceptions, physical natural law, logic, or referents. And that it was a primordial consciousness that wished existence to instantiate.

2. Consciousness is an axiomatic irreducible primary that at the most common denominative rung on the ladder of complexity consists of awareness of existence.

3. Consciousness of consciousness necessarily requires primary consciousness to first obtain as awareness of existence.

4. Prior to existence there could not have been anything to be aware of.

5. Without anything to be aware of, there could not have been any awareness.

6. Without awareness there could not have been any consciousness.

7. From 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 there could not have been a primordial consciousness prior to existence.

8. Creator gods are defined as primordial consciousness.

9. From 7 and 8 Creator gods cannot exist.

Mr ??????? wrote “in which case there are no bonds on government power
other than our wishful thinking and our cartridge boxes.” Sir, you're just wrong. In a republic the limits of government power come from, checks and balances, Constitutional limitations, the Courts, and in some cases from Nullification. If the government does something you don't like, sue it, or get some friends and protest. Going to war over this shit ani't worth it as Clint Eastwood as fictional Josey Whales said “Dying ain't much of a living.” If it ever gets as bad as East Germany, then bug out for Chile or Argentina.

Mr ??????? wrote “All the best, “

Well Thank you. I hope you find prosperity for yourself and your family.

Cheers: Robert Bumbalough

The Articles of Confederation http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm

The Federalist Papers http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpaper.txt

A few thoughts on why fear should not be evidence for induction.

2010-10-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

Good afternoon friends and readers. I hope all are well and living life to their fullest with passion and purpose as well as making lots of money. (BTW, America needs more Capitalists.)

The following comments relate to a thread on Objectivist Living forum.

Please do not think I’m trying to mess with anyone’s mind here. I probably should just shut up and try to be a happy idiot. I’ve been told that I think too much, and my 45 minute morning/evening commute gives me time to think. Today I was thinking about the story told earlier in the thread above where the student threw his Exacto knife at the philosophy class instructor and the allegation of a lesson learned thereby. This story bothered me from the moment I read it. Initially I could not figure out why, so I shared my own story of how fear affected me. Yet I was still not satisfied. After sleeping on this for two nights, now I understand why I have a problem with this approach. Fear induced stress activates the sympathetic nervous system to focus the viscera on fight or flight response to danger. Link to Article re sympathetic nervous system This yields an a situation where abrogation of reason as man’s only means of acquiring knowledge obtains. Rand famously wrote:

“Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality.” Link to Rand's reason quotes

Sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are found in the spinal cord and brain stem and not the prefrontal cortex where rational reasoning happens. Instinctive fight or flight responses are part of human cognition’s primitive lizard brain but are not involved in our higher rational thinking processes. Therefore, using strong emotional response to stimulus as justification for foundational belief including justification of induction or to validate “Existence exists” is little different from claims made by Pentecostal Christians that they “know” God is real because of their strong emotional reactions experienced during worship services or in response to their private devotions. Fervently dogmatic socialists, communists, progressives, liberal social democrat welfare Staters, or reds of any sort employ Epistemological Constructivism to maintain their beliefs that Social Justice involves ensuring equality of outcome through State control and de facto if not outright ownership of means of production including the lives citizens. Use of EC to maintain beliefs in SJ is done on emotional grounds. This is in and of itself constitutes a problem for Western Civilization for a reason Rand noted:

“An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality…” Link to Rand quotes re: emotions

It is my hope that I am warranted in thinking there are some very smart Objectivist philosophers here about that can provide a link or explanation to or for a Philosophical or Mathematical Justification of Induction that does not depend upon faith in foundational axioms. When Rand put these words in, John Galt’s, mouth she showed her faith in foundationalism.

“When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn’t choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one’s mouth, expound no theories and die.” Link to Rand quotes re Axioms

In response to some who will claim seeking a Philosophical Justification for Induction or a Refutation to Solipsism is nonsense, please note that people are warranted in thinking that even nominal lefties are not in any way impressed by Galt’s observation. I know for sure, religious right wing romanticists (especially Calvinists or Christian Dominionists) are in no way moved by Galt.

Peikoff warns us about such people in one of his podcasts.

Most Americans are either part of the religious right or the political left, and neither group gives a rats arse for Rand’s naked assertions no matter how sensible they seem because they are Foundational Beliefs. Anyone can ask why should a person believe a FB true? Is it based on some more basic FB? Such that there is an infinite regress of FB’s like {FB1 FB2 FB3….FB(alph0)}. If Objectivists want to save WC, then they probably need to find a way to justify O metaphysics and epistemology that is not circular or infinitely regressive and that can be deployed to counter the basal premises of harmful doctrines to help in arguing for laissez faire capitalism and limited constitutional government.
************************************************************

Standard Disclaimer: The forgoing opinions are only mine and in no way imply anyone should or should not do anything. This message forum is for amusement only. No recommendations for investments, spending or trades have been made. Each reader is responsible for his or her own due diligence. The writer makes no warranty or promise of fitness for any purpose or compensation of any sort and is not responsible for any losses incurred due to philosophical inquiry or speculation.

The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy

2010-10-07T08:35:00.001-07:00

Link to cocatalog.loc.gov where one may search copyright registrations
************************************************
Although Thorn claimed he had copyrighted his work; there are no records of his writing having had actually been issued a copyright registration number. If Mr. Thorn reads this and wishes me to remove his work from this blog, I will. The following important essay is the work of Anton Thorn and all credit goes to him. This work may not be used for any commercial purposes.
************************************************
The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy

"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." [1]

-- Ayn Rand

Abstract: The issue of metaphysical primacy is defined and explained, and the metaphysical primacy of existence is validated. The relationship of the Objectivist axioms and the primacy of existence to knowledge is explained. Finally, the reversal of the primacy of existence, which is the primacy of consciousness, is briefly examined and the basic performative inconsistency of theism is exposed. The piece concludes with a simple challenge to theists.

Introduction

Crucial to the success of the argument from existence is a firm grasp of the issue of metaphysical primacy and of the validity of the primacy of existence. Since the Objectivism principally holds that religious ideas are an expression of the primacy of consciousness, identifying the issue of metaphysical primacy and demonstrating the validity of the primacy of existence are indispensable.

Philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger lists the primacy of existence as one of the most important of Ayn Rand's contributions to philosophy. [2] By identifying the primacy of existence and its pertinence to the development of a rational system of philosophy, Rand brushed away centuries of intellectual dust, build-up and decay that have clouded every field of man's thought. Finally the root of the tree of knowledge has been exposed and its fruit rescued from panic-generating myths and fear-worshipping mystics. With a single act - the naming of an objective starting point - the cumbersome intricacies, unintegrated subsystems, false dichotomies, package deals, stolen concepts and floating abstractions encountered throughout and crippling modern philosophies, can be wiped away once and for all.

But what exactly is the primacy of existence, or more broadly, the issue of metaphysical primacy? What does it pertain to, what gives rise to it, and what exactly is it supposed to accomplish for philosophy? Is it a valid philosophical need? What are the consequences of mistaking the issue of primacy? These and other questions will be briefly surveyed in the following sections. First I will discuss the issue of metaphysical primacy and show why the primacy of existence is the only valid position. Then I will briefly explain how the primacy of existence pertains to cognition and why it is important to knowledge. Then I will describe the historically preferred alternative to the metaphysical primacy of existence, which is the primacy of consciousness, and demonstrate how religious ideas are essentially founded upon this error.

The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy: Where Do We Start?

In order to begin, let us look at the principle of metaphysical primacy, as defined by its originator, Ayn Rand. In her essay, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Rand introduces the idea of metaphysical primacy as the fundamental principle which guides all philosophy:

… the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness… The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists - and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness - the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it [allegedly] receives from another, superior consciousness). [3]

The term 'primacy' in this context means the state of ranking first. Dr. Leonard Peikoff, in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand [4], clarifies why existence has primacy over consciousness:

The primacy of existence is not an independent principle. It is an elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms. Existence precedes consciousness because, consciousness is consciousness of an object. Nor can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something and acts accordingly [i.e., according to its identity, not according to the desires of consciousness]. Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects. [5]

Eric Johnson, in his review of Peikoff's book, restates this very point:

Since the nature (identity) of consciousness is to be aware of reality, existence is prior to, necessary for, and not subject to the control of, consciousness. As a rephrasing of more basic axioms, the principle could be said as "It is....whether you want it to be or not.". In essence, the point is that consciousness, in and of itself (barring physical action) does not change existence.

Not only do we find in our activity in reality that the objects which we perceive do not respond directly to our desires, commands or whims, we also find that, when we focus on the reasons why this is the case, a hierarchical relationship between the objects we perceive and our act of perceiving them becomes evident. Since our consciousness is consciousness of something - i.e., of something which exists, the issue of metaphysical primacy is implicit throughout all cognition, beginning with our first perception of the entities in our environment.

Objectivism holds that implicit in every act of consciousness are certain unalterable and fundamental truths, which are represented by the axiomatic concepts 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness'. Our perception of the objects around us testifies to the truth of these concepts and to their relevance to our cognition. When we perceive an object, we gain awareness of its existence. From this we also gain awareness of the fact an object is something as distinguished from nothing and from other objects which we perceive or have perceived (identity), and that we are aware of it (consciousness). Once we begin to identify these concepts in explicit terms, as Objectivism does, we equip ourselves with the material needed to form our first principles in philosophy.

To do this, as one essay puts it,

it is important to note the order in which these axioms were presented. Note that existence comes first. And it must, because to speak of consciousness is necessarily to speak of existence (because consciousness must be conscious of something), while one can speak of things existing without anyone being conscious of them. This is the Objectivist principle of "The Primacy of Existence". According to it, facts are facts, independent of anyone's consciousness. [6]

While the natures of the objects we perceive vary from each other, one fact binds them all: they exist. This fact, the fact of existence, does not change. It is so rudimentary, fundamental and self-evident that most non-Objectivists dismiss discussion of axioms and axiomatic concepts as unimportant, simply because their truth is obvious. And their truth is obvious, indeed we all take them completely for granted. But this is actually their virtue in establishing a starting point: the axioms are inescapable, undeniable, indisputable and indispensable. The fact of existence is the bedrock on which the development of a rational philosophy can establish its foundation. And that is precisely what Objectivism does.

When we recognize that there is an order to the axioms, an order which parallels our discovery of them, we set in course the beginning of a hierarchy, a hierarchy that is implicit in our every awareness, in the formation of every concept, in every argument we construct. That hierarchy is the hierarchy of knowledge, the hierarchy which accounts for the fact that one must learn to grasp why 2+2=4 before he can comprehend differential calculus, or that one must identify reality and a means of knowledge proper to man before he can define a proper code of values (morality) and the proper form of government (politics).

Objectivism is correct to treat the concept 'existence' as the widest of all concepts. [7] It includes everything which actually exists, regardless of its particular nature or attributes, and that includes also consciousness as well. And once we recognize the nature of existence, that it exists independent of our consciousness of it, that the concept 'existence' is the widest of concepts, and that the relationship between the concepts 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' sets in course a hierarchical progression, we have what we need to recognize the importance of the issue of metaphysical primacy, that existence holds primacy over consciousness.

The essential distinction to keep in mind in consideration of the issue of metaphysical primacy is the relationship between what exists (existence) and the act of being aware of or perceiving that which exists (consciousness). Clarifying and recognizing this distinction eliminate the tempting confusion which entraps some thinkers who interpret the issue of metaphysical primacy as treating existence and consciousness as mutually exclusive and/or as jointly exhaustive concepts. Indeed, since Objectivism recognizes both that existence exists and that consciousness also exists, this confusion is unfounded and untenable, however it is still encountered among those unfamiliar with or uncharitably critical of Objectivism. What is likely the case is that such confusion is the result of poor reading and/or insufficient integration. Objectivism does not assert the commonly mistaken dichotomy "existence or consciousness," but identifies the distinction of holding the primacy of the one over the other as philosophically significant.

Confusions such as this often lie at the root of one's misunderstanding of the issue of metaphysical primacy. David Kelley, an Objectivist philosopher, makes a final point which clinches the essence of the issue:

The fundamental question… is whether consciousness is metaphysically active or passive by nature. Is consciousness creative, constituting its own objects, so that the world known depends on ourselves as knowers; or is consciousness a faculty of response to objects, whose function is to identify things as they are independently of it? In Ayn Rand's terms, it is a question of the primacy of existence versus the primacy of consciousness: do the objects of awareness depend on the subject for their existence or identity, or do the contents of consciousness depend on external objects? [8]

Those who wish to affirm the primacy of consciousness in any sense, essentially hold that consciousness is metaphysically active (i.e., that consciousness creates or manipulates the identity of its own objects), according to Kelley's identification here. Objectivism corrects this by pointing out that "consciousness is the faculty of awareness - the faculty of perceiving that which exists" [9], and that "Existence is Identity, [and] Consciousness is Identification." [10]

One's position on the issue of metaphysical primacy, whether explicitly defined as in Objectivism, or inferred implicitly from a mass of unexamined assumptions as we encounter in other philosophies, has broad-ranging philosophical implications. The issue of metaphysical primacy has not only implications for knowledge, as we'll see briefly below, but also for morality and politics.

In regard to one's own values, which is the concern of morality, the primacy of existence versus the primacy of consciousness is a distinction with life and death consequences. On the primacy of existence, one recognizes that reality has certain constraints and that man has certain needs. In other words, he recognizes that identity is not subject to the influences of his wishes or feelings. He recognizes that his acceptance or denial of these constraints is a matter of his own existence or non-existence as a living being, and that his choices and actions must take this into account if his goal is to remain a living being. On the primacy of consciousness, however, one's wishes or feelings (or those of one's social circle, or of the ruling consciousness) hold metaphysical primacy over these constraints and needs, and can appear and vanish according to conscious intentions.

Dr. Peikoff offers a graphic illustration of the differences between the two principles in the following:

A simple example of the primacy-of-existence orientation would be a man running for his life from an erupting volcano. Such a man acknowledges a fact, the volcano - and the fact that it is what it is and does what it does independent of his feelings or any other state of his consciousness. At least in this instance, he grasps the difference between mental contents and external data, between perceiver and perceived, between subject and object. Implicitly if not explicitly, he knows that wishes are not horses and that ignoring an entity does not make it vanish. Contrast this approach with that of a savage who remains frozen under the same circumstances, eyes fixed sightless on the ground, mind chanting frantic prayers or magic incantations in the hope of wishing away the river of molten lava hurtling toward him. Such an individual has not reached the stage of making a firm distinction between consciousness and existence. Like many of our civilized contemporaries who are his brothers-in-spirit (and like the ostrich), he deals with threats not by identification and consequent action, but by blindness. The implicit premise underlying such behavior is: "If I don’t want it or look at it, it won't be there; i.e., my consciousness controls existence." [11]

On the primacy of existence, one recognizes that the fact that his own life requires values is not open to negotiation. One can only "negotiate" with "mother nature" in fairy tales and fables, not in reality. Just as kissing a frog does not produce a handsome prince, wishing does not satisfy one's hunger nor do hopes make one immortal. These ideas can only be taken seriously on the primacy of consciousness view of reality.

The same constraints and needs of man are consequently pertinent to an objective view of politics, since politics is the application of the principles of moral philosophy to the task of defining the social system proper for man. Any moral philosophy which fails to take into account man's objective needs and the constraints of reality cannot lead to a proper social theory. On the primacy of existence, these needs and constraints are identified and integrated into such a theory. But on the primacy of consciousness, they may be denied, ignored, misconstrued or simply deemed unimportant as the contents of the ruling consciousness are elevated to take their role as a standard for moral and political ideals.

All of these points should be borne in mind if one is to grasp the philosophy of Objectivism in general as well as the argument from existence in particular. For further discussion of these issues, readers may review the following (in addition to other materials cited elsewhere in this essay):
The First Principles of Ayn Rand, by Tibor Machan
The Primacy of Existence, by Michael Huemer
Axioms: The Eight-Fold Way, by Ron Miller
Introduction to Objectivism, by Russell Madden

The Primacy of Existence and Knowledge

Many who are unfamiliar with or new to Objectivism have asked how the axioms 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' provide an anchor to cognition. Although Ayn Rand principally considered metaphysics and epistemology to constitute the foundation of her philosophy [12], we can rightly say that the axioms and their corollary derivatives provide the foundation to cognition, and therefore to epistemology. Since knowledge is hierarchical in nature [13], it is difficult to see how one can object to our cognitive need for an objective starting point. If new knowledge can only be validated by reference to previously acquired knowledge, how do we know that this previously acquired knowledge is valid? According to Objectivism, the answer to this question is that we must begin with the general, perceptually available facts of reality as our beginning point.

Peikoff rightly calls the axioms "perceptual self-evidencies." [14] Since awareness begins with the objects external to itself by a means of sense perception (since consciousness is consciousness of something), our cognition also begins with external objects. When we look at reality, as Dr. Peikoff notes, the "first thing to say about that which is is simply: it is." [15] Or, as Ayn Rand famously put it, existence exists. This axiom in turn leads us to two corollary recognitions: that which exists is that which exists (i.e., A is A, the law of identity), and: consciousness is the awareness of existence. Thus we have the axioms 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness'.

The next question might be obvious to some: How do the axioms work as the foundation to cognition? Since knowledge is knowledge of reality, reality must be the standard of what we call knowledge. Reality is the realm of existence. The axioms, in identifying in terms of explicit essentials that which is implicit in our every act of awareness, work as the foundation of our cognition by guiding that which we can accept as legitimate knowledge. How so? Principally, and broadly, by distinguishing the objects which we perceive (existence, identity) from the means by which we perceive them (consciousness), and by recognizing the primacy of the former (existence, identity) over the latter (consciousness), thus setting in objective order the hierarchical nature of knowledge which is present throughout our cognition. As we saw in the discussion above, Objectivism holds explicitly that existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Since consciousness does not create or change the identity of the objects it perceives, we cannot accept those statements which contradict the identity of our objects as genuine knowledge. A contradiction is a violation of the law of identity. One does not look at a cat, for instance, and say "This cat is a bowl of rice," or "A is both itself and not itself." Why? Because that which exists is that which it is, or A is A. Existence exists, and existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Some may ask, "How does one prove the truth of the axioms?" But such questions miss the point. The fact of the case is, we need the axioms for any proof. The axioms are not the product of proofs, but, as noted above, perceptually self-evident. They are implicit in our every act of awareness, but in the philosophy of Objectivism, they are made explicit at the outset of our thinking and integrated consistently throughout the development of a non-contradictory, comprehensive philosophic system.

Furthermore, to deny or reject the axioms requires their use. Since the axioms are implicit in our every act of awareness, they are also assumed in every task of thought. Any course of thought which leads one to reject the axioms 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' as the proper starting point of reason, naturally implicates and defeats itself. Although this leads to futile self-contradiction and stolen concepts, it is not uncommon to encounter in modern philosophical models (e.g., Descartes, Kant, et al.). As Allan Gotthelf notes, "Many philosophers have attempted to build their systems on the denial of the existence of an independent reality. In maintaining that the independence of the real is axiomatic, Ayn Rand is in effect maintaining that every such attempt will ultimately make use of the very fact it is attempting to deny." [16]

Some will ask if the axioms are to be accepted on faith. Not only do such questions imply that faith is a legitimate means of knowledge, they also miss the point that the axioms name the general, perceptually self-evident facts of reality. The function of our senses is not a conceptual product or matter of faith. Our senses are automatic. If you touch your fingertip to a flame, for instance, the deliverance of pain through your senses to your brain is immediate and automatic, and not a product of conceptual importation. One cannot touch his fingertip to a flame and decide to feel pleasure as a result. Similarly, the axioms are not true on the basis of hope, desire or wishing. Since the axioms are implicit in every act of our awareness and conscious action, they are already present in our hopes, desires and wishes.

Bryan Register, in his review of Calvinist John Robbins' book Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System [17] entitled Has Objectivism Been Refuted?, also encounters and corrects this frequently committed error. Citing Robbins' assertion "Reason can never cease to be the handmaid of faith: All thought must start somewhere, and that initial postulate is unproved, by definition... . The only question that remains is, Which faith-which axiom-shall reason serve?" [18], Register states

Since Objectivism is grounded on a set of axioms, which are by definition unprovable, Robbins concludes that Objectivism rests on an act of faith in those axioms. But this assumes that there are only two kinds of claims: those one proves and those which one takes on faith. In fact, as the Objectivist literature makes clear, there is a third type of claim: one which is valid because it formulates a fact that is directly perceived. Such are the most fundamental perceptual judgments and such are the axioms.

While it is the case that the axioms are unprovable, they can be validated, which is not the case in faith claims. Validation in this sense is a process broader than proof, "one that subsumes any process of establishing an idea's relationship to reality, whether deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or perceptual self-evidence." [19] In the case of the axioms, this validation is accomplished simply by looking at one's surroundings, i.e., by recognizing that one's senses are directed at objects and grasping the facts that those objects exist, have identity (i.e., they are what they are; they are themselves), and that one is conscious of them, just as plainly as you, my reader, are reading these words.

The axioms are not items of religious faith that one must accept under the duress of imagined damnation or church banishment, but facts which all men, regardless of their religious commitments (or lack thereof), take completely for granted because of their readily perceptible nature and rudimentary relationship to cognition. One does not attend weekly meetings in a sterile social hall to hear sermons repeating over and over ad nauseum the statement 'existence exists', akin to what we find with religious claims, in order to know the axioms. They are natural, not supernatural, and the means by which one becomes aware of them is not through some alleged mystical means of acquiring knowledge, such as 'revelation', which some claim to possess while claiming that others can never possess it, but by reason, the faculty which identifies and integrates what our senses discover, which any individual can use by choice. As Peikoff points out:

One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception. When one perceives a tomato, for example, there is no evidence that it exists, beyond the fact that one perceives it; and there is no evidence that one is aware, beyond the fact that one is perceiving it. [20]

In the case of the axioms, "There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality." [21] But in the case of faith claims, there is no validation apart from measuring a claim's conformity to previously accepted faith commitments, assumptions which have no legitimate tie to reality and which must be accepted in spite of their contradiction to the perceptually available facts of reality (e.g., the idea that existence is "created" by an act of will, or the gospel story that five loaves of bread and two fishes could be magically multiplied to feed five thousand [22]). Apologist John Frame admits as much when he concedes, "We know without knowing how we know." [23] Whatever 'means of validation' believers claim to have in defense of their confessional investment, it is not reason.

Nathaniel Branden argues that the claim that the axioms are an article of faith, or more broadly, that reason finds its foundation on faith (or, as Robbins puts it, borrowing from Aquinas, "Reason can never cease to be the handmaid of faith…"), commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Indeed, in his short essay The Stolen Concept, Branden points out that

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. "Faith in reason" is a contradiction in terms. "Faith" is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of "faith" cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason.

Indeed, a revolt against reason can hardly be construed as the basis of reason. To accept "ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration" which reduces to sensory evidence [24], is to accept ideas without reference to reality. What, then, guarantees that these ideas have anything to do with reality? The claim that reason must be "accepted on faith" is the attempt to kidnap reason from objectivity and to recruit it in the effort to validate the arbitrary. It is the attempt to replace the perceptually available facts of reality with one's wishes and whims as the arbiters of knowledge. But even to attempt this, detractors against reason (i.e., advocates of faith) must assume the validity of the axioms in their rejection of them, committing them to what Branden calls, in his essay noted above, "[o]ne of the most grotesque instances of the stolen concept fallacy."

Those who intend to assert ideational content as legitimate knowledge of reality have no choice about the fact that we must be willing to declare our starting points. Those who refuse to identify their starting points, or ignore their need for starting points, risk the error of asserting their notions as floating in the air, with nothing to anchor them, with no reference in reality. Those who are willing to declare their starting points should be willing to investigate what Objectivism has to say on this crucial matter. Without an objective grounding to our cognition, our cognition is at the mercy of our whims and destined to mistake the arbitrary for the valid.

The Primacy of Consciousness: The Fault of Theism

Confusing the relationship between that which exists and the faculty of perceiving that which exists results in the failure to grasp the crucial thrust of the issue of metaphysical primacy. Rand touches on this point when she states:

The source of this reversal [i.e., assuming the primacy of consciousness over existence] is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. As far as can be observed, infants and savages do not grasp it (they may, perhaps, have some rudimentary glimmer of it). Very few men ever choose to grasp it and fully to accept it. The majority keep swinging from side to side, implicitly recognizing the primacy of existence in some cases and denying it in others, adopting a kind of hit-or-miss, rule-of-thumb epistemological agnosticism, through ignorance and/or by intention - the result of which is the shrinking of their intellectual range, i.e., of their capacity to deal with abstractions. And although few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations [cf., prayer] will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: "If there is no God, who created the universe?" [25]

The failure to grasp the distinction between the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness is the result of the failure to isolate essentials. Consider the following questions:

1. Can there be consciousness without existence?
2. Can there be existence without consciousness?

The answer to the first question is obviously negative; it essentially asks whether something can exist if there is no existence at all, and if there can be consciousness when there is nothing to be conscious of. However, in terms of essentials, this is precisely what the primacy of consciousness asserts: it attempts to posit some form of consciousness as prior to the fact of existence. But if we attempt to assert consciousness prior to existence, of what is it conscious? Those who affirm the primacy of consciousness view of reality will most likely see no problem in asserting consciousness conscious only of itself. [26] But how can something be identified as conscious if it has nothing to be conscious of, i.e., if it has no content? And how can consciousness acquire content without an object to be aware of, and without a means of acquiring awareness of its objects (i.e., without perceptual faculties, such as the senses)?

Those who assert such self-referential circularity usually do not recognize that they have condemned the form of consciousness which they want to assert to little more than a dog chasing its tail in terms of (alleged) awareness, for they give this consciousness nothing to be conscious of, and that leads to a contradiction in terms because of its commitment to the fallacy of pure self-reference. [27]

The answer to the second question, "Can there be existence without consciousness?" is demonstrably affirmative, and this certainty is the primacy of existence principle defined above. Consider the world and our awareness of it. When we discover objects in reality such as a mountain, a lake or another person, we do not experience these objects as "coming into" existence with our initial awareness of them. We experience them as stable parts of reality, as unalterable facts of reality which exist independent of our awareness, but still perceivable by a means of perception. We do not experience the objects of our awareness as extensions of our consciousness, as some might claim, or as the extension of someone else's consciousness. We experience them as primary concrete entities which exist whether we approve of their existence or not.

We are not immortal or eternal beings, yet we do possess consciousness; and we are aware of the world. Our awareness of the world began around the time of our birth. In my case, that was in 1966. But I learned as I grew, that the world had existed long before I came along and became aware of it. The earth itself where the world finds its location has existed for millions of years before me. It has many recorded histories, many people have existed prior to me, and many events have taken place before I was born. This means that the existence of the world - i.e., reality - was not and is not dependent upon my awareness of it. In other words, existence exists independent of my consciousness.

The same is true for all men who are consciousness of existence, and for the same reason: consciousness is conscious of something, and something exists. The existence of the world is no more dependent upon the consciousness of a group of men or of the sum of all men who now exist or who have ever existed, than it is dependent on my own awareness of it. In both cases, the primacy of personal consciousness and the primacy of social consciousness are demonstrably false.

With very few arguable exceptions (such as personal preferences or emotional experiences), whenever one asserts something as true, he asserts it as a truth independent of his own consciousness. If for example I assert that apples grow on apple trees, am I claiming that this is true only when I am conscious of it? Certainly not. Apples and apple trees have existed longer than I have been alive, and will of course survive my death, and even now while I am alive they bring forth fruit well outside the range of my awareness. The facts that apples exist and that they come from apple trees are not dependent upon my awareness. Indeed, my awareness of the fact that apples come from apple trees is dependent upon the fact that apples indeed come from apple trees. By identifying the fact that apples come from apple trees, I am implicitly affirming the primacy of existence, for I do not take such an identification as true in the context of being dependent upon my awareness of it, but a fact of reality independent of any consciousness. This is the case any time one asserts a truth statement about reality. Thus, every time one asserts a fact about reality, even if he is mistaken about that fact, he is asserting that fact as a fact which does not depend on either his or our consciousness of that fact in order for it to be a fact. Why? Because existence exists independent of consciousness. This is the primacy of existence metaphysics.

Thus, we see that the primacy of consciousness fails in two cases. It fails in the case of the implication that existence and/or facts are dependent upon the consciousness of an individual, and it fails in the case of the implication that existence and/or facts are dependent upon the consciousness of a group of individuals. Thus, the personal and the social expressions of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics should be dismissed as false metaphysics.

But the theist is still dissatisfied, because, as the persistent question which Ayn Rand points out in her quote above - "If there is no God, who created the universe?" - suggests, many men still want to assert in some form the idea that existence is dependent upon something prior, indeed upon a form of consciousness. We have already seen why two types of the primacy of consciousness - the personal and the social - are invalid. But theists do not claim that the existence of the world and of truth is dependent upon either the personal or social form of consciousness - which some philosophic systems propose [28], but upon an alleged cosmic or supernatural form of consciousness. In other words, they want to assert some kind of "macro-consciousness," a consciousness which "transcends existence and reality," as the origin and/or director of existence, reality and the things which go on in it. Some may recognize that this is invalid in the case of both the personal and the social primacy of consciousness metaphysics, but merrily assume that this principle can be valid on their premises anyway, regardless of the facts. Furthermore, theists do not even attempt to validate their cosmic version of the primacy of consciousness as opposed to the personal and the social primacy of consciousness, principally because they rarely if ever recognize the essentials involved. Indeed, at root level, their apologetic paradigms are amiss when it comes to identifying essentials. [29]

So the theist is performatively inconsistent with himself. That is, he implicitly affirms the validity of a principle (the primacy of existence) in the practice of affirming truth claims, but explicitly affirms the validity of a contradictory principle (the primacy of consciousness) in the content of the truth claims which he asserts. In other words, he implicitly denies the metaphysical primacy of consciousness in two senses - the personal and the social - whenever he asserts a truth claim about reality. He assumes that the supposed truths he identifies are true independent of his own consciousness and of the consciousness of others. But then he turns around and asserts the primacy of consciousness in principle when he affirms the notion that a God (i.e., a cosmic will or designer)is responsible for reality (i.e., for existence). Thus, he is inconsistent in that he denies the primacy of consciousness on the personal and social levels, but does not hesitate to affirm it at the cosmic level. For him, this seems to be "safe territory," for the resulting construct - theism - is securely removed beyond the realm of all testability and falsifiability. What he fails to recognize, however, is that he commits himself to a performative inconsistency. [30]

If one were to illustrate this inconsistency graphically, we might have something as follows:

Act vs. Content of theistic claim

Primacy of Consciousness

Primacy of Existence

Theist's act of asserting claim (e.g., "God exists")

Both the personal and the social aspects of the primacy of consciousness are implicitly denied. (Claim's alleged truth is not assumed to be dependent on the consciousness of oneself or of others.)

The validity of the primacy of existence is implicitly assumed. (Claim is said to be true independent of one's own and others' consciousness.)

Content of theist's claim (e.g., "God exists")

The supernatural aspect of the primacy of consciousness is explicitly affirmed. (I.e., existence is said to find its source in God's consciousness.)

The primacy of existence is consequently and explicitly denied. (Existence does not hold metaphysical primacy over consciousness.)

The above graph displays the assumptive implications on the part of the theist between his act of claiming that God exists, and the content of his claim, in their relation to the issue of metaphysical primacy. The inconsistency clearly occurs between his act of claiming and the content of his claim.

The performative inconsistency identified here is the result of a fundamental, two-fold and complementary reversal of the facts. As we can now see, god-belief rests on the assumption that consciousness is metaphysically active: that consciousness can create its objects and manipulate their identity. Christianity supplies this view in the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of miracles. Together these theistic doctrines adhere to metaphysical subjectivism, which is the view that the knowing subject creates its objects by an act of consciousness, essentially that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness. This reverses the fact that consciousness is metaphysically passive, that consciousness does not create its own objects, nor does it manipulate their identity, but rather perceives their existence through a means of perception (thereby acknowledging that objects exist independent of consciousness) and discovers their identity by looking outward (thereby acknowledging that the role of consciousness is not to fabricate identity, but to discover it).

The complement to this reversal is the assumption that consciousness is epistemologically passive. Christianity supplies this view in the form of the doctrine of revelation. This is the view that consciousness passively receives its contents from the ruling consciousness (i.e., "God"), which is essentially conceived as a cosmic storehouse of all knowledge [31], via some sort of non-perceptual transmission (i.e., by divine intervention). Knowledge, according to this view, is not the result of actively seeking out the relevant facts of the case, discovering their identity and testing one's conclusions against one's previously validated certainties, but a spontaneous implantation, a "bestowal" or "gift" of sorts, directly inserted into the mind of the believer by the ruling consciousness. Obviously, both reversals coincide completely with the point made by Dr. Kelley which I quoted above, that the "fundamental question… is whether consciousness is metaphysically active or passive by nature." To affirm either reversal, implicitly or explicitly, is to grant validity to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics.

The answer to the theist's unnecessary dilemmas and reversals is to grasp the concept of objectivity, i.e., to recognize and affirm on a thoroughly consistent basis the validity of the primacy of existence in all matters, for this avoids such hapless and unwitting inconsistencies. Quite simply, the case for objectivity is the case against god-belief. By recognizing that the only valid place to begin our philosophizing is with the very fact of existence itself - existence exists - we affirm a starting point which all cognition must assume and which all theorizing necessarily takes for granted. The fact that existence exists does not change, nor do its principal corollaries (i.e., the laws of identity, causality, etc.), thus providing fundamental stability to cognition. Furthermore, by affirming the primacy of existence, we recognize that consciousness is consciousness of something, that consciousness is not metaphysically creative of its objects, but actively aware of them, thus necessitating the epistemology of reason and repudiating the notion of revelation. This is because consciousness, like any entity or attribute which exists, has identity, and consequently, so should our philosophy, since our philosophy is, in rough terms, the operating system or software of the mind.

In Conclusion: A Simple Test

While many defenders of the religious view of the world, particularly those which assert a universe-creating and reality-ruling deity, may object to the accusation that such worldviews are committed to the primacy of consciousness view of reality, there is a simple test by which we can discover their true intention in regard to the metaphysical basis of their philosophical outlook. And that test is: Ask them if they are willing to adhere consistently to the primacy of existence metaphysics as advocated by Objectivism. If they are willing to do so, then they must be willing to abandon their god-belief commitments. If they are not willing to abandon their god-belief commitments, then they cannot ascribe consistently to the primacy of existence metaphysics. This is because the primacy of existence metaphysics is completely and irreconcilably incompatible with the religious view of reality.

Should the religious defender claim that he is willing to be consistently rational, then what is his starting point? Is he conscious of that starting point, and are his principles, theories and conclusions consistently developed with that starting point in mind? Or, do his philosophical theories and conclusions rely on gerrymandering their bases in the effort to make them appear to be consistent with that starting point, an enterprise engaged long after those conclusions have been accepted as unquestionably true on the claim of knowledge without rational means (e.g., 'revelation')?

If the theist is willing to embrace the primacy of existence view of reality wholeheartedly, is he then willing to recognize the invalidity of such questions as "If God does not exist, who created the universe?"? If the theist is willing to assume existence as such as his starting point, is he willing to abandon the idea that existence as such does not require a creator?

The typical theist is oblivious to the fundamental importance of these matters. As one creationist author puts it, "The creationist sees God as the source of all existence. Christian theology developed the doctrine of creation as creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)." [32] Another theist claimed that "Existence exists because God exists." [33] Existence as such is thus explicitly thought to be a product of conscious selection.

If statements like these are not enough to demonstrate the fact that Christianity holds to the primacy of consciousness view of reality, then let us look deeper into the matter to discover whether or not this identification is true to the particular evidence we find in Christian sources. To continue this exploration, I invite readers to review my essay, The Ruling Consciousness, which examines the purported nature of the Christian God according to its primary source, the Bible, to determine whether or not it is committed to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics.

The identification of the issue of metaphysical primacy is only one of Ayn Rand's unique and noble contributions to the field of philosophy. But in principle it is the one contribution which makes all her other contributions sensible and meaningful. It is also the one principle which can be asserted at the outset of a rational approach to atheology, the one principle which slashes off unnecessary, unusable and unworkable ideas from the very beginning. It is because of the validity of the metaphysical primacy of existence that an objective atheology is possible.

Anton Thorn

________________________________________

Notes

[1] Atlas Shrugged, p.934.

[2] See his article "Ayn Rand's Philosophic Achievement," The Objectivist Forum, June, 1982, p. 9. Along with the primacy of existence, Dr. Binswanger also lists Rand's theory of concepts, theory of free will, Man's Life as the standard of morality, the moral basis of individual rights and the psycho-epistemology of art among the most important of her contributions to philosophy.

[3] Philosophy: Who Needs It, (New York: Signet, 1984), pp. 23-34.

[4] New York: Meridian, 1993, 493 pages.

[5] P. 19.

[6] Quoted from Are the Primacy of Existence and the Primacy of Consciousness Exhaustive Metaphysics? Astute readers will note that the author of this piece puts the axioms in the following order: existence, consciousness and then identity; I prefer the following order: existence, identity and then consciousness. While the former agrees with Dr. Leonard Peikoff's order of presentation (cf. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 4-7), I tend to agree with Eric Johnson when he states in his review of OPAR, Chapter One:

I found Peikoff's choice of ordering the basic axioms rather bad. Peikoff presents and validates them in the order: Existence, Consciousness, Identity. To me the order Existence, Identity, then Consciousness seems far more appropriate. Firstly, that is the order children develop the axioms explicitly. Secondly, that was the order of explicit philosophical discovery (Parmenides, then Aristotle, then Augustine). Thirdly, since Existence and Identity are so closely tied and both have primacy over consciousness, it seems logical to put consciousness last. Perhaps a minor point, but as one with intrest in the pedagogical processes in OPAR and O'ism in general, it concerns me. [sic]

While this may be a "minor point" in the larger scheme of things, it does strike me as somewhat critical if perchance one makes the unwitting error of assuming that the identity of existents is somehow dependent on the workings of consciousness. Because I consider this a possibility if we should go with Peikoff's ordering, I agree completely with Johnson's caution here. In fairness to Peikoff, however, there may be a reason why he chooses the ordering which he presents for reasons unknown to me. For purposes of my original point, however, it is to be emphasized in both cases that existence precedes consciousness. Furthermore, Rand herself identifies the axiomatic concepts in this order (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., p. 55), and held that between 'existence' and 'identity', as "an issue of perspective," 'existence' "is the wider concept" (Ibid., 240), meaning that 'existence' distinguishes between those things which exist and nothing, while 'identity' distinguishes objects from each other. The concept 'consciousness' of course is not so wide as either concept, since it only applies to a class of existents, not to all existents as a whole.

[7] See for instance Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed., p. 56; Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 5.

[8] David Kelley, "The Primacy of Existence," The Objectivist Forum, Oct. 1981, p. 2. See also chapter 1, "The Primacy of Existence," of Dr. Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses, (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), p. 8. Dr. Kelley's book is highly recommended for a fuller defense of the primacy of existence and the Objectivist view of the role of sense perception in cognition.

[9] Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 29.

[10] Atlas Shrugged, p. 934.

[11] Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 18-19.

[12] Rand states, referring to the metaphysical and epistemological branches of philosophy, that "These two branches are the theoretical foundation of philosophy," "Philosophy: Who Needs It," Philosophy: Who Needs It, (New York: Signet, 1984), p. 3. This is the essay form of Ayn Rand's lecture to the graduating class of West Point in 1974, and is available online (albeit with a few typos).

[13] See for instance Peikoff, "Knowledge as Hierarchical," Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 129-141.

[14] Ibid., p. 8.

[15] Ibid., p. 4.

[16] On Ayn Rand, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000), p. 42.

[17] Hobbs, New Mexico: The Trinity Foundation, 1997. 399 pp.

[18] Without a Prayer, p. 22.

[19] Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 8. Peikoff also states (Ibid., p. 120) that proof (in contrast to validation) "is the process of establishing truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, i.e., ultimately, to sensory evidence. Such reduction is the only means man has of discovering the relationship between nonaxiomatic propositions and the facts of reality." Thus, for any proof to be ultimately successful in establishing the truth of a proposition, we need the axioms. Special thanks to Alex Silverman for pointing out the importance of including this point here.

[20] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[21] Ibid. As mentioned above, 'reality', according to Objectivism, is the realm of existence. If something exists, it exists as part of reality. Objectivism therefore does not accept the notion of something existing "apart from" reality. Such ideas are unsalvageably incoherent.

[22] Cf. Matthew 14:15-21 and parallels. Darryl Kight offers some succinct insights on such matters in his short piece on The Virtue of Faith.

[23] John M. Frame, Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction, Part 1 of 2; Introduction and "Creation," p. 6-7. This article is in PDF format and requires PDF application to view.

[24] For a discussion of the importance of reducing knowledge to sense perception, see the previously cited chapter "Knowledge as Hierarchical" in Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 129-141.

[25] Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp. 24-25.

[26] Misconceptions about the nature of consciousness are often fortified by an erroneous view of sense perception, including the views that sense perception is invalid as a means of contact with reality, that sense perception can provide man with only a "hint" or "glimmer" of what reality is, that perception may provide the practical truths which man needs on a daily basis, but plays no role in his ascertainment of "profound" or "spiritual" truths, etc. The purpose of Kelley's Evidence of the Senses is to provide a thorough-going defense of the validity of sense perception, and to dispel many of the assumptions crucial to the rejection of perception as the ultimate basis of knowledge. Readers who are interested in these matters are highly recommended to review this book.

[27] I discuss this problem at length in my essay God and Pure Self-Reference.

[28] While it is likely the case that the personal level of the primacy of consciousness is implicitly present in any instance of primacy of consciousness metaphysics, most philosophic systems which adopt the primacy of consciousness view of reality normally assert either the social or the cosmic/supernatural variant. The personal aspect of primacy of consciousness metaphysics would include any form of solipsism as well as irrational forms of egoism (as opposed to the rational egoism of Objectivism). The social primacy of consciousness is found at the root of any form of collectivism, such as Marxism, communism, Nazism, fascism, etc., whether explicitly religious or not. These versions of philosophy in effect attempt to hold the "collective consciousness" of society as an absolute holding primacy over the facts of reality. As such, they are merely the secularization of religious metaphysics, replacing religion's supernatural consciousness with its secular counterpart, the State or Society, and ultimately, the dictator. See my essay Religion Wears a Bloody Glove for more details in this regard.

[29] Cf. for example a simple version of the "first cause" argument:
Premise 1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2. The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From arguments like these, theists assume the validity of their cosmic primacy of consciousness metaphysics. What they hesitate to identify in terms of explicit essentials is the fact that causality has no meaning outside the context of existence. Causality is metaphysically dependent upon existence: something (which exists) does the causing. It is because of this fact - the fact that causality is metaphysically dependent on existence - that gives the overall argument from "first cause" its ring of truth when they assert God as the ultimate first cause. But what they fail to recognize is that now they are asserting consciousness as prior to existence, and here the dog begins chasing its own tail again.

[30] See additionally my short essay A Lesson on the Issue of Metaphysical Primacy.

[31] It should also be noted that, since God is said to be both omniscient and infallible, God's own knowledge is not thought to be the product of reasoning, but an omnitemporaneous, non-hierarchical phenomenon. In other words, God's own knowledge, since God is not subject to ignorance or error, has always been complete. Thus, even God's own consciousness is essentially thought to be epistemologically passive, since God has knowledge without any effort at all.

[32] Personal correspondence.

[33] Personal correspondence.

Copyright 2001 Anton Thorn. All rights reserved.

Theism bears a burden of proof

2010-02-09T06:24:00.000-08:00

To establish the existence of sufficient evidence that theism is true, the theist must demonstrate a chain of divine causation from the Big Bang to the present. For instance, it must be shown that the Big Bang cannot possibly be a natural phenomenon resulting from natural causation. By definition, the God of classical theism is said to be the sole exclusive cause, such that it and only it can be the cause, of any possible Universe in any possible world. Thus to refute the definition of the God of classical theism, it is sufficient to show the existence of possible, plausible, and thus to some extent probable, scientific, naturalistic, explanatory hypothesis for the origin of the Big Bang. Such scientific, naturalistic, explanatory hypothesis of the Big Bang do exist. Dr. Lee Smolin’s “Cosmological Natural Selection”, Dr. Andre Linde’s “Chaotic Eternal Inflation”, Dr. Martin Bojowald’s “Loop Quantum Gravity”, and Dr. Stephen Hawking’s “Wave Function of The Universe” all provide naturalistic possible, plausible, and thus to some extent probable, models of the Big Bang that both explain and are supported by the evidence we have. Therefore the God of classical theism does not and cannot exist.

It is in no ways adequate for the purpose of demonstrating the possibility of theism to simply assert that scientific, naturalistic, explanatory hypothesis fail to account for the cause of the Big Bang. To do so is to make a fallacious “god of the gaps” and “ad-hoc false attribution” argument. The believer must shoulder a burden of positive proof to show that their god, and only their god rather than some other natural or supernatural cause is responsible for the Big Bang. However, since no god or supernatural entity of any sort is ascertainable by any known means, there cannot be any valid concept of god. Then to assert god as a cause of the Big Bang, or anything else, is Non Sequitur.

Atheism and Liberalism are incompatible.

2010-02-03T18:10:00.000-08:00

Atheism is a lack of belief that a transcendent immaterial non-casual consciousness interacts with human beings, obtains in either existence or in some other reality. Liberalism is the moral stance that the power of government should be used to bring about some ideal of social justice. Liberalism is motivated by the proposition that a categorical moral imperative obtains such that all human beings are obligated to ensure that all other human beings have access to basic requirements to sustain life and further resources to enable all human beings to have an acceptable standard of living. Details of requirements associated with competing versions of Liberalism are not relevant to this discussion. Statements of form [A should B] are moral prescriptions to action B. Under theism morality is alleged to be absolute proceeding from the basal nature of the supposed deity via way of some means other than uniformity of nature, i.e. a super-nature. Liberalism's motivating supposition of a categorical moral imperative is premised on an unstated enthymeme that the source of the CMI is some super-nature. Consider, human genetics cannot account for CMI as humans are not controlled by their genes. Genes dictate phenotype, but cerebral phenotype cannot yield predictive power to ascertain a future state of behavior. Liberalism assumes the CMI is foundational to the human constitution, however history shows humans have evolved from primates. With few exceptions, primates are self interested and will struggle for dominance while cooperating in groups to aid hunting, mating, rearing young, and defending against predators. Evolutionary history cannot account for CMI. If Categorical Moral Imperative cannot be traced to nature, then Liberalism must premise CMI from some undefined super-nature or other than nature. Since CMI is categorical in only applying to humans, then it appears just like the production of a discriminating casual process. Since Universal Common Descent is known true, then for a Moral Imperative to not be universal, whatever caused it must be discriminating for Homo Sapiens. Consciousness is one such process with which Liberalism is familiar. People have a tendency to assume that with which they are well acquainted is common. knowledge. Its very likely that Liberalism assumes as an an unstated enthymeme that the source of the CMI is some discriminating supernatural consciousness. This qualifies as a form of theism albeit weak theism. Therefore, a Strong Atheist knows what the weak atheist/agnostic doesn't, that Liberalism is built on bullshit mythology and false morality. No one should accept Liberalism.

My Abscessed Lesions

2010-01-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

These may have been caused by spider bites. I think that because I saw and killed a black Wolf spider at home. The doc lanced,drained, cleaned out, and applied antiseptic to the lesions. He prescribed Sulfamethoxazole and Clindamycin to kill the MRSA infection and Hydrocodone for pain. The Hydrocodone barely masks the hurt, but I'm itching real good now. That's a good sign of healing.

1/10/2010 update: The doctor informed me the MRSA is immune to Clindamycin and ordered me to stop taking it. I complied. After taking the remaining Sulfamethoxazole, the abscesses are almost gone. However there is a large and dark purple scare. I will take tumeric powder mixed with black pepper internally to discourage a reinfection and use 40% Zinc oxide diaper rash ointment to encourage healing of the scar.

Introduction To Median Lines by Tim Morge

2009-12-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

Introduction To Median Lines

Eusebius on Papias from Waite's History of Christianity

2009-12-04T14:09:00.000-08:00

Last year I responded to a comment on a blog thread made by a reader named David. The question at issue was the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. I hold the mythicist position that Jesus the Christ is a mythological compilation. David held that his boy JC had been a real person. I responded with the following on the question of reliability of Papias' testimony as to the authorship of Canonical Mark.
************************
David: "you should wonder why the early church leadership chose to attribute Marcan authorship when they knew he was writing down Peter's words. Why not put Peter at the wheel, if you know that this will guarantee the story gets in the stack?"

David's query begs the question in several ways. By asserting that I should be concerned about (presumably) the Jesus myth case because of Christian apologetical assertions that canonical Mark was authored by the legendary secretary John Markus to Simon Peter the Apostle, is to assume that the Gospel story is historical. The historicity of the Gospel story is, however, the issue at question.

It is Petitio principii to think there was "leadership" in early Christianity because doing so assumes a "big bang" origin of Christianity with a legendary founder, Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, Christianity was always a schizophrenic diversity of cultic expression characterized by many sects each with a writhing, squirming, wad of competitive would be prophets and apostles. Christianity was never a single organization prior to the darkness of total Catholic control. Asserting there was 2-nd century consensus or unity begs the question.

Its circular reasoning to think that putting Peter at the wheel will guarantee the story gets in the stack because that is to assume the gospel stories are historical. That, however, is the question at issue?

To suggest Irenaeus' agenda of establishing his four gospels as authoritative was contested is to ignore the Sitz im Leben of late second century Catholicism and to assume that the other types of Christianity then extant would be in any way influenced by what they considered gross error or that thier complaints might be considered by Irenaeus. Would the Gnostics or Jewish-Christian sectarians have been influenced by Irenaeus? Of course not. Would Irenaeus deliberate over the concerns of opposing sectarians? Perposterous nonsense. Who was there in the 2-nd century to say what was scripture and what was not? David is projecting his conception of mondern intellectual discussion back onto the ancients. The religious landscape of 2-nd century Rome was a free-for-all. There were Holy Ghost's, Prophets-Of-The-Real-Gods, Apostles-O-Christ-du jure on every street corner. Vast numbers of phony preachers and cult leaders competed for followers and their loot, and there was no end to the fools and loons who willingly followed and coughed up all they had. The much later Church Councils and Synods of the fourth century were 150 to 200 years yet to come relative to Irenaeus. However, his writings were influential with third and fourth century Catholics in establishing preferred dogma. The later churchmen then accepted Irenaeus' recommendations (and reliance on Papias) because his gospels told the story in a manner compliant with their desire to create an authoritative institution issuing command catechism. Irenaeus' claim regarding authorship of Mark stem from Papias. However, the zany notion that the canonical Gospel of Mark was authored by the legendary secretary John Markus to Simon Peter the Apostle as per Papias cannot be substantiated from what historical data we have.

Since the four canonical gospels do not show up in the literary record prior to Irenaeus naming them in "Against Heresies,"

"After their departure (death of Peter & Paul), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." - Against Heresies 3:1:1

we can reasonably accept a strong prior probability that were canonical Mark and Matthew in circulation prior to Irenaeus, that Quadratus of Athens, Aristides, Marcion, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and other early 2-nd century apologists would have used them. But the early 2-nd century Christian churchmen do not cite or quote canonical Mark and Matthew.

It is likely that Irenaeus ascribed authorship of what we think of as the canonical Gospel According to Mark to Presbyter John's Mark based on data from Papias about a quite different document. Paul Tobin's case thoroughly refutes evangelical assertions that canonical Mark was the docuement thought to be known to Papias. He explains:

"The first explicit references to the supposed authors of the gospels were from Irenaeus (c130-200). Thus we see him making references to the gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in Against Heresies (c 180):

Against Heresies 3:10:5 Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God..." [Mark 1:1]"

The earliest attempt to give the names of the authors of some of the gospels came just before the middle of the second century. This is the witness of an early Christian named Papias, bishop of Heirapolis. He wrote a now lost work entitled The Five Books of Interpretations of the Oracles of the Lord. The actual time of his writing is unknown, and is now available only in fragments quoted by later Christians. Most scholars place it around 130 CE, but it could well be as late as 150 CE. In any case, this is what Papias wrote - as quoted in Eusebius's (c275-339)
History of the Church:(Book III, Chpt.39, Art.1)

Quoted in History of the Church 3:39:15
And the presbyter said this: Mark the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly, but not in order, what he remembered of the acts and sayings of the Lord, for he neither heard the Lord himself nor accompanied him, but, as I said, Peter later on. Peter adapted his teachings to the needs [of his hearers], but made no attempt to provide a connected narrative of things related to our Lord. So Mark made no mistake in setting down some things as he remembered them, for he took care not to omit anything he heard nor to include anything false. As for Matthew, he made a collection in Hebrew of the sayings and each translated them as best they could.

His source for this information is one Presbyter John. Who is this mysterious person whom Papias quoted? We do not know. We do know that he was not one of the apostles, as earlier in the same work Papias wrote this:

Quoted in History of the Church 3:39:3-4
And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying.

Note that the presbyter John is not included in the list of the apostles and is not to be confused with the apostle John who was mentioned earlier in the sentence and in the past tense. There is a further point we should note about the witness of Papias. According to Eusebius (History of the Church 3:39:13-14), Papias was a man "of very limited understanding" who "misunderstood apostolic accounts." In other words he must have been, even for his age, quite credulous. We do not foresee such a person counterchecking the reliability of the information given to him by the presbyter. He probably just accepted what was told to him verbatim.

[Robert_B: Presbyter John's story is that his Mark took notes from speeches delivered by Apostle Peter. Our canonical Mark is a narrative story, not a collection of logia sayings.]

Whatever the case may be as to the reliability of this tradition (which we will consider below), Papias' testimony tells us that the name Mark was attached to the gospel around 130-150 CE. Prior to this the document we call the Gospel According to Mark circulated anonymously. It is unlikely that our Gospel According to Mark was the same document Papias referred to. Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" (Eerdmans 2006) admits that modern scholars have regarded Papias testimony on Mark as "historically worthless." (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: p203) - Paul Tobin's web article
Was Papias a Reliable Witness?

[Robert_B: We know about Papias from Irenaeus through Eusebius. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius are known to have exaggerated and must be approached skeptically

It is quite certain that the Christian landscape of the 2-nd century was saturated with itinerate, vagabond, preachers-teachers-prophets-apostles who traveled about swindling credulous Christian believers. Even Paul warned about such in 2 Cor 11:4. The Didache warns against such itinerate apostles..

Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

[Robert_B: We cannot, therefore, rule out that presbyter John was not a swindling con-man who targeted the credulous Papias as a mark.

Richard Packham in "Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity" notes regarding Papias that: "The testimony of Papias is the earliest authority for the authorship of the Apostles, but it is scarcely "solid." We do not even have Papias' direct testimony, since his writings are lost. Our information about Papias' testimony comes only by way of Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, and who portrays Papias as being somewhat gullible. The "John" of whom Papias was a student was more likely John Presbyter than John the Evangelist (or John the Apostle, if they can be proven identical). In short, the "solid" evidence is not as solid as Montgomery would like us to believe."

In "Supernatural Religion: An Inquiry Into the Reality of Divine Revelation", (full view available on Google Books) Walter Richard Cassels presents a thoroughly convincing case that canonical Mark is not the same document as that spoken of by Papias. The argument starts on page 276 and runs through 286.

Cassels concluded that: "It is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work referred to by the Presbyter John disappeared, and the present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it. The merely negative evidence that our actual Gospel is not the work described by Papias is sufficient for our purpose. Any one acquainted with the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, and with the literary history of the early Christian Church, will readily conceive the facility with which this can have been accomplished. The great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptic Gospels have assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works. These changes have not been effected without traces being left by which the various materials may be separated and distinguished ; but the more primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared, naturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions. The critic, however, who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not bound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals, or accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the primitive Gospel.

Tischendorf asks : "How then has neither Eusebius nor any other theologian of Christian antiquity thought that the expressions of Papias were in contradiction with the two Gospels (Mt. And Mk.)?"

The absolute credulity with which those theologians ccepted any fiction, however childish, which had a pious tendency, and the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they indulged, render their unquestioning application of the tradition of Papias to our Gospels anything but singular, and it is only surprising to find their silent acquiescence elevated into an argument. We have already, in the course of these pages, seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical character of the Fathers, and we cannot afford space to give instances of the absurdities with which their writings abound. No fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification. No period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master himself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery. False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were unscrupulously circulated, and such pious falsification was not even intended, or regarded, as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of edification. It was only slowly and after some centuries that many of these works, once, as we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were excluded from the canon; and that genuine works shared this fate, while spurious ones usurped their places, is one of the surest results of criticism that the Fathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have been of value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted is of no critical value. In an age when the multiplication of copies of any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter of difficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what facility the more complete and artistic Gospel could take the place of the original notes as the work of Mark." - Cassels, "Supernatural Religion" p.285-286

Charles B. Waite in his definitive - History of the Christian Religion: To the Year Two Hundred wrote the following about Papias' alleged witness to the Gospels According to Mark and Matthew.

*Such is this far famed testimony (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. bk. 3, ch. 39.)
That portion relating to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, may be stated as follows: Eusebius says, that Papias said, that John the presbyter said, in what manner certain writings of Mark and Matthew had been constructed. The value to be attached to any statements of Eusebius, will be considered hereafter. One important circumstance will be noted, in the evidence, as it stands: Notwithstanding this explanation of the apostolic origin of the books, it appears that Papias considered them, as evidence, inferior to oral tradition. That, too, a hundred years after the time, when, as is claimed, they were written. Again, it is contended by able critics, that the language here attributed to Papias, concerning the book written by Mark, cannot be applied to the gospel which bears his name. ' They insist that it must be referred to the Preaching of Peter, or some other document more ancient then the Gospel of Mark. So also of the logia, oracles or sayings of Christ, by Matthew, which were not the same as the Gospel of Matthew.* - "History of the Christian Religion: To the Year Two Hundred", By Charles Burlingame Waite, p.237 (full view on Google books)

Papias' credulity did not escape Eusebius who wrote of him that: 13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. Church History (Book III, Chpt.39, Art.13)

That Papias would accept anything is evident by the surviving *fragment of Papias' writing, preserved by Apollinarius of Laodicea, a fourth century Christian bishop, tells of the fate of Judas. It is important to read this passage in full:

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. And this the Acts of the Apostles makes clear, that falling headlong his middle burst and his bowels poured forth. And Papias the disciple of John records this most clearly, saying thus in the fourth of the Exegeses of the Words of the Lord:

Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth. [Fragment 3, from The Apostolic Fathers Translated By J. B. Lightfoot & J. R. Harmer]

Anyone who reads this will immediately notice a few things. Firstly this is a harmonization of the contradictory readings from Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:18-19. [b] Secondly the additional details, like his swollen head, sunken eyes, bloated genitalia, body flowing with pus, emanation of worms and terrible stench are typical motifs used by ancient authors to describe the deserved sufferings of evil men before their deaths. Josephus in Antiquities 17:6:5 described Herod the Great's suffering before his death to include putrefied genitals, emanation of pus and worms and bad stench. Acts 12:23 describes the death of Herod's grandson, Herod Agrippa I by stating that he was struck by an angel and was "eaten by worms." In other words the story about Judas suffering is an expected folkloric expansion of the brief accounts given in the Matthew and Acts. [Maccoby, Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil: p82-84]

Obviously this fable recounted by Papias certainly did not come from eyewitness accounts. Yet he presented it quite matter-of-factly as though he was recounting real history!

There are further examples from available fragments of Papias' writing of the basic unreliability of his writings. He was a teller of tall tales. In the fragment preserved by Philip of Side (c. 380 - c. 439), we hear of the daughters of Philip who would drank snake venom with no ill effects, of a woman resurrected and of those who were raised by Jesus surviving until the early second century!

The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian. [Fragment 5, from The Apostolic Fathers Translated By J. B. Lightfoot & J. R. Harmer]

We can now see why Eusebius noted that Papias writes of "strange parables" and "mythical tales." The latter's credulousness is strong evidence that Papias was as Eusebius described him: someone of "limited understanding." As for his claim of diligent collection and remembering of the Jesus tradition from the elders, we have an example of this in Irenaeus. Irenaeus cited Papias as his source for this saying of Jesus about the millennium:

Against Heresies 5:33:3-4
As the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine...And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him

The source of this saying attributed to Jesus is not from any extant Christian writing or oral tradition - but Jewish apocrypha! Compare the passage below from 2 Baruch, a late first century or early second century Jewish pseudepigraphical text.

2 Baruch 29:3-6
And it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that was to come to pass in those parts, that the Messiah shall then begin to be revealed. ...The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each (?) vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of wine.

The above evidence tells us that Papias was not a careful historian but a credulous second century Christian who seemed eager to believe anything that confirms his faith in Jesus.* - Paul Tobin Was Papias a Reliable Witness?

In light of this stuff, the question of Peter-Mark-Papias is moot, for Papias was an unreliable witness. His testimony cannot be taken seriously by any honest exegetical investigator.

A Dozen Arguments for Atheism By Richard Spencer

2009-11-29T12:42:00.000-08:00

This paper was written by Richard Spencer and all credit goes to him.

Introduction

In the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose, the defense attorney played by Laura Linney echoes the sentiment of many philosophers in her closing statement when she says that God either exists or he does not--and either thought is astonishing. In this essay I’m going to discuss which of these two equally striking alternatives holds true in reality. Before I present my arguments, I need to first say a few words about my terms and my method. Any discussion about the existence of God must begin with a clear definition of what is meant by the word “God.” For my purposes here, I have in mind an eternal being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect who created us and who takes special interest in us; a being who created and transcends the universe, and yet is imminent in it. Although no one can prove or disprove God's existence with one hundred percent certainty, my method for this essay is simple: Because a hypothesis that offers the best explanation for the widest range of evidence is more likely true than other competing hypotheses, what we need to do is contrast the two competing hypotheses before us--that God exists, and that God does not exist--and determine which hypothesis better explains the available evidence. Then, using that information, we can come to the most reasonable view possible and should accept it as our own. In what follows I will offer twelve arguments supporting the claim that atheism possesses a greater explanatory scope than theism and that it is therefore reasonable to be an atheist.
The following arguments will all seek to show that God does not exist in all probability. However, showing that it is unlikely, and thus reasonable not to believe, that God exists is only one way of demonstrating God’s nonexistence; the other way is by demonstrating that the very idea of God contains within it logical inconsistencies that render the existence of God impossible. For example, if we could demonstrate that God is supposed to possess trait X, yet no being could possibly possess trait X, or that God is supposed to possess trait X and Y at the same time, yet no being could possibly possess both traits X and Y at the same time, then we could effectively demonstrate that God cannot exist. I find this type of argument somewhat problematic. Incoherency arguments and definitional disproofs of God’s existence could perhaps be amusing to those who already disbelieve, but believers will simply go back to the drawing board and redefine their terminology. For example, William Lane Craig states, “Theists find that antitheistic critiques of certain conceptions of God can actually be quite helpful in formulating a more adequate conception... Thus, far from undermining theism, the antitheistic critiques of theism's coherence have served mainly to refine and strengthen theistic belief [1].” Though it seems peculiar to me that Dr. Craig claims theists were content to believe half-truths about God before atheists came along and stirred things up, his point should not be missed. In order to formulate a definitional disproof of God’s existence, we must either restrict our arguments to specific conceptions of God, or restrict our arguments to essential characteristics of God--but what are those essentials? Well, the lack of a consensus answer to this question is demonstrative of the whole problem. So, while I enjoy reading incoherency arguments and attempted definitional disproofs of God’s existence [2], I’m not personally willing to embrace any until I study them in greater depth.
On a final prefatory note, let me say something about the scope of my arguments. As the careful reader will observe, the following critiques of God gain strength the more we suppose God is actively and continually involved in the world while they lose strength the more we suppose God is unconcerned with the world. The reason for this is simple: A detached, indifferent God would leave little to no empirical evidence of its existence. Because the following arguments are evidentially based, they have little to say about a God that, for example, created the world intentionally to appear as if no God exists, a god that is merely an impersonal first cause, or a deist God who created the initial state of the universe and left everything else to chance. Gods such as these are what Victor Stenger has referred to as “functionally equivalent to nonexistent [3];” disbelief in them has no conceivable consequence, and, since they serve no explanatory function, belief in them represents an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses. Thus, what Doug Jesseph has called “the principle of conservatism[4]” should compel us to at least suspend judgment on the existence of such gods and it may be the case that valid incoherency arguments exist that would justify our belief in their nonexistence. In any case, I refer the reader back to my original definition of God--it is clearly not compatible with a God that is functionally nonexistent. The God I have described there is subject to the arguments I now present [5].
The Arguments

Number 1: Atheism offers the best explanation for the physical forces that cause natural disasters. In December 2004 on the day after Christmas, an earthquake in the Indian Ocean created a tsunami that killed approximately a quarter of a million people. Then, less than a year later in August of 2005, hurricane Katrina killed almost two thousand people in New Orleans. What are the explanations for these events? We can't blame man's free will for natural disasters because God could have created the world without the forces that cause natural disasters without ever hindering our free will. Moreover, man's free will isn't the cause of natural disasters anyway--unless ancient people and the Christian Coalition are right in claiming that natural disasters are God's way of punishing sinners. However, if God is just then this explanation makes no sense at all. Even if a few guilty parties were killed by Katrina or the tsunami, considering all the otherwise innocent people who also died, that would be like God sentencing a man to death by firing squad then placing him in the middle of a group of children and shooting at him with a shotgun from twenty feet away. God would surely have the ability to punish sin with a little more precision. Furthermore, to claim that the devil is to blame makes even less sense than holding God responsible. Surely, if God exists, the death and devastation caused by natural disasters is absolutely baffling. However, if atheism is true, such natural disasters are no less tragic, but at least we can explain them: They are the products of mindless forces like plate tectonics and tropical weather systems operating in a universe blind and indifferent to our struggle for survival. Thus physical forces that cause natural disasters are evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 2: Atheism offers the best explanation for the presence of unjustified pain and suffering in the world. Let me be clear: I do not mean to imply that God could not allow some pain and suffering if he exists since it would be possible for an all-loving God to allow pain that we can learn from, like that felt after touching a hot stove, or maybe even pain that leads to some greater good, like that felt after a root canal. In these cases, pain is justifiable. Instead, my claim is that there is no way for a morally perfect God to allow unjustifiable suffering: like pain that teaches us nothing and leads to no greater good seems to be. For example, consider the severe pain felt by most people suffering from advanced cancer: There is no conceivable justification for it--they're going to die anyway. As caring, compassionate human beings, we do all we can to ease their suffering with the limited means available to us. But if God exists, then he is even more caring and compassionate than we are and has an even greater ability to alleviate pain than we do. Since we could not be morally superior to a morally perfect God, we would expect God to also do something to ease the entirely unnecessary pain of cancer victims--but he doesn't (that is, assuming that helping to ease pain is morally good). Yet, as even theists admit, if God exists, then gratuitous pain and suffering cannot--there must be some ultimate justification; but God hasn't shared it with us, and those speaking on his behalf haven't figured it out yet. In contrast, if atheism is true, we have an explanation: The sensation of pain evolved naturally as our body's way of warning us when something's wrong. But, since evolution isn't an intelligent process, it never figured out a way to turn the pain off when there was no more need of warning. Thus, since only atheism is compatible with unjustifiable pain and suffering, and because it appears that unjustifiable pain and suffering exist [6], the existence of unjustified suffering in the world is evidence for atheism and against theism.
Number 3: Atheism offers the best explanation for God's silence in the face of adversity. Consider the great theologian and Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer; he writes, "God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us… Before God and with him we live without God [7]." Really? The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us? Out of context, these hardly sound like the words of a pastor; but Bonhoeffer's circumstance makes perfect sense of the words: He writes from prison in Nazi Germany where he died. And Bonhoeffer is not the only one who ever felt abandoned by God; many people do when the trials of life come their way--so much so that a great deal of preaching is devoted to helping believers maintain their faith even when God seems to be no where around. Thus we can understand Bonhoeffer's claim that God forces us to live like he's not there as a rationalization for the severe circumstances Bonhoeffer found himself in--but is it a good rationalization? Not really. Consider all the parents who take their children to receive immunization shots at a young age. I remember vividly being one of those children. I didn't understand the purpose of the shots; I only knew that they hurt! Since I was too young to understand what was happening, my mother simply did her best to comfort me, just as any decent parent would. Now, if God exists, he's not just any decent parent--he's the standard of decency itself! Thus, when we go through our trials and tribulations, which are mostly minor when compared to Bonhoeffer's, it is commonly assumed that God has a plan we just don't understand; but, in this situation, wouldn't we expect God to at least comfort us just as a loving parent would? Bonhoeffer probably expected as much, but when his expectations weren't met, he came up with an alternative, though strange, explanation. But there is at least one more potential explanation: If atheism is true then God doesn't exist, thus we would expect him not to comfort anyone. Now, it may be objected that many people claim they have felt God's comforting presence during adversity, thus my argument fails. But isn't it possible that the people who believe they have felt God's comforting presence are mistaken? Of course it is, otherwise no one would question God’s existence; all it would take would be for one person to claim, "God helped me get through it," and the issue would be settled. But the issue isn't settled. We all know that the very idea of God, acting as a placebo, could help believers through adversity without God ever truly existing. Consequently, both atheism and theism can explain claims of feeling God's comforting presence equally well; but this is not true when it comes to explaining instances where God's comfort isn't felt--only atheism has a good answer for that. Thus God's silence in the face of adversity is an objective problem for theism and constitutes evidence for atheism.

Number 4: Atheism offers the best explanation for the physical dependence of minds on the brain. It is commonly assumed by theists that somehow connected to the body is an immaterial soul. It is this soul that receives credit for our higher mental capacities such as the ability to make free choices, think rationally, and even continue living after the death of our body; in short, we identify our soul as the source of our mind. But is there any evidence that such a soul exists? Unfortunately, there is not. The idea that our mind exists independently of our physical body is directly contradicted by everyday observations--like the fact that alcohol and other physical substances can change our conscious states, that degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's or physical injuries can seriously impair or even destroy conscious states, and the fact that we don't expect young children to be capable of the types of abstract reasoning that require more fully developed brains. As Owen Flanagan, Professor of Philosophy at Duke University, has stated, "advances in … the sciences of the mind, cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience, in particular" have led to the rejection of the "belief that that the mind or the soul interacts with--but is metaphysically independent of--the body [8]." And as Marvin Minsky, professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has stated, "minds are what brains do [9]." Indeed, extensive evidence suggests that all of our conscious mental states correspond to some physical brain state. Since it appears there is no way that a mind can exist apart from a functioning physical brain to generate it, we are justified in drawing the inductive conclusion that disembodied minds do not exist [10]. However, this implies a serious difficulty for theism: If disembodied minds don't exist, since God is supposed to be a disembodied mind, this would strongly suggest that God does not exist. Therefore, the physical dependence of minds on the brain is evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 5: Atheism offers the best explanation for divine hiddenness. If God exists and wants his existence to be known, then it is strange that the evidence for God's existence isn't stronger. Think about it: Aren't there many ways that God could have made his existence much more obvious? As Sam Harris observes [11], God could have included in the Bible a flawless discourse on mathematics so advanced that it would still be useful today. It would be hard to deny the divine inspiration of such a passage of scripture; and, given all the space the Bible devotes to sharing whom begat who and pronouncing doom on ancient nations, there was certainly room for it. At the same time, consider the biblical account of Jesus. It is said that Jesus' resurrection was the supreme vindication of his claim that he was God in the flesh. But then, after rising from the dead, he ascended into Heaven forty days later--so why only forty days? Couldn't he have stuck around a little longer, perhaps a year, or ten, or a thousand? Certainly. In fact, Jesus could still be alive on earth today proclaiming his message of divine love and surely almost everyone would be convinced. But instead, as the story has it, Jesus took the first flight back into Heaven floating away into the sky like an elegant superhero. Why? I doubt Jesus had urgent business in Heaven that required his immediate attention. And these are just two examples of ways God could have made his existence more evident; you can probably think of plenty more. Thus, if God exists, he must be choosing to withhold evidence of his existence from us--but this makes no sense if it is true that God truly wants us to believe in him. After all, what explanation for God’s hiddenness could there be? Claiming that God wants us to believe in him by faith doesn’t get the theist out of trouble since it would mean that God would prefer us to believe in him not for good reasons, but for insufficient reasons, or simply no reason at all. As Theodore Drange asks, “Why would a rational being create people in his own image and then hope they become irrational? … Is picking the right religion just a matter of lucky guesswork? Is salvation a kind of cosmic lottery? Why would God be involved in such an operation [12]?” Moreover, there is no apparent reason for which God should not want our decision to accept or reject him to at least be informed. However, if atheism is true, the reason for God's hiddenness is quite clear: He's simply not there. Thus divine hiddenness is evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 6: Atheism offers the best explanation of religious history. If it were true that God has revealed his message of salvation in any of the world's religions, then we would not expect that religion's success to be explicable through historical contingencies or natural cultural diffusion, but rather would expect that religion to display unique and undeniable signs of divine favor. However, there is no religion in existence that satisfies these expectations. For example, despite the fact that Christians like to romanticize their history and imagine that their religion has achieved its success through divine providence, this is clearly not the case. Christianity only began to genuinely thrive after it had the support not of God, but of the Roman Empire. Equipped with the ability to eliminate competing religions, and passing laws that called for their extermination, Christianity embarked on a lengthy reign of terror--burning books, burning people, destroying cultures, launching religious crusades and genocides, and excommunicating or murdering any so-called heretics, that is, anyone who dared question their authority. And so we have it: The largest religion in the world today has the bloodiest history of totalitarian intolerance and groundless indignation. Is this any surprise? It certainly is if Christianity is the outgrowth of an all-loving and compassionate God. If God exists, regardless of which religion is true, we would not expect him to have sat idly by and let all this happen. Instead, we would expect God to have intervened to either set Christianity straight, or to have defeated Christianity in the name of whatever other religion might be true. But, if atheism is true, then there is no God to interfere in any religious warfare or offer divine favor to any group of believers; there would be no religion that displays evidence of God's favor, and, indeed, there is not. If Christianity is merely the product of human invention, as surely most religions must be, then it is not at all surprising that Christianity has dominated the world's religious scene by being the most violent, not the most reasonable. Therefore, religious history constitutes evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 7: Atheism offers the best explanation for religious confusion. About five years ago I had recently left Christianity but still believed that God existed, I just didn't know what to believe about him. For the first time in my life I was open to considering all possible religious paths. I encourage you, the reader, to place yourself in the same position I was in for a moment. Which religious path would appear to be the correct one? If God exists, we would expect that he would have made the path he desires for his followers to take clear and obvious so that we could have no confusion about it. In fact, it would seem that doing so would be God's moral duty--especially if there were consequences for choosing the wrong path. However, consider the rich diversity of religious claims made worldwide. We have already seen that Christianity does not display any clear sign of God's favor; did you think of any other religion that does? Probably not, and I didn't either. After all, the religious landscape is hopelessly confused and cluttered by conflicting opinions about the nature of God and the supernatural; there are hundreds, some would say thousands, of religions in the world today: only one of which is Christianity, and there are over thirty-three thousand denominations within it [13]! This is all pretty odd if we imagine that God is aware of the situation and has the slightest bit of care about it. However, if atheism is true, there is no truth in the God hypothesis that believers can discover, thus no reason to expect them to agree about any of it. Therefore, religious confusion is evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 8: Atheism offers the best explanation for the uniformity of religious experience. When I was a Christian, the argument that caused me to maintain my faith as long as I did was that of religious experience: I simply was not ready to admit that my relationship with Jesus had all been in my head. However, what I didn't fully realize was that as real and convincing as my religious experiences were to me, members of other religious groups possess the same kind of certainty about the truth of their faith that I possessed about mine; and for good reason, for as it turns out, the different religious experiences of believers in all faiths are all caused by stimulation in the same areas of the brain (that is, of course, before hallucinatory and other types of drugs enter the picture). In fact, one can even be induced into feeling that he or she is having a religious experience when those parts of the brain are artificially stimulated and the believer will interpret that experience according to whichever faith he or she holds [14]. What is the explanation for this uniformity in worldwide religious experience? It certainly can't be that all religions are true [15]. But, if we imagine that one of them is true, it would be very strange to suppose that believers experience the real God by means of the same brain states as those who claim to experience other gods whose existence is ruled out by the true religion. Thus, uniformity of religious experience is not what we would expect if there truly were a God who communicates with us through a select religious channel. However, if atheism is true, then the uniformity of religious experience is to be expected as no religious experience would be caused by anything genuinely supernatural; instead, religious experience would find its root in the human brain and thus display certain uniformities due to universal similarities in human psychology and physiology. Since this is precisely what we find to be the case, the uniformity of religious experience constitutes evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 9: Atheism offers the best explanation for the evidence of evolution. Since the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species, evolution by natural selection has proven to be one of the most successful scientific theories ever. The evidence for the occurrence of evolution is immense and secure; it includes the fossil record, comparative anatomy, the geographical distribution of species, embryology, and the rapidly growing base of molecular evidence, such as protein and DNA functional redundancy, transposons, and redundant pseudogenes. This evidence is so convincing that according to one report, less than one in a thousand scientists in relevant fields worldwide reject evolution in favor of creationism [15]. It is of course logically possible, as many theists believe, that God has simply chosen to create life through the process of evolution. However, as Paul Draper put it, “theistic evolution is a happy marriage,” that, “must end in divorce [16].” As Draper further notes, we would be wrong to infer from the fact that there is no inconsistency between theism and evolution that there is also no conflict between theism and evolution. Moreover, evolution shows no signs of intelligent direction but instead fumbles along blindly producing vestigial organs and other biological systems that are not entirely efficient. Only one percent of all species that have ever lived still survive today, and, as Darwin pointed out, beneficial mutations are produced by the same means as harmful ones. Without doubt, evolution appears to be a very odd method for an all-powerful God to use considering all the other more efficient methods he could have used. However, on atheism, evolution by natural selection is the only process we know of that has the ability to produce complex organisms like those alive today. Thus evolution constitutes evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 10: Atheism offers the best explanation for the scale of the universe. Consider what kind of universe most ancient people, such as the authors of the Bible, thought they lived in. They speculated that the universe was a few thousand years old, relatively small, and that the earth, since it was at the center of God's attention, was also at the center of the universe. Furthermore, they believed in a flat earth covered by a dome, and above that dome was the literal location of Heaven; and this is all quite reasonable considering that the only the hypothesis they were working with was that God had created the universe. In fact, only this view of the universe makes sense of otherwise bizarre Bible stories such as the Tower of Babel where God feels threatened by the construction of a skyscraper. However, we now know that the universe imagined by the authors of the Bible is not the universe we live in. Instead, we live in a universe so large that no one knows how big it really is, but we do know that the earth isn't at the center of it. Remembering that if the God of theism is rational then God must have good reasons for all his actions, there is no apparent reason that God could have for making such an unimaginably large universe. If God created the universe with us in mind, then much of it is surely a complete waste (filled with senseless dangers such as meteors, black holes, life-hostile vacuum, and maybe, just maybe, green men with laser guns); but this strongly implies that a rational God didn't create the universe. However, if atheism is true, then we would expect the universe to be very large and very old so that the improbable circumstances required for life to develop naturally would have the time and space to arise. Thus only when we do not pretend that the universe was created with us in mind does the enormous size of it make sense. Consequently, the scale of the universe is evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 11: Atheism offers the best explanation of seemingly poor design, or dysteleology, in nature. We have already considered some possible examples: Geological dysteleology in the physical forces that cause natural disasters; cosmological dysteleology in the scale of the universe; biological dysteleology in feeling pain when it serves no survival function and vestigial organs. Let me be clear about the argument from dysteleology; it is not that bad designs in nature cause suffering thus God wouldn’t have created them--that’s just a reformulation of the argument from evil. Instead, we can view certain processes that, from a theistic perspective, must be designs, yet they serve their ends poorly. Even a decent designer, much less a perfect one, could have achieved the purposes served by these designs more effectively and efficiently. Now let's consider some biological examples, like the fact that living organisms require food. If theism is true, then God doesn't need food and other supernatural beings probably don't either, so why do we? God could have created us so that we could live without food thus eliminating many of life’s perils such as starvation, the bloody food chain (on theism, there is no reason for which living, sentient beings must also be edible), and deaths caused by choking. Speaking of choking, isn't that another instance of poor design in nature? There is no reason for which God had to make our windpipe intersect with our digestive system [17]. In fact, since God doesn't need to breathe, why do we? The need to breathe only causes more perils such as suffocation and carbon monoxide poisoning. This kind of biological dysteleology does not make any sense if we suppose that God is ultimately responsible for it, as he must be if he exists; after all, he’s neither incompetent nor cruel. However, if atheism is true, there exists no God who could have made things any better; all appearances of design in nature are the result of mindless forces such as the messy trial-and-error process of evolution by natural selection: thus, for atheists, bad designs in nature accompanying the good ones are not surprising at all. Therefore, dysteleology is evidence for atheism and against theism.

Number 12: Atheism offers the best explanation for the modern scientific evidence that our universe [18] began in a primordial state of quantum unpredictability. According to modern cosmology, at the Big Bang, our universe began expanding at the Planck time from a region the size of a Planck sphere within which there could have been no structure or organization--only absolute chaos [19]. Thus what will emerge from the expanse of a region of space equivalent to a Planck sphere is inherently unpredictable; in other words, what will emerge from a Planck sphere is genuinely undetermined and not merely determined in a manner we don’t know how to predict. If this is true, it is highly unlikely that God created the first state of the universe. We may safely assume that if God created the universe, then he intended for the universe to contain life. However, because the initial state of the universe was in a state of total chaos and not guaranteed to lead to life-producing states, God could not know that the universe he created would contain the life he wished. In fact, if it is true that the probability of the so-called anthropic coincidences arising by chance is very low, then the chances of a universe containing life emerging from a region of space-time equivalent to a Planck sphere is also very low. Thus, if God created the first state of the universe described by modern cosmology, he created the universe in such a way that it would in all likelihood not lead to the universe containing life he desired. As Quentin Smith explains, this notion implies that “God created a universe that time and again was probably headed toward the very opposite result than the one he wanted and only through interfering with its natural evolution could he ensure that it would lead to the result he desired [20].” Thus, if God created the universe, considering all the other ways God could have created the universe, using the initial state of our universe described by modern cosmology is quite strange--even reckless. However, if there is no God, then we can accept the picture of cosmological origins presented to us by modern science with no real philosophical problem; of course, the picture isn’t complete and it could turn out that quantum unpredictability is epistemic instead of ontological. If and when that happens this argument should be dropped [21]; but until that time, the evidence that our universe emerged from a primordial state of absolute chaos is evidence against theism and thus evidence for atheism [22].

Conclusion: I have now presented twelve arguments against the existence of the theistic God. Although I have briefly addressed some potential responses to my some of the arguments, I’m certainly aware that there exist many objections that I have not addressed. (In truth, I have reasons for being skeptical of some of the arguments I have presented, but nonetheless believe they still add weight to the cumulative case against God’s existence in the end.) An adequate consideration of all these potential objections would be far beyond the scope of this relatively short essay. I can only hope that the reader will be encouraged to further investigate atheological arguments and their theistic critiques.

Notes
[1] William Lane Craig, "Theistic Critiques of Atheism," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Michael Martin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 72.

[2] Many notable examples are to be found in Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, The Impossibility of God (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003).

[3] Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis--How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007), 234.

[4] Doug Jesseph, 1996, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html

[5] Though I will give some specific citations where appropriate, I want to broadly sketch my primary sources in compiling my twelve arguments. Jeffrey Jay Lowder’s opening statement in his debate with Phil Fernandes provided me originally with my first, second, third, fourth, seventh, and ninth arguments, though I have changed some of the relevant terms. I don’t remember where I originally became familiar with my fifth argument, but it is certainly not original to me; a decent discussion of the argument can be found in Martin and Monnier (The Improbability of God, 2006, p.337-426). The inspiration for my sixth argument is primarily from Richard Carrier (Sense and Goodness Without God, 2005, p.258-270). My eighth argument is the only argument I can claim to have formulated with significant originality; others may have produced similar arguments, but I did not consult their work. My tenth argument is drawn primarily from Nicholas Everitt (The Non-existence of God, 2004, p.213-226). My eleventh argument is a compilation of observations I have drawn from James Lazarus, Richard Carrier, and Sam Harris. My twelfth argument is drawn primarily from Quentin Smith (The Improbability of God, 2006, p.41-60) though formulated with cosmological observations from Victor Stenger and with the criticisms of Graham Oppy in mind (Arguing About Gods, 2006, p.154-168).

[6] As William Rowe states, “The truth is that we are not in a position to know that [gratuitous evil exists]. We cannot know with certainty that instances of suffering of the [gratuitous] sort…do occur in the world. But it is one thing to know or prove that [gratuitous evils exists] and quite another thing to have rational grounds for believing [gratuitous evils exist] (“The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism” in The Evidential Argument From Evil, 1996, p.4).” Accordingly, it seems to me the burden of proof rests on the theist to construct an objective case for theism that evidentially outweighs the case for gratuitous evil if the theist wishes object to the existence of gratuitous evil on the basis that God exists.

[7] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison,” trans. Reginald H. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1953): quoted in Robert M. Price, The Reason-Driven Life: What Am I Here on Earth For? (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006), 111.

[8] Owen Flanagan, The Problem of the Soul (New York: Perseus, 2002).

[9] Marvin Minsky, Minds are Simply What Brains Do. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth03.html

[10] In other words, because all of the minds we have ever encountered are dependent on physical brains, and because it further seems that this must be the case, induction would suggest that all minds that exist are dependent on physical brains. Even substance dualism holds that our physical brains are a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for our having a mind. However, it is logically possible that God exists as some other kind of mind, but what this could mean is quite unclear (if it means anything at all). So, while it is true that God could exist as an ontologically different kind of mind, this only rules out a deductive argument from the physical dependence of minds on the brain while the inductive version of this argument still stands.

[11] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006)

[12] Theodore Drange, “The Argument from Nonbelief,” in The Improbability of God, ed. Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006), 351.

[13] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

[14] For example, see Scott Atran, “The Neuropsychology of Religion,” in NeuroTheology: Brain, Science, Spirituality and Religious Experience, ed. Rhawn Joseph (San Jose: University Press, 2002), 147-166.

[15] The TalkOrigins Archive, Claim CA111. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

[16] Paul Draper, “Evolution and the Problem of Evil,” in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, ed. Louis Pojman (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1998), 220-221.

[17] Sam Harris, Ibid.

[18] In this argument, I use the term “universe” to refer to our region of space-time as opposed to the totality of existence.

[19] Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis--How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007), 117-121.

[20] Quentin Smith, “Atheism, Theism, and Big Bang Cosmology,” in The Improbability of God, ed. Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2006), 49.

[21] Though the notion of ontological quantum indeterminacy may not always be supported scientifically in the future, I still find it significant that it seems true today. If we couple this observation with the argument from hiddenness, then we are faced with the problem of a God who not only conceals evidence of his existence, but also allows bogus evidence against his existence to appear reasonable.

[22] I would like to point out an interesting feature of the combination of my first, second, and twelfth arguments: The theist is capable of responding that God could somehow know what would emerge from the initial state of the universe, despite its indeterminacy, by virtue of his eternality and complete transcendence to space-time. One of the multiple problems with this position is that it places the theist in an interesting quandary given the nature of typical responses to the first two arguments I presented. I take it for granted that the free will defense is not coherent given a God with infallible foreknowledge of all future states of the universe. Thus, only the position of open theism is capable of accounting for free will without the problem of divine foreknowledge as it asserts that God cannot possibly know the future actions of truly free agents. Moreover, according to the free will defense, just as the initial state of the universe described by modern cosmology is ontologically undetermined, so are the actions of free human agents also ontologically undetermined. The problem this creates for theism should now be obvious: If God cannot know the future outcome of ontologically undetermined events, then the free will defense is a potential solution to the evidential argument from evil, but the theist is then stuck on my twelfth argument--God could not know that the universe he created was the universe he wanted. If, however, the theist argues successfully that God can know the future outcome of ontologically undetermined events, then my twelfth argument fails, but the free will defense becomes of no use to solving the evidential argument from evil.

My Trading Plan

2009-11-21T10:45:00.000-08:00

Hello friends. I've been working on a trade plan. After losing 30% (approximately 30 U$D) of my penny micro account by holding on to a bad trade rather than allowing it to be stopped out, I realized I must have a trade plan before I could proceed any further. The following trade plan is based on Tim Wilcox's "Trading Plan Template" found at http://www.trade2win.com/media/knowledge/tim-wilcox/T2W_Trading_Pla... Incorporated in are essential trading rules and common trading mistakes that are found in many online lists. This is a work in progress and is not intended to imply how or why anybody else should or might wish to work their own trading business.

Update 11/21/09 I sold my beer cans at the local scrap metal business and got $18.50, and I found a $20 in the park while walking my dogs. I'm back even with the Forex. I will start live trading again in December. And this time I will always honor my stops.

Update 12/15/09 I sold yet more beer and soda cans at the scrap metal business and made $21.60 which I applied to my credit card bill. This gets me even with the losses from my earlier forex accounts at IBFX and FXMC. Both of those brokers traded against my stops. I will not trade with a broker who hunts my stops. Additionally, I've got a revision to my trade plan to post. The changes are to section 16, Trade Entry Setups.

Update 3/21/10 Changed many sections to eliminate contradictions and fallacies, to tighten self accountability, to ensure discipline, and to establish emplacement of proper trading psychology, and added article 14.21 for accountability to bottom line and performance.

Disclaimer

The content, information, techniques, methods and data contained in "Robert Bumbalough's Trading Plan" or any part of this blog, are for informational purposes only and is provided without warranty of any kind.

The content, information, techniques methods and data contained in "Robert Bumbalough's Trading Plan" and any part of this web site, should not be interpreted as investment advice, or as a recommendation to buy or sell futures contracts.

The content, information, techniques, methods and data provided are obtained from sources deemed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.

The user releases Robert Bumbalough from liability due to the use of the content, information, techniques, methods and data contained in "Robert Bumbalough's Trading Plan" or any part of this blog.

Testimonials on this blog are individual experiences and they do not mean that you will or can emulate their performance. You should be cautious of claims of large profits from day trading. Active futures trading and day trading will generate substantial commissions even if the per trade cost is low. Capital exposure to loss can be extreme and you can lose more than you initially deposit with your broker, always use stop loss orders and or hedges to limit potential loss.

Individual results may vary. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

CFTC Rule 4.41 - Hypothetical or simulated performance results have certain limitations. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. No futures or commodity trading system can guarantee profits. The risk of loss exists in futures and Foreign Exchange trading.

Robert Bumbalough's Trading Plan

1. PURPOSE, USE AND SCOPE OF TRADE PLAN

1.1 The purpose of this trade plan is to provide structure to my Forex trading activities. I need a structured approach to Forex trading to maximize profits and minimize losses.

1.2 The use of this trade plan is by daily reading and continually holding a mental awareness of its content.

1.3 The scope of this trade plan is intended to encompass all aspects of my trading activities and life. As additional needs are ascertained, they will be added to the plan or to addendum's.

1.4 When changes or addendum's are added, the reasons attending will be documented as part of the change or addendum.

2. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

2.1 My comfort in trading is not a factor. Comfort is an emotion. Emotions have no place in trading. I use self-talk, NLP, meditation, self-hypnosis, and brain wave entrainment to alleviate emotional motivations from my assessments of market conditions and to improve my overall mental fitness for trading.

2.2 I have no emotional stake in the outcome of any trade or position or plan. Trading is not about being right or wrong; its about making money, so I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I only care about making money, so I only care about obeying the rules of the trade plan and section 16 setups.

2.3 I continually strive to improve my capacities to craft winning trade plans, trading in general, and my own mental fitness for trading so that I always and only enter trade positions that comply with and are in harmony with the specifications of the setups listed in section 16 of this trade plan.

2.4 I trust my ability to craft or produce quality trading plans.

2.5 I know the market is the decider of whether my plan or positions have merit. If the market rejects my trade, then I calmly accept the small stop out loss. If the market approves of my plan, then I ride that trend or move for maximal gain using the principles and techniques of the money management section.
2.6 What is important is the monthly win-lose ratio. I keep my losers small and my winners big. There does not exist a means to predict market actions that are yet to occur; therefore, there is not right or wrong trade. Instead I view trades as to whether they comply or do not comply with section 16's setup parameters. The edge of the trading plan setups used and listed in section 16 causes my winners to be bigger and more numerous than my losers, so I only trade when the odds of making money are on my side.

3. THE REASONS WHY I WANT TO TRADE FOLLOW.

3.1 I am a good man. I deserve financial security and an abundance of money. I want to trade because doing so complies with, is consonant with, and is in harmony with my basal foundational identity as a noble, heroic being. I am alive. I live for me. Trading is a means whereby I can express my love for myself and my life.

3.2 To secure financial security for retirement and to get my money back. I need the $33,000 that I lost in 2001 on penny stocks. Forex and Futures leveraged trading can recoup my prior losses.

3.3 Provide me with funds to establish retirement financial security and to pay for current expenses.

3.4 Trading is cool. I am the sanction for my own life and that I desire something is sufficient reason for me to work hard to obtain it. What others think matters not.

3.5 Trading is hard and challenging. Its noble and heroic to overcome difficult challenging tasks. I am a noble and heroic being. Therefore it is proper for me to be a trader. I understand that there is no easy money to be had in the markets.

3.6 As a longer term goal, I would like to be able to someday write a book about trading techniques. The intellectual aspects of trading can be packaged and sold to a large market of others who seek trading excellence. Thus I, by virtue of my innate characteristics, can seek to fulfill the wants and desires of others for quality trading instruction.

4. MY TRADING STYLE

4.1 I am a short term swing and manual trader who will establish long term trend following positions that are free of risk. In ranging markets I use range scalping tactics to skim whatever profits are there.

4.2 In trending markets I use trend following tactics to obtain maximal gains by riding the trend for all I can. I use the bread and butter technique to establish a risk free runner position.

4.3 In the future, when I have a LLC Hedge Fund Trading Business, I will incorporate hedging with futures and options.

5. STRENGTHS

5.1 My strengths as a trader is my ability to control myself and to discipline myself. My capacities for self control and discipline are founded upon my strong sense of self esteem. I love, honor, admire, cherish, respect me. I am the reason for and sanction of my life. Therefore, I always follow the trading rules and only take trades that comply with the specifications listed in section 16's setups.

5.2 I am very keen on market and trading education. I continually strive to learn all I can on trading and proper psychological mindset favorable for trading.

5.3 A strength I employ in trading is continuous introspection to self check for errors and non-compliance with the rules.

5.4 Additionally, use of positive NLP, self-talk, meditation, self-hypnosis, and brain wave entrainment to reprogram myself to continually increase my self-discipline and drive for excellence make me an ideal candidate for trading success.

5.5 I have made a commitment to do what it takes to become a success. I'm willing to study charts or learn new trading methods so I'm always ready for changing market conditions.

5.6 A further strength is that past traumatic events caused deep and profound mental damage to me. One of the self-defense mechanisms that has evolved in my species is the ability for the mind to fragment into multiple personalities where one or more sub-personalities occurs at the unconscious operational level. This has happened to me. My inner child selves and unconscious self personalities will assist me in maintaining discipline and objectivity in adhering to the rules of this trade plan because they know that our deceased loved ones, our Mother and Father, our Aunts and Uncles, our Grand Parents did not leave us because they disliked us. Instead our loved ones abandoned us because they died. They could not help it that they died. Death finds us all and will someday find me and my inner unconscious personalities. But between now and then, we can make a great deal of money by always and with out fail following the rules of this trade plan. My inner unconscious selves know that I love them and that I respect them. They understand that I have high esteem for them and for me. They know that I have a total commitment and am doggedly determined to provide the best there is for them and for me. We live for us. We are the sanction of our life. We share the same brain and the same mind and are one. We will always and without fail only trade in accordance with the setup's parameters listed in section 16.

5.7 I am strong because of my unstoppable self-esteem. I love me unconditionally, so I always and without fail treat myself with love and affection, gentleness and kindness, and respect and honesty. Consequently, I only do those things that people who love and respect themselves, who esteem and honor themselves, and who are gentle, kind, honest, and affectionate towards themselves actually do. One of those things is to always protect and grow my capital and to always trade according to this trade plan.

6. WEAKNESSES

6.1 I tend to become emotionally involved in the trade.

6.1.1 To correct this I instill a post hypnotic suggestion that the market is the arbitrator of my trade plans and that my attitude in any trade is that I always and without fail adhere to and obey the rules of the trading plan and setups listed in section 16. The high probability setups I use cause my positions to be profitable 70% to 80% of the trades taken. 20% to 30% of all trades will be stopped out for small losses. No trade is taken unless there is a clear 2 to 1 or better reward to capital exposure ratio.

6.1.2 To ensure, I am not emotionally involved in any position, I physically write a check to the market for my stop loss prior to establishing a position. If the market rejects my entry and stops me out, then that is to be expected 20%-30% of trades taken. If the market accepts my trade entry, then it will reward me because the setups I use and that are listed in section 16 cause me be in positions where the odds of making money are in my favor 70%-80% of all trades taken.

6.2 I tend to form opinions on what the market will do when I should let the market tell me what it is doing. To correct this, I use a self-talk/self-hypnosis script to plant and reinforce post hypnotic commands to remain disciplined and objective at all times, I’ll make more intelligent trading decisions and avoid making trades based on anger or revenge by following the market.

6.3 A further weakness is that I over analyze a potential trade entry. I must respond quickly and automatically to what I see and have courage and conviction to act on my trade plan's entry criteria.

6.3.1 To correct this, I use a self-talk/self-hypnosis script to plant and reinforce post hypnotic commands to act automatically quickly and decisively in all cases where market action comports in harmonious consonance with this trade plan's section 16 setup parameters.

6.3.2 To reinforce my commitment to always and without fail act quickly, decisively, and automatically to enter trade positions where I have a 70%-80% chance of making a profit, I enter into and make a contract with myself and my unconscious personalities to always operate by this trade plan's trade position entry rules.

6.4 My weakness as a trader comes from emotionally fearing losses stemming from positions attendant to the trade or the instrument resulting in violations of the trading rules.

6.4.1 To correct this I use a self-talk/self-hypnosis script to plant and reinforce post hypnotic commands to accept small losses as part of the cost of doing business.

6.4.2 To reinforce my commitment to always and without fail accept that small losses are part of the cost of doing business, I accept the back testing results of Timothy Morge, Robert Miner, Thomas Bulkowski, and Mircea Dologa.

7. MY TRADING CONDITIONS:

7.1 I only trade when I am rested, feed, not sick, and not distracted by work, wife, or pets. I will not trade when, I'm tired, or sick, or hungry, or distracted by work, wife or pets.

7.2 I am guided by my trading plan. I only take trades that comply with the setups being used and listed in section 16 of this trading plan. The plan will save me from making trades that are poorly conceived and executed.

7.3 I do not eat meals at the trade station.

7.4 I do not turn the computer on during sleep time, nor do I take trades while getting ready for work in the mornings.

7.5 I do not trade unless I am fully awake, dressed, and am ready for work. Trading is work and I always treat it as such.

8. REWARD TARGETS: My initial reward targets for my training account are set at 1% per month increase in the amount deposited in the trading account.

8.1 The daily and weekly targets are dependent upon market conditions. It may be the case that there are no trades on some days or weeks. Reward criteria is secondary to entry and exit considerations.

8.2 During training, I will not expose more than 1/4% of my capital in any single trade or 1% of my capital at any one time. For an account with x trade units that means I size the position based on the stop loss such that I can only lose .25% of x units on any trade that complies with the setup parameters.

8.3 After training and when trading a fully funded account, I will not expose more than 1/2% on any single position or 2% total at any one time.

9. ANNUAL GOALS:

My annual trading goals are in several areas. Financial , trading and market education, and personal mental development.

9.1 My goal financially is to double my account yearly by making a monthly 6% gain.

9.2 My goals are to read 8 good trading books yearly, 1 good webinar per week, and to keep up with numerous trading trainer web blogs and youtube.com videos daily.

9.3 I use positive NLP, self talk, self hypnosis, and brain wave entrainment meditation daily to enhance and improve my mental fitness for trading, my discipline, and my commitment to this trade plan as it is currently as of that time amended.
9.4 On a daily, weekly, and monthly basis my goal is to thoroughly document, journal, and review all my trades to determine what worked and what went wrong. That information will be utilized in a feed back procedure to adjust various aspects of this trade plan to achieve maximum profitability.

10. MARKETS TRADED:

I will trade the Forex market in the EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/USD, USD/CAD, USD/CHF, EUR/JPY, EUR/GBP, ASD/USD pairs.

10.1 My goal for the future is to have a futures and options trading account where I will trade E-Micro Forex and E-Mini S&P futures contracts and FX options for hedging purposing.

10.2 Whatever market I trade, I will always comply with the money management and capital exposure rules established by this trade plan.
10.3 The particular currency pair traded will depend on a currency heat map assessment of which pair is most active. The watch list contains the Forex majors. When major moves in the exotic currency pairs are anticipated by the news providers I follow, then they too shall be on the watch list.

11. TRADING PLATFORM: I will continue to use MetaTrader 4 with the lowest cost and most reliable and easy to use Forex broker I can find. This choice will be updated every three months to best take advantage of competition between Forex brokers. I will use Forex Peace Army broker reviews to initially assess which broker may be most appropriate.

11.1 In the course of future events when my trading business is operational as a Hedge Fund, I shall use the best available and affordable trading platform and data feed.

11.2 For the present and during training, see article 11 above.

12. DAILY PRE-MARKET ROUTINE:

12.1 I review yesterday's trades.

12.2 I review the trading plan and rules.

12.3 I perform a self-hypnosis trance session wherein I reiterate my post hypnotic suggestions to always honor my stops, to sequentially scale out of trades applying profits to pay for stop losses in order to eliminate capital exposure, and to build my self-esteem and to strengthen my commitment to obeying the trade plan.

12.4 I scan for the currency pair that has been most active.

12.5 I review the economic calender and economic news daily prior to initiating any trades.
12.6 I check the data from any trading club, signal or alert service I may be using prior to initiating any trades.

13. My daily Hour by Hour Schedule. (This section assumes a full time trade for a living effort. I am not able at this time to do that. The main effort of my trading activities are to train, become educated, and configure my mental trader psychological stance.)

13.1 I work every day to improve myself in terms of trader psychological adeptness, trading skills, setups, charting techniques, and market knowledge.

13.2 I use self-talk, NLP, self-hypnosis to implant a strong desire to get up an hour early at 4:30 AM to have extra time to study.

13.3 During lunch at work, I do a self-hypnosis session and recite the trader's positive self-affirmations.
13.4 During drive times, I continually say out loud the self-talk positive traders affirmations.
13.5 When home in the evenings, I quickly get my accustomed chores accomplished so as to have time to study trading books or to view online trading educational content.

14. CAPITAL EXPOSURE, TRADE AND MONEY MANAGEMENT

During my Forex trading training period, I trade demo accounts and a Nano account for fractions of pennies to minimize losses and preserve my capital. As my skills improve, I will in an incremental fashion increase the amount of funds exposed in a trading account. The incremental factor is to be determined by my overall financial health.

14.1 My permanent fixed policy towards exposing my capital to potential loss consists of the proposition that my capital must be protected and grown using only high probability trading techniques. I will only enter into a trade if the probability of success is 70% or greater.

14.2 I am adverse to exposing my capital to potential loss. I seek to minimize exposure whenever possible. I sequentially scale out of trades applying profits to pay for stop losses in order to eliminate capital exposure by entering with 3 lots and using first and second take profit targets each time setting stop losses to break even. The third lot is a capital exposure free lotto ticket runner.

14.3 During my training, my total capital exposure allowed for any single position is 1/4% of the total of my account capital. After training, that will be upward revised to 1/2% of the total of my account capital.

14.4 My total capital exposure in any one sector or for all trades open at any one time is not to exceed 1%. During training maximum capital exposure for all positions open at any one time is not to exceed 2%.

14.5 When I am trading for a living, I shall employ multiple brokers so that if one crashes and I cannot close open positions, the other will be available for hedging purposes.

14.6 There are two computers available. If one goes down I will use the other to manage trades in the most appropriate manner. All computers will be operated from uninterpretable power supplies and are to be backed up daily.

14.7 I have the broker's phone numbers and can contact them to close trades if necessary. The numbers are listed in the mobile phone speed dialer.

14.8 Setups will be monitored for effectiveness and tracked in a spreadsheet along with trades. If a setup proves unreliable it will be replaced with another that has been shown to work.

14.9 I only take scalp trades if there is an identified potential reward to potential loss ratio of at least 1.5 to 1. In all other trades, I will only enter if the ratio is 2.0 or greater.

14.10 The success ratio of a setup is defined as the ratio of number of successful to unsuccessful instances in back testing. See section 14.1 where a success ratio of at least 70% is established.

14.11 Tim Wilcox's Trading Plan Template section 10.8 details a definition of Reward to Risk Ratio. This statement makes that definition part of my trading plan.

14.11.1(To determine the risk-reward ratio, we need to know the ‘Success’ ratio or probability ratio described in 10.7, above and the ‘Sharpe’ ratio. The latter is the average number of £££'s made on profitable trades, relative to the average number of £££'s lost on unprofitable trades. To express this as a percentage, divide the average £££'s gained on profitable trades by the combined figure of the average number of £££'s gained and lost and then multiply by 100. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that we have a Success ratio of 2:1 - i.e. a probability of success of 66%. Additionally, we also have a Sharpe ratio of say, 1.5:1 - so that if we risk £40.00 we stand to make £60.00 on the winning trades. The Success ratio tells us that we win 2 out of every 3 trades and the Sharpe ratio tells us that, of the 2 winners, we make 2 x +£60.00 = +£120.00. Our one losing trade of the three costs us -£40.00. On all three trades we risked £40.00 and ended up with a net gain of +£80.00. Therefore, if we divide the net gain by the amount we risked, we arrive at a risk-reward ratio of 2:1. However, a word of caution: all of this assumes that we only trade the setups defined in our plan and that they have been thoroughly back and forward tested to determine their probability of success.)

14.12 Stop loss orders will be positioned below penultimate swing lows for long trades and above penultimate swing highs for short trades. If that is not feasible, then stops are to be set ATR(21) of next higher time frame. In either case maximal capital exposure per trade will be honored. If the stop is too expensive, then I will not take the trade.

14.13 During training, if I lose 1/2% of the account capital or have two losers in a row, then I will stop trading for the day. All the day's trades will be reviewed and fallacies will be exposed, so I can learn what went wrong. Setups will be amended if necessary.

14.14 During training, if I lose 1% of the account capital or have 4 losers in a row, then I will stop trading for the week. All the week's trades will be reviewed and fallacies will be exposed, so I can learn what went wrong. Setups will be amended if necessary.

14.15 During training, if I lose 3% of the account capital, then I will stop trading for two weeks. All the past week's trades will be reviewed and fallacies will be exposed, so I can learn what went wrong. Setups will be amended if necessary.
14.16 In the event of a large draw-down, I will only credit additional funds to my account with ‘spare’ money that I can afford to lose. I will not commence trading again until I have identified the cause of the draw-down and have re-tested the strategy to ensure that it meets my profit objectives. When my trading equity exceeds the amount I need to trade my strategies, I will withdraw the surplus and use it to pay bills or to fund a long term investment account.
14.17 As the account grows, I will scale up position size to increase profits while staying within the capital exposure limits.
14.18 Position sizes are determined by capital exposure limits in the case of very high success ratio setups. For 70% success ratio setup position size is cut back by 1/2.
14.19 I physically write a check to the market for my stop losses prior to establishing a position to alleviate my emotional involvement with the trade via potential losses.
14.20 Potential reward is determined by distance between entry price and Median Lines, their parallels or warning lines, or by daily floor pivots, or by Fibonacci retracement/expansion ratios, or by chart pattern targets as described in Thomas Bulkowski's book “Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns”.
14.21 I am accountable to the bottom line and for my performance.
14.21.1 Any losses I incur will be paid back to the trading account from money I do not need to pay expenses
14.21.2 I am accountable for my performance in obeying the rules of the trading plan. Any violations will be dealt with by correcting my trading psychology and commitment to obedience and discipline by methods listed in section 2.1.

15. EXIT TECHNIQUES

15.1 Exits are determined by market conditions. If the conditions for a profitable trade have dissipated, then the position is to be closed immediately.

15.1.1 Profits are to be protected by trailing stops strategically placed relative to market geometry. Stops are placed where stop will be protected by limit buyer's or seller's orders.

15.2 One third of position is to closed at first take profit target. That may be a support of resistance price, a pivot price, or a Murry Math Line price, Median Line price, ect. Stops are adjusted to break even on remaining lots after first take profit to remove capital exposure.

15.3 Second third of position is closed at second take profit. Remaining position's stop loss is moved to entry price to lock in profits and to ensure there is no capital exposure. This is a runner lottery ticket position. Trailing stops are used as profits mount. Those stops are placed under or above penultimate swing lows or highs where there are limit buyers or sellers that will protect the stop. This is to enable the position to run for maximum gain.

15.4 If a position fails to move in my favor within three time frame bars, it will be closed.

15.5 If a position moves close to the first take profit and then reverses, stops are to be set to break even. If it is then stopped out for no loss and if setup entry conditions still prevail, a reentry stop can be place above or below the penultimate bar prior to the stop out bar.

16. SETUPS: Trade positions will only be entered if market actions complies with the setups described in this section. (REFER TO THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL: THIS SECTION WILL BE ELABORATED AND DETAILED AS TIME PROGRESSES.)

16.1 I use Andrew's Pitchfork Median Lines as taught by Tim Morge on his medianline.com and marketgeometry.com web sites and as taught by Dr. Mircea Dologa in his book “Integrated Pitchfork Analysis.”

16.1.1 Trades are always taken in the direction of a high time frame's trend and potential entries are filtered using red-green/blue signals of the Signal Bars and Stochastic Bars indicators, momentum, support and resistance.

16.1.2 There is an 79.5% frequency probability that price will either reverse or zoom through when it meets a median line, its parallel or warning line.

If price shows VSA reversal characteristics at the line, then it is likely to reverse with a 79.5% probability of obtaining the next ML, MLH, or Warning line. At that time I shall take a position consisting of 3 lots with take profits and stop loss established as follows.

16.1.3 Take profits are set by market geometry. TP1 will be the penultimate swing high for a long trade or low for a short trade. TP2 will be the 50% line between the reversal ML/MLH/WL and the next pertinent line. TP3 is located at the target line. Each time profit is taken it is used to pay for the remaining position's stop loss such that SL is then set to break even so capital exposure is eliminated.

16.1.4 Initial Stop loss is established with a discretionary number or pips beyond the penultimate swing low/high for long/short trades. Factors controlling the number of pips are volatility and ATR and bar spread size. If the initial stop results in a capital exposure of more than (1/4% during training – 1/2% after training)of total capital, then the trade is not taken.

16.1.5 If price action zooms the close by line, then it is likely headed for the next MLH or WL or 50% quadrature line. If momentum and volume are showing continuation then a stop entry with a stop above or below the most recent previous bar is set in place.

16.2 I use the methods of Robert C. Miner as explained in his book “High Probability Trading Strategies.”

There is a high probability that price will reverse at a value that is coincident with confluence of multiple Fibonacci levels.

Traded are filtered as listed in section 16.1.1.

If price shows VSA reversal or continuation characteristics at the line, then it is likely to reverse or continue respectively.

16.3 I use the trend following trading techniques taught by Wayne Mcdonell of the FX Bootcamp trading club.

For a bear trend, the following conditions must be met to consider entering a trade.

The higher time frame stochastic is embedded oversold or trending towards oversold, and the 14 bar SMA is below and well separated from the 48 bar SMA, and price is under the THV CORAL moving average, then when price bounces on the 5 or 8 bar LWMA on the 1 min chart a short trade can be entered.

For a long trade, stochastic is to be embedded overbought or trending towards overbought, and the 14 bar SMA is above and well separated from the 48 bar SMA, and price is over the THV CORAL moving average, then when price bounces on the 5 or 8 bar LWMA on the 1 min chart a short trade can be entered.

Additional filters can be discretionary used.

If Woodies CCI gives a confirming signal with the trend, then greater confidence is available. Rigid adherence to capital exposure control as per section 14.3 and essential discipline must be and are continually maintained.

16.4 THV TRIX crossover and or MACD divergence signals in the same direction as a higher time frame trend can be used for confirming entries according to sections 16.1, 16.2, 16.3.

16.5 I use Peter Bains techniques as taught in his FX Mentor club videos on Youtube and Moneyshow.com.

16.5.1 MACD neutralization in conjunction with harmonious overbought-oversold and momentum conditions if observed when a potential AB=CD pattern would result from price trend continuation is a partial condition for taking a trade.

16.5.2 If the prior conditions in sections 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 would be met by the continuation, then a trade may be taken.

16.5.3 Strict capital exposure control as listed in section 14.3 is to be maintained.

16.6 I use Gartley patterns on the H4 and higher TF to find high probability, approximately 80% successful, entries.

In MT4, I use Gartley, ZUP, and Search Pattern indicators to find harmonic patterns.

Entries are taken at the optimal Fibonacci Ratio price for the pattern if volatility is low and VSA and momentum are showing reversal signals.

Entries are aborted if price bar spreads are too large, if volatility is too high, if price fails to obtain most optimal Fibonacci Ratios.

16.7 Setups are found by visual inspection of FX charts.

16.8 Entry Signals are generated by price action consonant with the setup parameters.

16.9 Stops are set to break even as per section 15 above to protect the capital and the position from being closed due to market noise.

17. TRADE REVIEW, RECORDING, JOURNAL KEEPING

17.1 All trades are to be recorded. Charts for entry and exit are to be saved and stored in a document file.

17.1.1 I use NLP, Self-Affirmations, Self-Hypnosis, and Brain Wave Entrainment Meditation to implant and reinforce post hypnotic commands to obey the rules of this trade plan including section 17.

17.2 After the trades are closed they are to be reviewed for favorable and unfavorable occurrences. Lessons are to be distilled from the charts and documented in the trade record document. What went right or wrong is to be ascertained and noted.

17.3 Thoughts about my mental stances and attitudes are to be noted as journal entries in the trade record document.
17.4 Trades are to be rated by compliance with the setup used for entry and exit and the trade plan's specifications for capital exposure control and money management.

18. TRADE PLAN DISCIPLINE COMPLIANCE

18.1 I use NLP, Self-Affirmations, Self-Hypnosis, and Brain Wave Entrainment Meditation to implant and reinforce post hypnotic commands to obey the rules of this trade plan and to strengthen my resolve to adhere to the trade plan.
18.2 Setups are back and forward tested prior to actual use in a live account. Success ratios are determined and documented prior to live trading with real money.
18.2.1 I will learn to program in mql4 language so I can modify EA programs to enable back testing.
18.3 IF I BREAK THE RULES, I WILL STOP TRADING AND FOCUS ON WHY I BROKE THE RULE. I WILL THEN WORK TO ENSURE NO FURTHER LAPSE OF DISCIPLINE HAPPENS.

19. ESSENTIAL TRADING RULES

19.1 My main goal and highest priority is to protect, grow, and preserve my capital. When in doubt, stay out. I Always obey the trading rules. I am mentally disciplined such that I always obey these rules.

19.2 I only take entries in accordance with the technical setups used and described in section 16. I look before I leap. I do not form opinions based on fundamental factors. I never trade on emotions.

19.3 Never ever chase price. I always let the market come to me. If I miss the move, so what. Another will be around soon enough. I plan my trades and trade my plan.

19.4 I Always use a stop loss and a take profit limit. I open trades with estimated and identified 2 or better to 1 reward to capital exposure ratios.

19.5 I Always close losing trades immediately.

19.6 Allow profits to accumulate and winning trades to run. Close winning trades only for technical reasons.

19.7 Open a trade with three lots. When one pays for the others stop loss, take its profit and move stop loss to break even to ensure there is no loss.

19.8 I do not let myself be shook out in the first few moments of a trade, nor do I second guess myself as the setups are clearly defined. I trade what the market is indicating and not what my opinion may be. I strive to avoid having an opinion about what the market will do in the future.

19.9 I only take an entry when it complies with entry criteria of the setup being used and described in section 16. I always trade with the trend in a trending market and use range trading techniques in ranging markets.

19.10 Beware of head fakes. See 19.9 above. I establish profit targets using Fibonacci ratios and extensions in confluence with support and resistance, Murray Math lines, daily, weekly, monthly pivots as well as Median Lines, Median Line Parallels, Warning Lines and Quadrilles.

19.11 Always look for divergences to indicate a short term trend reversal and for neutralization indicating trend continuation.

19.11.1 Check the TA, Trend Lines, and Fibs prior to entering a trade to determine if entry is optimal.

19.12 Stop trading after a loss. Take time to learn what went wrong and learn to never repeat the same mistake. I never chase my losses, and I do not trade for revenge.

COMMON FOREX TRADING MISTAKES:

20.1 Risking Too Much: There is no way of getting rich quick in forex trading. I must be consistent and disciplined, and I am. Forex is not gambling. Any funds I invest in forex are those that I can afford to lose. I am a successful forex trader, and I protect my capital, and therefore instead of risking too much and hoping for it to turn into a goldmine, I focus on good entry techniques and understanding of trend.

20.2 Over-trading: I know that in order to make huge profits I do not have to trade all the time. It is important for me to realize that forex market is volatile and changes direction all day long. I do not expect profitable trades from every price movement. It is very easy to get addicted to winnings which can lead to sloppy trading. The opportunity to profit strikes a few times a day and it is my job to figure out when it happens. After each trade, I give myself a time out to ensure that I make right decisions based on my trading plan and not on the luring crave to win again! I ignore market noise; I control my emotions and focus on profitable movements; therefore, I am a consistently profitable trader.

20.3 Errors in Order Entry: To save myself a lot of stress, avoid anxiety and evade losing money, I always take two extra seconds to check that everything is correct before I click!

20.4 I always trade according to this Trading Plan. I know myself and my limitations, so in all trades I avoid that which leads to sloppy emotionally based thinking.

Losing is not the end of the world! There is no such thing as forex trading system that works 100% at a time. I can become rich by being right only about 10% of a time. I expel the perfectionist out of my mind and open myself to a larger picture. The most important thing in forex trading is win/loss ratio. It doesn’t matter how many times I win or loose; what really matters is how much money I gain when I win and how much money I loose when I have a losing trade. I concentrate on monthly profits, and not on every single trade.

20.6 Ignoring Money Management: Money management is very important in forex trading. The purpose of money management is to protect me from risking too much and therefore grow my profits in a stable, consistent manner. Without a proper money management technique, I can empty my trading account with a few bad trades. I close losing trades immediately, and I always and without fail practice a ruthless regime of capital exposure control.

20.7 Ignoring Psychological Issues: Psychology is a big part of forex trading. I train myself to control my emotions. I deal with losses and understand that success does not depend on every trade. I keep a journal and record the trading outcome, my feelings and emotions during the trade. This can helps me to analyze myself and avoid, overtrading, overleveraging, revenge trading, greed trading, ego trading etc.

20.8 Using too many indicators: Simplicity is the best way in forex trading. Many indicators only add chaos and unnecessary information. I use sufficient indicators to determine trend strength and momentum at range reversal points. I use trend lines, moving averges, synchronicity of Fibonnaci level in confluence with daily floor pivots, Murry Math lines, but especially Median and associated Lines. I keep it simple to avoid paralysis by analysis.

20.9 I do not hold positions during major new releases. It is close to impossible to predict how the market will react to the news.

20.10 Using Too Much Leverage: I do not over leverage. I always comply with the rules of the capital exposure and money management section. Too much leverage can be extremely harmful. Having a small trading account and making big trades using leverage can turn into a complete disaster whenever the market moves against my positions by just a tiny swing.

20.11 Demo Trading An Amount I Don’t Have: I only demo trade with a quantity of fantasy points roughly equal to what I really trade. I treat my demo account as if it were a real account. I use self-hypnosis to modify my thinking and emotions so that I feel the same about a demo account as I do about my real accounts.

20.12 Switching Strategies Like Pair of Gloves: I do not jump from one strategy to another upon experiencing losses. My forex strategy is not discarded if it experiences a draw down. Every strategy need time to be optimized. Success ratios are tracked and evaluated for appropriate use in the then occurring market conditions.

20.13 There is no shortcut to Forex market knowledge. I must learn and expend the effort to train myself. I read, learn, practice and analyze all the time in order to be up to date and make profits. Forex trading is a lifelong learning career. Since forex market is complex and very flexible, a lot of learning is needed in order to adopt to new changes and become a skilled trader.

20.14 Ignoring Stop Loss: Ignoring stop loss is a no-no! I always have a clear entry and exit plan. Before I enter a trade, I know my loss limit and my first and second take profit targets. I plan my trades and trade my plan. Prior to taking a trade, I understand the reasons for entering a trade in the first place. I always stick to my plan and always set stop-loss targets. There is no such thing as a “trade of a life time”. If I miss one, there Is always a set of new trades right around the corner!

21. Structure of the Trading Business

21.1 My trading business is to be structured as a Hedge Fund that is operated by a Nevada registered LLC Corporation. I will work as a self-employed contractor for the corporation.

21.2 The principle and majority share holder of the corporation is to be a Living Family Trust that functions as the fiduciary trustee and executor of my estate.

21.3 Quarterly reviews will be conducted to ascertain if the business structure is the most advantageous. Revisions to the business plan and structure will be accomplished and documented upon findings that improvements can be made.

22. Taxes

22.1 After I make yearly profits, the corporation will hire a CPA to file and minimize the Hedge Fund's tax liability.

22.2 If there are no profits, I will study the IRS tax code to find the most deductions and write offs for the corporation.

23. Miscellaneous and Errata

23.1 I will not discuss my trading activities with non-traders or with those who are not a member of my trading club or circle. This is to minimize any potential legal liability from losses suffered by those others.

24. Revisions

24.1 12/15/09 Added details to entry setups in section 16 in order to have method for use.

24.2 3/21/10 Changed many sections to eliminate contradictions and fallacies, to tighten self accountability, to ensure discipline, and to establish emplacement of proper trading psychology, and added article 14.21 for accountability to bottom line and performance.

Reply to Tom Bowden

2009-10-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

Mr Bowden wrote at http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/lets-take-back-columbus-day/#comment-1764

Here is my reply.

Greetings Mr Bowden

Thank you for your article. Despite my disagreement with your assessment, rest assured I like you and wish only the best for you and your family.

You wrote: "virtually all enthusiasm for celebrating the holiday has disappeared."

While Columbus himself was a religious mystic and supernaturalist, his intention to shorten trade routes was almost purely pragmatic. The tragic consequences of the Columbus expeditions are the motivation for the disenthusiastic response to the holiday. That is so because it is always morally wrong to murder and enslave people to steal their property. The estimate of numbers of American deaths resultant from the Spanish conquest ranges from a low of several millions to a high of one hundred millions of people who died from military attack, disease, or were worked to death in slavery. Many Objectivists will claim that use of technological innovations in and of themselves constitutes morality. This is false. How a technology is used and why determines if the actions involved are either moral or not. The Spanish Conquistadors were motivated by desire for plunder, rape, murder, forcing religious conversion, and slavery. Therefore, their use of superior military force and tools could not have been moral. If on the other hand, the Spanish had engaged in peaceful trade, offering the Americans education and friendship, then the actions of the Spanish would have been moral. So good people should not celebrate Columbus day because of the tragic consequences resultant from his voyages.

You mentioned: "the blossoming of Western civilization." Sir, Western Civilization is Christian Civilization. Christianity, like Judaism and Islam is gross superstition and exceedingly immoral because no person who is a Christian, Jew, or Muslim can reason rationally. The Americans were likewise silly mystics and hence morally equivalent to the Spanish. Morality is a step function and not a gradient of values because morality arises from the interaction of human cognition with material existence and is therefore objective. Morality cannot be a gradient of values because it would then be subjective. Hence no religious mystic can be moral.

You wrote: "finding fault with Columbus, America, and Western civilization for evils and tragedies that they did not create" Sir, you are major equivocating here. Columbus was the vanguard of the Spanish Conquistadors rather than a single actor on a stage as you assert. Columbus and the Conquest are a package deal.

America is a euphemism for the aggregate of cultures of the people who live under the legal jurisdiction of the political entity who occupies the seat of power in Washington DC and not the polity known as "The United States of America." In fact, the United States of America does not exist at all as I argued in my blog essay at

http://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2009/10/united-state-of-america-does-not-exist.html

Again Western Civilization is Christian Civilization, religious nut jobbery, and mysticism and not a secular program of self improvement.

Aristotle, Newton, Locke, Pasteur, and Rockefeller had nothing to do with the immoral actions of the Conquistadors that renders Columbus Day offensive to the intelligent Objectivist. All those men were religious lunatics and hence irrational and thus immoral. That their achievements outlived them by virtue of beneficial effects is testament to the subjective nature of other's judgment in assigning moral value on a pragmatic basis. Objectivism rejects pragmatism as a basis for moralty.

You wrote: "liberate humanity from the miserable, stagnant poverty suffered by Indians in the Stone Age, and Europe in the Dark Ages."

Your essay is about Columbus's Day. He had nothing to do with the Dark Ages that came about due to the brutal subjugation of people in Europe by delusional military conquers in league with Christianity, "i.e.", the Catholic Church. The same church that encouraged the Conquistadors to forcibly convert the surviving Americans to their vile superstition. Instead of liberating, the Spanish murdered and enslaved the Americans. You may wish to review history again.

You Wrote: "the core values of Western civilization: reason and individualism." Sir Reason and Individualism are indeed valuable and worthy of celebration, but again Western Civilization being religious lunacy and superstition has nothing to do with either reason or individualism.

You wrote "No nation on earth is more entitled to celebrate those values than the United States of America, which is history’s shining example of their life-serving power." Sir, that is delusional nonsense. First a nation is a group of people who together form a political entity and not the resultant political entity, so United States of America is not a nation. It would be, if it actually obtained, instead a Federal Republic. But as I argued in my blog the USA does not obtain. See the link above.

Regarding "entitled", by whose standard? Almost all the people who live under the totalitarian jurisdiction of the government in the seat of power at Washington DC that styles itself the "United States" are delusional religious mystics of some sort. They are grossly irrational and consequently immoral. Their judgments are then in error and any opinion of “entitlement” is simply that.

You wrote: "history’s shining example of their life-serving power" Sir, since the political entity falsely identified by most people as the “United State of America” has never abided by by the rule of law and is currently in gross violations of the founding documents that define the USA, said political entity is only an example of brigandage and banditry, murder and plunder, Stateism and Romanticism. That can hardly be called good in any sense.

You wrote: "It’s time to take back Columbus Day, to reclaim it as a patriotic holiday, an occasion for Americans to honor the great explorer who wrote the first chapter in our nation’s illustrious history." No sir. That is wrong. Objectivists should abhore the State and seek to bind it up in chains of law to protect themselves from the evils of delusional people who think the State is a virtue. While a minarchist state is a necessary evil to allow citizens to jointly defend against brigandage and banditry and military attack, the all powerful totalitarian State the occupies the seat of power in Washington DC is an abomination to all mankind because it is run by and for delusional religious lunatics. The objectivist should honor the trader principle and seek only peace and free trade ala laissez-faire capitalism. As an axiomatic corollary then the objectivist should seek to live under those states that are most friendly to personal liberty, individualism, and laissez-faire. The political entity styled by delusional Americans as the USA does not fit that morally correct attribute.

However, it is likely the case that the political entity occupying the place of the USA will soon collapse like the former USSR did resultant from the fiscal extravagances of its rouge and outlaw government. May it fail and be swept into the dust bin of history.

Best Wishes and Warmest Regards for Your Success

Robert Bumbalough

The United State of America Does Not Exist

2009-10-11T09:41:00.001-07:00

It is a fallacy to hold that actions exist independent of that which does the action. Actions do not exist independent of that which performs the action. The State as "politeía" is a man made artificial system of organization consisting of agreements between people to perform certain actions in particular fashions and can only happen as a set of obtaining actions. Hence the State as "politeía" can only obtain if someone does the actions that comprise the "politeía". If the actions are to conform to a rule of law rather than the arbitrary whim of some person or persons, then they can only occur in accordance with a set of agreed upon specifications. If the agreed upon actions are not performed then the agreement is not fulfilled. If the agreement is not fulfilled, then the that State as "politeía" does not occur.

Stateism is a fallacy predicated on the further fallacies that morality is a gradient of valuation and hence subjective. Moral subjectivity is based on absurd notions of super-naturalism. Since those who operate the machinery of government at the seat of power located in Washington DC have been Stateists and super-naturalists, they cannot have fulfilled the requirements of the agreed upon specifications that define the United States of America because there is no merit in fallacy. This is so because actions performed resultant from fallacy cannot be moral and hence good. Therefore, those who operate the machinery of government at the seat of power located in Washington DC have been traitors to the body politic know as the "United States of America." This is the case because the body politic, "politeía", know as the "United States of America" can only occur as a complete set of instantiated actions performed in accordance with specification recorded in the founding charter document, the Constitution of the United States, that defines the "United States of America." If the seat of power located in Washington DC conducts its business in a manner other than that specified within the founding charter document, the Constitution of the United States, that defines the "United States of America", then the United States of America does not occur. The seat of power in Washington DC, has from its beginning operated in violation of the specifications recorded in the founding charter document, the Constitution of the United States, that defines the "United States of America." Hence the body politic, "politeía", known as the "United States of America" has never actually occurred as as set of specified and instantiated actions. By failing to perform the actions specified in the Constitution, the responsible actors fail to cause the United States of America to occur. That which does occur is called the United States of America, but it is something different than the specifications for the USA. Consequently, it is proper to say while there is a seat of power located in Washington DC, it is not the United States of America.

Morality Is an Axiomatic Fact of Material Existence

2009-09-23T10:52:00.000-07:00

Recently a theist asked how an atheist justifies morality. The context of the question carries a large number of spurious presuppositions that have origin in a broad scoped fallacy not unique to theism. This fallacy is called the epistemological reversal of the subject-object of thought reversal. (Objectivism defines and discusses this fallacy at length.) Theists imagine as a strawman an argument from Objectivism or Naturalism that morality, logic and what is fallaciously identified as the “laws of nature” are “an effect of random molecules and chemical reactions that can never give nor validate anything whatsoever.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Morality arises from material existence(%*) and is necessary for human survival. Morality is ultimately derived from the Law of Identity, A=A. The nature of physical material existence is that every thing that exists has a specific set of characteristics. Human beings are continuously faced with the moral choice to either live life or die.

'Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it —by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.'

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work."[*]

Morality nor logic nor the uniformity of nature transcends existence, for existence is all that exists. Consider the following syllogism.

a. Morality is necessary for human survival.

b. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.

c. If divine creation is true, then all in existence is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in existence is necessary.

d. If theism is true, then morality cannot be necessary. (from b and c)

e. Theism is false. (from a and d)

Theists attack premise c by declaring that if morality is part of God’s nature, then its existence is a necessary consequence of divine causation. They may think this an easy escape from the problem, since they imagine God is a necessary entity from a theological standpoint, but it suffers from several
unresolvable problems.

1. Theists often assert that non-believers borrow morality from the Christian worldview. This is absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand, for it does not address the fact that morality becomes subjective if a consciousness creates it. The theist is only specifying the nature of that subjectivity. By so doing he is in fact supporting the argument above. Asserting morality is part of God’s nature does not change the fact that by so doing is to declare it originates from a consciousness, not from objective existence – which is the very definition of subjective. (This is an example of the subject-object reversal. Reality is objective. The imagination is subjective. By claiming morality is subjective, the theist reverses the epistemic priority of objective reality over subjective imagination.)

2. Theistic believers often discuss the nature of their imagined ruling consciousness, but they have absolutely no grounds for discussing the specifics of God’s nature for two reasons. First, by acceptance of a fantasy God as Sovereign and Creator, the believer cannot assume anything about its properties any more than we can posit “complete entropy” of a system and then try to define physical properties thereof. The theist cannot refute the possibility that a fantasy of an infinite god or a malevolent spirit being is deluding her into believing the statement “God’s nature is moral.” Under theism a person can no longer refute arguments based on extreme skepticism. The theist can only refute the idea of an invisible magic entity manipulating their mind, or being the victim of mental illness if her worldview entails self-contained existence. Second, to discuss what she thinks is God’s nature, she must presume to have knowledge of that nature. Knowledge, however, is rooted in reality and is held in conceptual form.

“To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different
measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a
perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.”
- Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, p.131.

The only way to have perceptual knowledge is via our sensory experience. “Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science.” – (Ayn Rand, "Kant Versus Sullivan", "Philosophy: Who Needs It", 90.) Since theism’s fantasy of a God cannot be detected by any means of sensory experience or instrumentation, it is impossible for any religious mystic to have perceptual information that can be used as isolated distinct perceptual units that can be the basis of a concept of God. Thus theism’s claim to have knowledge of the nature of God is patently false.

3. The theistic point that “Morality is rooted in the nature of God.” is a complete ad hoc rationalization: nothing about the notion of a god indicates that it must be necessarily good or moral. Humans are capable of being both bad and cruel and self-destructive, it is clearly impossible for a more powerful
being to not be able to do such a simple thing as act with meaness and cruelty.

4. Even if it was the case that a God actually existed and its nature was morally good, there would be no necessary (in the sense of system K modal logic meaning it is not possibly false) relation between God’s inherent properties and its creation. A burden of proof is upon the God believers to prove
their assertion that it necessarily is the case that a relation between what they imagine as God and objective reality obtains such that the basal attributes of their God transfer to objective reality by virtue of a creative action. Without such evidence sufficient to establish the thing as true, the assertion that
“Moral goodness is rooted in the nature of God.” cannot have any weight. The believers would need to prove that powerful beings are restricted in their creations to transferring their basal attributes to that which is created. Were the theists successful in such an endeavor, the religious house of cards
would fall to the old rejoinder that a perfect creator cannot create an imperfect creation.

5. It is impossible to make sense of the proposition that “Moral goodness is part of God’s nature.” That this is so can be observed by taking note of the Transcendent Argument for God. TAG proposes that “Moral goodness is both dependent on God and necessary." ….. If morality is dependent on God it
must be contingent. If morality is contingent then it is not necessary for human survival. But morality is necessary for human survival. Thus morality cannot be dependent on God since there is nothing inconsistent about denying the existence of God but there is in denying the existence of objective
morality.” – (Michael Martin: “Butler's Defense of TAG and Critique of Tang” - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/butler.html). Morality
cannot both be an intrinsic part of God’s nature and created by God.

6. Theism’s assertions are self-defeating. If morality existed first as a property of God, then it is a non-material principle, and divine causation is not necessary for its transference at all. All it would prove, at best, is that a non-material principle is involved, but there is a definite lack of specificity in theism’s claim. How is it that some properties of God’s nature are transferred to reality, but others are not? Theism’s claim that “our need for morality is rooted in the nature of God and evidenced in creation itself” implies that it is logically necessary for one property of the nature of the alleged God to transfer to reality but that other predicated properties do not transfer. Why is that? The theist bears a burden of proof here to show why their case for morality transference does not also entail that their God’s alleged goodness, intelligence, order, logic, self-knowledge, sovereignty, power, justice, etc are also transferred by the creative act. In no sense is the burden of proof fulfilled by simply asserting the contrary position as a mystery.

7. Theism presumes that it makes sense to speak of morality as a non-material entity, which indicates a commitment to idealism. From my perspective, morality is an axiomatic fact of reality, and arises because of the fundamental nature of the material world and human requirements necessary for survival. It makes no sense to speak of morality dissociated from the material world, any more than it makes sense to speak of immaterial consciousness.

[*] Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” in "The Virtue of Selfishness", 23.

[%*] Special Thanks to Francois Tremblay for his essay "Materialist Apologetics" that inspired much of this essay. Mr Tremblay's work is found at http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/materialist_apologetics/

My Letter to Prez Obama re: Health Care Reform

2009-09-01T07:50:00.000-07:00

Greetings President Obama and Good Whitehouse Staff People

The acrimonious debate surrounding the House of Representative’s Health Care Reform plan indicates that people are able to discern deep and troubling issues innate within the case presented by President Obama and the democrat leadership. President Obama and the democrat leaders dishonor Liberalism by their overt assertion of pure Statism. Liberalism is the doctrine that human beings have natural rights to Liberty, Life, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness that supercede government authority to arbitrarily impose controls on natural human beings. Statism is the doctrine that an arbitrary collective, the State, has and should have power to control natural human beings in order to protect them from brigandage and banditry. These definitions mean Liberalism is good. It is good because people are good. Because people are good, actions that then comprise goodness are those that result in natural human beings acquiring what they need to thrive and prosper. Evil is that which circumvents the natural human being from performing the good. Statism is one such evil because while the erstwhile purpose of the State is to protect people, its method is the same as that used by the brigands and bandits used as justification for the State. The State is thus self-refuting. President Obama and the democrat leadership by way of seeking to implement draconian authoritarian Statist control over the health care industry circumvent the abilities of natural human beings to attain that which is needed to allow them to thrive and prosper. Consequently, President Obama and the democrat leaders are actively engaged in evil.

It may be objected that the collective good supercedes the moral value of the individual. This is false, however, because morality can only attend to a being capable of rational reasoning using conceptual knowledge. No collective can reason or be rational or hold knowledge in any form because a collective is not alive. The collective is a floating abstraction without any firmly established definition or specification save as a monopoly on use of force via means of brigandage and banditry. If a collective is deemed to be a standard of value, its nature as a floating abstraction means those wielding power for the sake of the collective will falsely warrant preventing natural living human beings from engaging in the good in order to assert arbitrary semantically variant values,(ie: brigandage and banditry), as moral for the sake of a floating abstraction, the collective. This use of power to prevent people from exercising the good in the context of arbitrarily operating within a floating abstraction constitutes evil and defeats the purpose of cognitively holding the doctrine of Liberalism.

Good People Who Are Whitehouse Staffers: I urge you to resign from the administration of President Obama since he has demonstrated that he are actively engaged in evil. It is inappropriate for good people to actively work to accomplish evil; therefore, it is appropriate for good people to resign form President Obama’s administration.

Sincerely, Robert Bumbalough

Against Altruism

2009-08-31T07:40:00.000-07:00

Existence actually exists. We are aware of existence; therefore our consciousness actually occurs. Consciousness can distinguish things and actions one from another. There is identity. Identity in action is causality. These are axiomatically obvious and result in realization that knowledge constitutes conscious apprehension via casual process of the facts of existence. That knowledge is a metal causal process of apprehension of the facts of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation means that understanding of what is the good is also a mental casual process. Understanding can only occur via means of reason. Reason is the faculty of individual human beings that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses; it integrates the individual’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising the individual’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which she shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which she alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Individual human beings operate via means of reasoning. To live, individuals must employ reasoning in a rational manner to obtain that which is necessary for life. To improve their circumstances such that a greater degree of benefit is obtained, to thrive, individual human beings must manipulate their environment via means of rational action. The good then is that which is beneficial to the life of a rational individual human being; all that which destroys it is the evil. The good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of an individual human being’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by an individual human being’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The good is an aspect of reality in relation to individual human beings. It must be discovered, not invented, by the individual human being. It is that which is of value to the life of individual human beings. There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to an individual living entity that things can be good or evil. Since the valuation that is foundational for the good only applies to individual rational human beings, then the good can only occur relative to an individual rational human being. The concept of good does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of benefit from beneficiaries, or of human action from reason.

Human beings are called rational, but rationality is a matter of choice, and the alternatives human nature offers are: rational being or suicidal animal. Human beings have to be what they are by choice; they have to hold their individual lives as a value by choice; they have to learn to sustain it —by choice; they have to discover that which is beneficial to their lives and value those things by choice. To be rational, human beings must understand the requirement for and then practice their virtues. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. The objective standard of value in ethics is the standard by which one judges what is good or evil. And that is the individual human’s life, or that which is required for survival and thriving as an individual human. Since reason is the individual human’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything humans need has to be discovered by their own mind and produced by their own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.

Altruism is the doctrine that human beings have no right to exist for their own sake, that service to others is the only justification for human existence, and that self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty, virtue and value. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Altruism is not about being kind or loving towards others; its not about making donations to charity. The issue is not whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether human beings are to be regarded as a sacrificial animals. Any human being with self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes. You must die so other may live.”

An understanding of what constitutes the good operates as a valid and sound premise leading to the conclusion that altruism is evil. The good is that which is beneficial to and proper for the promotion and enhancement of the lives of individual rational human beings. All that hinders or obstructs individual human beings in their quest for life is evil. Altruism is in the later category; therefore, altruism is evil. Any justification of the State that depends upon altruism thus is evil and must fail as an argument against human freedom and self-determination, human dignity and self-esteem, or human voluntary cooperation and free market exchanges, or as an argument for violently suppressing human beings allegedly for the sake of an imagined human collective.

I decided I'm going to use this blog again.

2009-08-30T17:12:00.000-07:00

After a six month hiatus, I'm back. I was looking through stuff I've wrote in the past and found one that I think will be appropriate for this blog. I wrote the following as a response to a confused young person on a You-Tube video page.
*********************************

This is a brief response to an objection to the Axioms of Objectivism as valid metaphysical starting points to all cognition. This piece is directed to a message text poster identifying themselves as “willthiswork” who commented on a Youtube video submitted by a user who identifies themselves as “bitbutter”. This missive is intended to partially address fallacious ideas confusing existence, identity, causality and time. It is beyond the scope of my purpose to compose a comprehensive rebuttal to willthiswork's confusion. Such correction has been elegantly written by the Objectivist Philosophers and is easily available via local libraries or online. An interested person may learn more by reading “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Lenord Peikoff.

willthiswork's objection is "If something must 'be' in order for existence to manifest itself, why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?"

This conditional question does not have the necessary form that would make it subject to a material conditional truth table. Willthiswork’s gambit fails. However, the antecedent-like conditional if clause betrays the questioner’s false presumptions. By conceptually loading the conditional if clause with a denial of the fact of existence, the questioner attempts to slip a stolen concept past reason. The first of two false presuppositions entailed in the antecedent is a metaphysical reverse packaging entailing that existence is a separate metaphysical precondition necessary for instantiation. This is false. The principle of instantiation states that if a thing has a property, then that thing necessarily exists. To have a property is to have a specific identity. The Objectivist Axiom of Identity is expressed by the Law of Identity, A=A. Identity and Existence are inexorably bound together. The brute fact that things are what they are arises from material existence. Existence is the set of all things that are instantiated. The very idea of a thing explicitly refers to absolute existence. Can a thing exist without existence? No, of course not, for it is intuitively obvious that the external world actually exists.

“For the statement "existence exists" refers to all that exists,” related Anton Thorn in his essay “God and Pure Self-Reference”. Thorn continued thusly: “i.e., to all entities, to all objects, to all attributes, to all qualities, which exist. In short, "existence exists" declares explicitly that reality exists, for 'reality' according to Objectivism is the realm of existence. The concept 'existence' is the widest of all concepts in that it is all-encompassing. The statement "existence exists" does not refer to its own referring; instead, its reference is all that exists. The concept 'existence' has reference beyond itself. To hold that the axiom "existence exists" commits the fallacy of pure self-reference constitutes a fundamental breach of cognition. For such a claim would amount to the claim that all of reality (to which the statement "existence exists" refers) is merely a reference having no reference to reality. But reality (i.e., the realm of existence) is the object of reference for the Objectivist. This ultimately reduces to an attack against man's cognition, for it essentially constitutes the claim that one cannot refer to reality by use of concepts. Such a position would contradict the very purpose of concepts, and therefore commit, in grand scale, the fallacy of the stolen concept.” - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/LTYA/LTYA06.htm Ayn Rand wrote: “Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents .... The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.” - “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” p.74

Asserting a distinction between existents, (i.e.: things) and existence is a method commonly employed by those who wish to have their metaphysical cake and eat it too. There is no escape from the primacy of existence because the Law of Identity, A=A, mandates that an existent have a specific nature. To exist is to have an identity, and to have identity is to exist with specific nature. But the mystic wishes to have both a ruling consciousness capable of modifying existence and fixed certain reality; this is impossible. Existence is not directly amenable to any form of modification or manipulation by any form of consciousness. Ayn Rand, via her character John Galt wrote: “The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it . . . . The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.” - Galt’s Speech, “For the New Intellectual”, 152.

Willthiswork’s second false presumption is implicit in the phrase “…to manifest itself…”. Manifest is defined as “readily perceived by the eye or the understanding” (Dictionary.com). This overtly implies an assessing consciousness with sensory apparatus and reasoning ability. The question at issue is whether the Primacy of Existence holds true and existence has therefore always existed, or whether the Primacy of Consciousness is true and existence is therefore contingent to consciousness. In this context to assert that existence is manifest, is question begging and circular reasoning because the assertion assumes its unstated conclusion as its own premise. Additionally, to characterize existence as “itself” is to anthropomorphize reality and to imagine a personality intrinsic to reality. Simply fantasizing a primal consciousness controlling reality does not make it so because the Law of Identity is an inescapable fact. Ayn Rand via John Galt wrote: “Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. ... If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.” Galt's speech - “For the New Intellectual”, 124.

Ayn Rand's great insight was that existence, reality, the Universe is ultimate. There is no reality beyond reality, no existence higher than or outside of existence. She informed her readers that: “To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.” Ayn Rand in “The Metaphysical and the Man-Made,” from “Philosophy: Who Needs It”

These fallacies together constitute a further fallacy, the stolen concept. First identified by Ayn Rand, a concept is 'stolen' when one asserts a concept while denying or ignoring its epistemological or genetic roots. In this case the denial is of the genetic roots of the fact of existence while stealing the idea of existence to conceptually vivify a self-referring notion of a primordial consciousness associated with the use of the world ‘eternal’ in the consequent like why question. The mystic will attempt to posit either causality, consciousness, or in this case time as if they were not dependent on existence – as if they could ‘exist’ prior to or outside of - and therefore without - existence. But since the antecedent-like conditional if clause is not even false but rather fallacious, then the consequent like why question is non-sequitur and can be validly ignored. I will, however, address the questions, “why can't that something be eternal?” and “why is existence more fundamental?”. There is a reason why any hypothetical ruling consciousness cannot be eternal or extra temporal and outside of time. That is because there is no outside of time or extra temporal anymore than there is any existence outside of existence.

The theological concept “eternal” refers to timelessness rather than unending duration. Timelessness explicitly excludes the notions of duration or knowing temporal indexicals. Lack of duration is lack of existence, for to exist is to be in time. This is a brute fact of reality. A timeless consciousness could not know temporal indexical facts. By definition, the fantasy god of classical theism is said to be all knowing or omniscient. Omniscience is defined as knowing all knowable facts. Anything a human being knows is logically knowable to an omniscient being. A human being knows they are doing something now, before, or after in time. This is a temporal indexical fact. But an omniscient, timeless being cannot know anything in time or any temporal indexical fact. This is a contradiction. That which is self contradictory cannot exist. Therefore, an eternal, timeless, omniscient consciousness cannot objectively exist.

The reason why existence is fundamental is because existence is all that exists and only that which exists. Thus existence exists is a self apparent and axiomatic obvious truth. The Primacy of Existence cannot be defeated or evaded by invoking mystical fantasies because existence exists absolutely, has always existed, always will exist, and is all that exists. The interested reader may wish to examine this further. If so, please consider “The Argument From Existence” by Anton Thorn found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html and “The Axioms and The Primacy of Existence” by Dawson Bethrick found at http://www.geocities.com/katholon/AxiomsPOE.htm .

Gratutious Ayn Rand Quote

2009-02-19T06:57:00.000-08:00

As I wrote in For the New Intellectual: "To negate man's mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that has to be invalidated. Under all the tortuous complexities, contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post-Renaissance philosophy—the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest, is: a concerted attack on man's conceptual faculty. Most philosophers did not intend to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable to offer a solution to the 'problem of universals,' that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data—and to prove the validity of scientific induction .... The philosophers were unable to refute the Witch Doctor's claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations."

--Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Foreword to the First Edition

Video: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong part 1

2009-02-18T11:57:00.000-08:00

The following is the work of Youtube user cdk007.

This video is NOT meant to be an accurate representation of evolution, as evolution does not have a predetermined goal (though there is the goal to reproduce). This video is meant to test one simple point, that

RANDOM MUTATION +
NON-RANDOM SELECTION =
VERY IMPROBABLE RESULT.

For further discussion on the use of a "goal" see below. For simulations that represent evolution more accurately see my later videos.

In this video I show why the central tenant of Intelligent Design or ID is wrong. They argue they can tell when an object is "designed", meaning it could not have arisen by chance, but their logic is fatally flawed. Here I will actually simulate evolution showing how impossibly improbable outcomes can appear quite easily, without anything being designed.

For those who fail to find solace in the fact that I have used a "goal" image in this video I will 1) offer a quaint explanation for how this DOES NOT impose design and 2) direct you to Part II of this video.

See, imagine there is an ecosystem where two species live in a symbiotic relationship. Species A offers food to species B for protection. The way species A recognizes species B is because B looks like SouthPark characters.

Now species C happens to also live in this environment but looks nothing like SouthPark characters. They resemble random noise. They go about collecting their food on their own. Evolution by natural selection and common sense tells us that any member of species C that has an advantage in collecting food will be better off (more energy and time for reproduction). Thus that advantage will be passed on.

Therefore, random mutations in species C's population that make members very slightly resemble SouthPark characters will be passed on because those organisms might be able to trick a member of species A every now and then more so than those that are just random noise. As mutations build up in the population of species C, they begin to resemble SouthPark characters more and more, thus tricking species A more and more getting free food and increasing their fitness.

Mimicry like this happens all the time in nature. The evolution of species C is not designed or directed. It just happens that those that resemble species B more (thus looking like a SouthPark character) will have a higher fitness. It is a product of their environment. They will pass on those mutations and the population will evolve.

A Few Thoughts Regarding the Argument from Design

2009-02-16T06:23:00.000-08:00

This posting has been removed in deference to JKJ's complaint. I apologize for any unintentional offense. Although it seemed to me within the acceptable bounds of behavior to post my all too sparse thoughts on this all too sparsely read blog, still: viola. The offending post is dead. Long live the new inoffensive post.

UPDATE

In his reply post below, JKJ makes reference to "Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland". I, not having read Mr. Moreland's tome, searched for a competent review from the atheist perspective.

EBON MUSINGS: THE ATHEISM PAGES,BOOK REVIEWS:Scaling the Secular City

The reviewer pinpoints Moreland's ample fallacies and praises his scholarship. He concludes that:

As I have stated earlier, I commend Moreland's scholarship. His book was forthright in citing alternative views so that his readers can check them if they wish, and for the most part lacked the irrational emotional assertions so common to Christian apologetics. However, that does not make his assertions valid, and as I hope I have demonstrated, every single one of his major arguments possesses serious flaws. Especially damaging to his case was his defense of creationism and the several occasions on which he correctly refutes a fallacious argument against theism, only to then apply that exact same fallacious argument to atheism. Otherwise I view him as a competent expounder of Christian theology, and therefore I view the flaws in his arguments as lying within Christianity itself, not merely his presentation of it. Scaling the Secular City showed conclusively, in my mind, that the logical gaps and problems in this belief system cannot be overcome.

Here is a link to a brief critique of Moreland's book.

link to Jim Lipard's critique of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City

Dooms Day Has Been Called Off

2009-02-12T00:47:00.000-08:00

Global warming is not our fault … it's nature

2009-02-11T12:39:00.000-08:00

Link to Article

Published Date: 11 February 2009
By Jenny Haworth

DR JIM Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.
Next week the former chief executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman, who has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford, will try to convince others that climate change has nothing to do with human activity.

During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.

Dr Buckee believes human behaviour has no effect on the climate and the vast sums spent by governments trying to promote renewable energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being wasted.

Far from being a key cause of climate change, he says, carbon dioxide emissions have little or no impact.

His views are contrary to those held by governments, the Royal Society – an independent science body – the Met Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead of human activities being responsible for the warming climate over the past 100 years, Dr Buckee insists there is a natural explanation, based on the activity of the Sun.

Solar activity can affect the cosmic rays that reach the Earth's atmosphere, and this in turn affects the climate, he says.

The "solar explanation" is one shared by many climate change sceptics.

Dr Buckee says he is arguing against a tide of popular opinion which verges on the religious.

"Any dissension is like a heresy," he says. "People are stamped on so they can't be heard. That has religious overtones."

Of renewables such as wind farms, he says they make sense only if they are "economic". But he adds: "Mostly they are non-economic. They are made economic by government incentives. The poor taxpayer is paying out for these misguided conceptions."

He adds: "A lot of the people I have talked to in the UK government are well-intentioned and think they are saving the world. They have suppressed their critical faculties because they think they are doing good."

Dr Buckee believes his views are widespread although not always voiced.

"I think it is the dominant view in professional science circles," he says.

"I know lots of people in universities and so on and quite often they have to retire before they can say what they want because it's so frowned upon."

Although he spent his career in the oil and gas industry, he denies having any vested interest.

"A vested interest would make me shut up because it would drag up controversy," he says. He adds that, while he was chief executive of Talisman, he did not make his views known, although he would explain them if asked.

Dr Buckee's belief in a solar explanation, a view expounded on a vast array of websites, is familiar to those in the climate change movement, who argue it has been discounted.

Several studies have dismissed it as a possible explanation, including one by Professor Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, who found the amount of solar activity in the past two decades was inadequate to back up the theory.

Dr David Reay, a climate change scientist at the University of Edinburgh, says: "If we could explain everything through natural drivers it would be great.

"It's something we would all like to hear – that it's not our fault, that we can't do anything about it and that we can go on burning fossil fuels and having a nice time.

"But the science shows we are to a large part responsible for the climate changing."

He says global temperature changes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries could be explained "fairly well" by the solar theory, but not the extent of warming over recent decades. "Climate change isn't all down to human activities, but we can only explain the extent of it by greenhouse gas emissions," he says.

And he argues that if the solar explanation was true the planet should have cooled for the past 20 years, when actually it has warmed.

He believes that people will question Dr Buckee's views. "People are used to academics with all sorts of fancy-sounding titles coming out with views on whether we should have the MMR vaccine, or take Ecstasy, or go horse-riding. They are used to being sceptical and interrogating the facts.

"People should look at the facts and make up their own mind."

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, says Dr Buckee's arguments are "nonsense".

He says: "There's no uncertainty that it's happening nor that humans are responsible for the vast majority of it.

"The uncertainty is about the scale and weight of climate change, and just how much we can tolerate before it becomes catastrophic."

He says those who refuse to believe in human-induced climate change are like people who refuse to believe in the theory of evolution.

He has been invited to the lecture, but says he very much doubts he will go. "I don't see any point in giving it any credence," he adds.

"The cosmic ray nonsense is just that – nonsense."

He says: "He might be a very entertaining speaker, but I don't think people will find anything of practical value in going to a talk like that."

He says the solar explanation has been thoroughly considered by climate scientists and has been rebutted on more than one occasion.

And he says people should put no weight on Dr Buckee's scientific background. "He has a scientific qualification. That's different from being a practising climate scientist," he says.

Mr McLaren says that, far from having their views suppressed, sceptics have been given too much exposure.

"It has been massively damaging on a public and political level that the views of a small minority of ill-informed sceptics have been given virtually equal weight to the consensus of the scientific community by the majority of the mainstream media," he says.

"Something that's contrary to the accepted wisdom is more likely to be seen as news. If a scientist stood up and said the IPCC was right, there wouldn't be any news."

He says it is "absolute nonsense" that the majority of professional scientists agree with Dr Buckee. Instead, he says those who are sceptical are taking the easy option.

"We don't like to feel that it's our fault because we drive a car, or take a foreign holiday, or heat the house," he says.

"It would be nice to not have to feel that it was a personal responsibility and I'm sure that for someone who has worked in the oil and gas industry all his life, these sort of psychological pressures are greater."

Evidence does not back solar activity theory, say scientists

IN THE lecture, Dr Jim Buckee will put forward the idea that solar activity is responsible for changes to the climate.

He will say the climate of the past few hundred years is a continuation of a normal process of gradual warming since the ice age 10,000 years ago.

During that time, he argues, there have been constant fluctuations. He believes those fluctuations are caused by varying solar activity.

When the sun is strong, it deflects cosmic rays from within and outside our galaxy. When the sun is weak, the rays enter the Earth's atmosphere and cause low cloud, which has a cooling effect.

He believes that, after a period of warming, the Earth is now entering a period of cooling that will last until 2030 or beyond.

It is just one of the many theories put forward by sceptics, who argue that humans are not responsible for climate change.

However, climate-change scientists argue that this theory, as well as the others, are unsatisfactory explanations.

It was a view put forward for climate change in the controversial television programme The Great Global Warming Swindle last year.

The makers questioned the existence of the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, and put forward solar activity as an alternative explanation for the warming planet.

However, scientific studies have found that in the past two decades solar activity has been declining and could not therefore be used to explain the rapid rise of global temperatures.

Experts have concluded that the global warming cannot be ascribed to solar variability. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has assessed the evidence about global warming, has come to the conclusion that most of the increase in global temperatures is very likely due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans.

It believes the probability that the warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 per cent.

The panel predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 6 deg during the 21st century, that sea levels will rise by up to 59cm and that there will be more frequent warm spells, heatwaves and heavy rainfall.

The panel also predicts there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

The Stolen Concept by Nathaniel Branden, PhD

2009-02-10T14:08:00.000-08:00

In his short essay The Stolen Concept, Branden points out that

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. "Faith in reason" is a contradiction in terms. "Faith" is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of "faith" cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason.

The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis

2009-02-10T08:03:00.000-08:00

Reisman's excellent analysis is spot on.

Rapidly Evolving Gene Contributes To Origin Of Species

2009-02-08T20:46:00.000-08:00

Drosophila (fruit flies). Certain genes in the fruitfly's own genome serve little purpose other than to replicate themselves. (Credit: iStockphoto/Tomasz Zachariasz)

ScienceDaily (Feb. 7, 2009) — Link - A gene that helped one species split into two species shows evidence of adapting much faster than other genes in the genome, raising questions about what is driving its rapid evolution.

The paper in the Feb 5 issue of Science shows that the gene has connections to another previously identified "speciation gene." Both genes code for key proteins that control molecular traffic into and out of a cell's nucleus. The researchers believe an arms race of sorts inside the cell drives these genes to evolve rapidly—and as a consequence makes closely related species genetically incompatible with one another.

"When we cross two species of fruit fly, which had split from one another 3 million years ago, some of the hybrid offspring die," says Daven Presgraves, professor of biology at the University of Rochester and Grass Fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. "This tells us that genes from one species are no longer compatible with genes from the other species. We've now found that a functionally related group of genes is responsible, with different versions of the genes having evolved in the two species. And just as Darwin predicted 150 years ago, they evolved by natural selection."

Presgraves has some ideas why two of the genes in particular, called Nup160 and Nup96, have evolved so quickly: they act as gatekeepers of a cell's nucleus, a favorite target for viruses and even malicious genes within the fly's own genome. Presgraves says that these genes probably experience constant assault and thus must constantly adapt. That these genes also prevent genetic mixing between closely related species is incidental—the origin of new species is just a by-product of evolutionary arms races, he says.

When two populations become separated by a geographic barrier—a mountain range or an ocean—they evolve independently. Presgraves and his graduate student Shanwu Tang studied a fruit fly species from Madagascar that long ago become separated from its sister species in Africa. Separated by an expanse of the Indian Ocean, the two independently evolving species accumulated genetic differences. Tang and Presgraves's unexpected finding, however, was that in both species, the Nup160 and Nup96 genes became so different so quickly that they are no longer compatible.

"When the same genes in two different species evolve quickly, they become so different that they can be incompatible," says Tang. "The genes from one species can't talk to the genes in the other species any more."

Six years ago, Presgraves found that the Nup96 gene kills hybrid offspring between these fruitfly species. Since, two species can be separated by any number of incompatible genes with different functions, he and Tang were surprised when they found that Nup160 also kills hybrid offspring. Both genes encode parts of the same gatekeeping complex that regulates what gets in or out of a cell's nucleus.

"Shanwu and I were shocked," says Presgraves. "Only half a dozen such 'speciation genes' are known, so to find two of them that interact with one another as part of the same complex says that multiple parts of the same complex have evolved."

Presgraves and Tang are now investigating other genes that cause hybrid lethality, as well as trying to discern why natural selection has caused this particular complex to evolve so quickly. Presgraves has said viruses could be responsible for the rapid evolution of the complex because viruses act by inserting their own DNA into a host cell's, which means getting their DNA through the gatekeeper complex. In a molecular arms race, the viruses constantly adapt to sneak through the gates, and the gatekeepers adapt to thwart the viruses.

Presgraves even suggests another, more exotic arms race. Certain genes in the fruitfly's own genome serve little purpose other than to replicate themselves. These selfish genes can also manipulate the gates for their own needs, requiring the gatekeepers to adapt to keep the selfish genes under control.

As a 2008-2009 Radcliffe fellow, Presgraves is focusing on the special role of sex chromosomes in speciation. He is combining genetic mapping and comparative genomics approaches to determine why the X chromosome is a hot spot for speciation genes in two closely related species of Drosophila fruit flies.

Dr. Robert M. Carter Torpedoes Anthropogenic Caused Global Warming

2009-02-08T20:15:00.000-08:00

****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************

Interesting press releases from Science Daily

2009-02-05T19:00:00.000-08:00

Earliest Evidence For Animal Life Discovered: Fossil Animal Steroids Date Back More Than 635 Million Years

Early Whales Gave Birth On Land, Fossil Find Reveals

Origin Of Claws Seen In Fossil 390 Million Years Old

More on why there can be no recognition of properties of an infinite set

2009-02-02T06:54:00.000-08:00

Hello Readers and to the thread, Good (insert time of day)

It is my hope all are feeling fine and are in good health and that you prosper by virtue your labor and intelligence.

A few additional thoughts on the impossibility of God argument I offered up occurred to me this morning.

Eric’s objection that a person can recognize that an infinite set of numbers may be either Even or Odd carries no argumentative weight because it lacks any merit. That this is so is quite obvious when it is understood that the Set is considered an existent object. If the Set is what is under scrutiny, then the elements of the
Set are not. To derive information about the Set via inspection is to examine the Set qua Set without regard to the contents of the Set or to any algorithm that may have been used to discriminate and segregate elements into the grouping.

What Eric has been doing, or so it seems to me, is to identify the algorithm that was used to discriminate and segregate odd or even numeric elements into the grouping Sets. Subsequently Eric then claimed to have recognized the Set as being Even or Odd as if even or odd properties could be identified apart from any number.

A set is defined as a group of elements. It is not defined as the individual elements. A set is an ensemble that obtains as a gestalt of its member elements. When examining a Set in an effort to determine its properties, it is disingenuous to extrapolate from the Set’s elements to the totality of the Set, for the Set is the object of interest rather than its elements. Honest inquiry also means not using the segregation algorithmic definition to back any claim to knowledge of the Set’s property. The Set as a whole ensemble, a total gestalt, an independently existing object apart from any consideration of its constituent component members is the matter of concern.

Consider the following Set.

{SET OF A BIG HONKING BUNCH OF NUMBERS THAT MAY OF MAY NOT BE INFINITE}

In order to determine any properties shared in common by all the numeric elements of the Set that may be intrinsic to the Set, the Set must first be recognized as a number.

Without examining any of the numbers in the Set, {SOABHBONTMOMNBI} to prevent extrapolation from individual elements to the whole set or taking any consideration of any algorithm used to put numbers into {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}, how can a person glean information about the set? What number is {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}?

In order to approach to a possible answer the more rudimentary question of what is a number should be answered. Dictionary.com’s #2 definition says “the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like.” If a number represents a concept of aggregate of a collection of units, then there must be specificity entailed by the concept of a particular number in order to distinguish various instances of (“the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like”) one from another. This means recognition of specificity is necessarily required to conceptualize (“the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like”) into the meaning of a particular number.

Returning to the prior question, what number is {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}? How can specificity of a conglomerate, an ensemble, a gestalt, a Set be ascertained only by examination of the totality of the group without regard to identities of any numeric elements it may contain or to any algorithm that was used to discriminate and segregate elements into the grouping? It seems quite impossible to me for any person to even be able to accomplish such a task. Thus barring rain, it looks to all the world that Eric’s claim that properties of an infinite set can be ascertained is patently false. How could a person even determine if a collection of objects contained and infinite quantity thereof since the very definition of number metaphysically requires specificity. That which is specific is definite and finite. The fantasy of infinity presupposes non-specific and non-determinate instantiation, and that is a contradiction in terms.

So Eric’s objection cannot hold, but the argument does. The Christian God is impossible.

1.To be GOD, YAHWEH must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.

2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.

3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.

4.YAHWEH has a specific identity.

5.YAHWEH therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.

6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, YAHWEH cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.
***************************
A Few Aditional Ideas Why Eric's Objection Related to Infinite Set Properties Fails

Infinite sets do not exist in actual reality. Modern cosmology reasonably speculates that there exists approximately 10^84 subatomic particles in the observable Cosmos. It is speculated that which we can observe stands in ratio to the non-observable Cosmos as a proton is to the portion of the Cosmos we can observe. The ratio of the volume of the observable Cosmos to that of a proton is about 10^50. A very rough estimate of the potential quantity of particles in the Cosmos would then be approximately 10^134. This is a big but finite number and may only be representative of baryonic matter. If dark matter and energy compose approximately 94% of the mass-energy in existence and if they are composed of discrete quanta like that of baryonic matter, then the approximate quantity of particles in existence might be in the range of 2 x 10^135. This is still a very big, but quite finite, number. In light of this there is no basis for speculation that an actual infinity may occur. However, the human imagination can fantasize about infinite sets.

It should be noted that in the supernatural worldview, logic does not work because the alleged ruling consciousness is arbitrary and capricious. The believer in supernatural mysticism has no epistemic right to think anything about anything as in the supernatural worldview there is no uniformity of nature or law of identity. See The Cartoon Universe of Theism. There is no valid or sound basis for inductive inference within a supernatural worldview.

People who imagine up an infinite set for themselves cannot have information about it's properties because the algorithm used to imagine the alleged infinite set is not part of the set. To inductively infer that a set contains an infinite quantity from the algorithm used to imagine the alleged infinite set by extrapolating an inference is to beg the question. Placing a question begging label on a set and calling it infinite preempts any understanding that information was gleaned from the alleged infinite set.

Information cannot be had about the contents of an alleged infinite set by way of inductively inferring infinitude or some other property such as even or odd by sampling. Sampling necessarily mandates finite set operations. Peeking inside a set, taking samples, inductively inferring a conclusion, transferring the conclusion to a label, applying the label to the set, and then pretending the finite set of samples accurately implies infinitude and some property is question begging. When dealing with finite samples of elements within a set, one is dealing with a finite set.

What differentiates a set from a non-set. The set seems to be a grouping containing entities. The non-set is just discrete entities without a grouping. A scattering of unrelated entities can be changed into the members of a set by declarative fiat. The entities do not change in this process. Erection of a boundary converts the disparate objects or entities into set members. In the case of an alleged infinite set, the boundary must also be infinite. Our Cosmic Domain that we commonly call the Universe is thought to be finite. An infinite boundary cannot fit withing a finite space. Nevertheless, the question of how the elements of a set communicate their properties to the infinite boundary is important when thinking of infinite sets. As pointed out above, information about infinite sets cannot be obtained from algorithms or inspection of the alleged set's elements. Only the boundary could potentially provide information to the inquirer. Can this happen? Can the elements within the set's boundary communicate their properties to the set boundary? Numbers are symbols representative of a definition that stands for a concept that integrates discrete units connoting specific occurrences of multiple instances of stand alone entities. The relationship between the symbol and instances of stand alone entities is automatically formed by conscious minds capable of abstract cognition. This relationship occurs in the mind and not in the set. Consequently, the numbers cannot inform the set's boundary of its status or count themselves. This failure of a set's elements to be able to communicate their properties to the set boundary indicates that no information can be had from consideration or inspection of a set boundary.

Therefore no information can be ascertained from an alleged infinite set for the following reasons.

1)Existence is finite. That which is finite cannot contain that which is infinite, but the imagination can generate fantasies of infinite sets.
2)Those who hold a supernatural worldview have no justification for induction as their alleged ruling consciousness is arbitrary and capricious.
3)It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to claim infinitude from configuration of an algorithm used to imagine an alleged infinite set via inductive inference because the algorithm is not part of the set.
4)Use of finite samples of contents within a set to inductively infer uniformity or infinitude of an otherwise unknown set's contents necessarily limits the inspector to finite set operations.
5)Numeric elements within a set cannot communicate their properties or status to the set's boundary. Numbers cannot count themselves.

The following conclusion was well written by Greg Perkins.

An infinite amount or infinite size is a contradiction in terms: infinity is no particular amount, no particular size—infinities are abstract potentials, not existing concretes. To describe God as actually infinite in any way violates Identity and thereby removes the possibility of His existence.*

It is my wish that all who read this prosper and live a long happy life. May you benefit yourself by all means at your disposal.

* Greg Perkins, "God, Faith, and the Supernatural: The Objectivist Perspective", p.17 footnote 4, Link to Article

An Additional Reply to Eric

2009-02-01T16:39:00.000-08:00

Good Morning Eric.

It is my hope you someday find the courage to face reality and acknowledge that there are not gods. I am deeply sad that a person possessing a fine intellect such as your mind appears would purposefully turn their back on reason and rational philosophy and choose to become a Christian. The vile filth of Christianity and the vast evil it has wrought on western civilization sickens and disgusts rational reasoning people. If Yahweh does exist, I certainly would not want to continue with whatever this that we take for reality may then be, for if Yahweh exists the primacy of existence is false. In that case there is no fixed reality and this is some sort of sick illusion such as postulated by Descartes and the primacy of consciousness mystics. Nothingness or Hell would be preferable to being a slave to the monster before which you crawl on your belly, prostrating yourself, and worshiping what is arguably the most evil character in all of fictional literature while surrendering your moral autonomy. Shame on you for crouching down and licking the imaginary hand of a heinous delusion. But luckily it is such a remote impossibility that Yahweh might exist that I need not be concerned, for your god is a lie, and your religion is contemptible nonsense.

I erred in asserting that a Set was the rule by which elements were segregated into groupings. Although I distinctly remember the instructor in class making that point. Wikipedia defines a set as a group of elements. The remainder of the article fails to discuss the disposition of any rules used to define the set grouping. The role of rules used to perform segregation of elements seems to be generally dismissed. That is a mistake. For it leaves open the door to the insidious Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy fallacy. But first there are reasons why a group of an indefinitely and continuously increasing quantity of elements consisting of either of all even or all odd integers cannot have a certain identify.

I previously wrote: ”Rules are finite even if the magnitude of the quantity of elements categorized by the rule can be counted forever. Measurement criteria used to discriminate differences and similarities between elements that are assigned to rules that are used to categorize groupings of things, ideas, concepts, or notions into sets are finite. Rules may apply to an infinite quantity, yet rules are finite.”

The above observation is salient and cogent to the proposition that an infinite Set can have no specific identity because the rules used to instill meaning into an algorithm that is in turn used to segregate numbers from their native domain on the Real Number Line into an infinite Set as an ongoing process that continues for all time is not part of that Set. This means the definition of Even or Odd are not part or the infinite Set of all evens or odds.

In my prior missive, I further noted that: ”Additionally, if we consider the set of all odd or even numbers and ask which number is the collective whole ensemble of all even or odd numbers, there can be no specific answer because the whole assemblage of elements has no identity.”

Likewise this observation is cogent and salient. Consider the finite set {a,b,c}. What single letter of the alphabet is the set? As an ensemble the set is not the same as the identity of any one of its members. The set is the union, U, of all its proper subsets, but union, U, is a rule algorithm and is not part of the set {a,b,c,}. Consequently union, U, cannot be the identity of {a,b,c}. {a,b,c} could be thought of as the intersection, I, of two other set that each contain a, b, c in common, but intersection, I, is a rule algorithm and is not part of the set {a,b,c,}. The question, what single letter of the alphabet is the set?, cannot be answered. We can say that {a,b,c} is a and b and c, but we cannot say {a,b,c} is any certain letter. What can be done, however, is apply an arbitrary label to the set grouping that entails it is the group of the first three letters of the alphabet.

Consider a bowl containing three marbles, one blue, one red, one yellow. It can be asked, what color is the group of three marbles?, but no certain specific answer can be forthcoming as the group has no specific color. The group does have three marbles and each one has a specific color, but the other two do likewise have their own specific color. The group has all the properties of all its elements, so the group is red, yellow, and blue simultaneously. But the set {blue marble, red marble, yellow marble} also has the property of marble. If the marbles are composed of glass, then the group also has the property of glass. Marbles are spheroidal; the set {blue marble, red marble, yellow marble} would then also have the property of being spheroidal. By which property shall we identify the set? If we were being truthful in the sense laid out in ITOE

”Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.” - p.63

How do we decide which essential characteristic is most appropriate to defining what color is the set {blue marble, red marble, yellow marble}? Is the set not defined by all of its properties that are inherited from its elements? Its seems clear that is the case. Thus {blue marble, red marble, yellow marble} is blue, red, and yellow. What if instead of three marbles, there was and infinite quantity of marbles of all different varying shades and hues? What color would then the set {∞ x all different colored marbles} be? Plainly, the color would then be indescribable for there is no such entity as actual infinity. The fantasies of math geeks notwithstanding. I posted Peikoff's take on the matter of infinity previously and its worth revisiting.

‘Infinite’ do not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e.: of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of ‘infinity’ denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. For example, one can
continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite. - “Objectivism: The Philosphy of Ayn Rand”, p.31, by Leonard Peikoff

And I also pointed out George H. Smith's brilliancy on this issue.

To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= ¬A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature ..... Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the .... being. Such restriction then renders the .... being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence .... - “Atheism: The Case Against God.”, p.41 (paraphrasing), by George H. Smith

To be subject to causality is to operate in harmony with the nature of existence. Causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. The algorithms the segregate odd and even numbers from their native domain on the real number line filters numbers that are an integer of the form n = 2k + 1, where k is an integer into the odd Set and filters numbers having the form n = 2k where k is an integer into the even Set. Casualty is recognized as applying to algorithm rules that categorize numbers into sets as well as to specific numbers, but not to an infinite quantity of numeric elements categorized by an algorithm rule into a set of numbers. For if infinite were to exist, they would not have specific natures. This is because a concept, {the set of all even or odd numbers} for instance, means the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics and properties.

The rule algorithm entity that operates in finite fashion to segregate integers into the even or odd Sets is not part of the set. The definition of even or odd is then not part of the set. Therefore that which is infinite has no specific identity, for the identity consists of all the properties of the set inherited from all of its elements and subsets. Your claim that the alleged infinite set of all evens or odds can have an identity is pure hogwash. You are simply parroting the math geeks who are fallaciously applying an arbitrary even or odd label to the sets in question while ignoring all of the set's other properties that go into making up its actual identity. That is Set Theory commits the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy fallacy. I discuss this further at the end of the essay.

You, being a Christian mystic, may wish to appeal to a Universal form emanating from the transcendent realm of your god that confers evenness or oddness on the Set. Since the rule that segregates the evens or the odds into the Set is not part of the Set, then your unstated enthymeme of a Universal cannot apply to the members of the Set because the definition rule EVEN or ODD is not part of the Set. Additionally, per Grupp (as I previously mentioned and provided a link to his paper) a relation cannot occur between that which is wholly spatial and temporal ie: existence and that which is non-spatial and A-temporal, ie: transcendence. No Universal form of EVEN-ness or ODD-ness can influence the hypothetical groupings. It is an arbitrary action to assign a label of even or odd to the Set, as the most essential characteristic of the elements in the set are their numeric magnitude.

You may wish to protest that the individual numbers within the ensemble each have the property of EVEN or ODD. But this will not do because a thing is all that it is. The Set is all its elements, then it must also be all of its element's properties and all of its subsets. Each number can be considered a proper subset of the main set. Not only is then each number different, but it is composed of an infinite number of fractional rational and irrational divisions and summation sequences each of which is a proper subset of its integer. All of the numbers within the main Set are also members of other Sets that can be defined and that are proper subsets of the main Set. An infinite number of encapsulated Sets occurs within any give sequence of numbers, and since Sets are defined as objects by Set theory, they must exist. If they exist they have properties even if we do not know what they are. Thus there is a vast multiplicity of Sets with their own properties within the main Set. The main Set's identity must include all its properties and those of all its proper subsets and not just EVEN or ODD. That math geeks wrongfully and arbitrarily apply the EVEN or ODD rule labels to these imaginary structures does not actually identify the Set any more than calling me Robert identifies me. I am all that I am and the arbitrarily applied label stuck on me by my parents is not my identity. It is my label. The Sets identity is like mixing all colors of the marbles together. What color then results? Why, no color at all, for black is not a color. What magnitude of quantity is the ensemble of the main Set?, why no specific magnitude of quantity at all for all numbers taken together in a group cannot be any certain number.

Consider Pure Sets. A set is pure if all of its members are sets, all members of its members are sets, and so on. For example, the set containing only the empty or Null Set is a non-empty pure Set. If the Set containing the Null Set is non-empty, then the Null set must be something according to Set theory. But the Null Set is the grouping of its members. In the Null set resides its member, nothingness. A grouping of nothingness is nothingness. Yet Set Theory reifies nothingness into somethingness. Let W = a Pure Set that is an sequential encapsulation of an infinite quantity of instances of Null Sets like Russian Babushka dolls. Each order of successively encapsulated Null Sets is assigned a ranking with its ordinal number. As the sets are encapsulated each set will contain its own powerset. The main Set will then have cardinality greater than Aleph 0. Now imagine, (F), a one-to-one injective function correspondence between W and the Set of all evens. Since W contains its own powerset, it has 2^(Aleph 0) more elements than does a non-Babushka doll-sequentially-encapsulated Pure Set containing an Aleph 0 quantity of Null Sets. After (F) is applied, then the remaining |2^(Aleph 0)- Aleph 0| Russian Babushka doll Null Sets in W will still be uncountable and still be equivalent to nothingness. Yet the remnant of W will have a greater quantity of elements than the Set of all Evens. This is absurd. How can nothingness be greater than infinity? It can't be. But it is indicative of a basic contradiction that renders the notion of an infinite Sets incomprehensible and incoherent and thus non-identifiable, but math geeks can arbitrarily apply those EVEN or ODD labels to the indeterminate groupings so stipulated by way of the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy fallacy.

Consider a Set of all even numbers {E} that results from a bijective functional mapping, f, such that each element is the product of {N}={2,4,6,....,n(sub ∞)} and (Aleph 0^(Aleph 0)) as follows: {E}=f(n)=n * (Aleph 0^(Aleph 0)). Each element in {E} is the product of one of the even natural numbers X (Aleph 0^(Aleph 0)). Plotted on a number line each element of {E} would be separated by (Aleph 0 raised to the (Aleph 0) exponential power) quantity of numeric points. The reciprocal of (Aleph 0^(Aleph 0)) or 1/(Aleph 0^(Aleph 0)) is the LIM of x as x→0 . The cardinality of the total number of elements of in {E} would then be the (LIM of x as x→0) * (The cardinality of the total number of elements of {N}). The cardinality of {E} then would be very much like zero, But a bijective functional mapping of a one-to-one correspondence between elements of {N} and {E} was established. Both sets are countable, but {E} has Aleph 0 cardinality while {N} has LIM of x as x→0 cardinality. Here is a definite relationship between Zero and ∞. But zero is nothingness, and a definite relationship between nothingness and somethingness cannot occur. (See Grupp.) The concept of infinity (or eternity) is incoherent and incomprehensible and cannot actually exist.

Whoever asserts that the fantasy of an infinite set (Yes, it is a fantasy as there can be no actual infinity.) of even or odd numbers to have the identity of even or odd is committing the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy fallacy.

An analytic proposition is defined as one which can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts. The critical question is: What is included in “the meaning of a concept”? Does a concept mean the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics? Or does it mean only certain aspects of these existents, designating some of their characteristics but excluding others?
The latter viewpoint is fundamental to every version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. The advocates of this dichotomy divide the characteristics of the existents subsumed under a concept into two groups: those which are included in the meaning of the concept, and those—the great majority—which, they claim, are excluded from its meaning. The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.” - ITOE, p.127 Peikoff

The Objectivist theory of concepts undercuts the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at its root .... Since a concept is an integration of units, it has no content or meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units—the existents—which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units. Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents. There is no basis whatever—neither metaphysical nor epistemological, neither in the nature of reality nor of a conceptual consciousness—for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concept’s meaning ....The fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, unknown to man, does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity—or from the concept. A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known. - ITOE, p.131 Peikoff

On pages 98-101 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Expanded 2nd Edition, Meridian Penguin Books, April 1990, Leonard Peikoff demonstrate how the Objectivist theory of concepts defangs and neuters the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. By a fine example of reasoning Peikoff notes the following:

I)Metaphysically, and entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity's identity.

II)Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities.

III)... a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.

IV)....a concept is an open-end classification which includes the yet-to-be discovered characteristics of a given group of existents. All of man's knowledge rest on that fact.

V)Whatever is true of the entity, is meant by the concept.

VI)It follows that there are no grounds on which to distinguish “analytic” from “synthetic” propositions. Whether on state that “A man is a rational animal” or that “A man has only two eyes” - in both cases, the predicated characteristics are true of man and are, therefore, included in the concept “man”. The meaning of the first statement is: “A certain type of entity , including all its characteristics (among which are rationality and animality) is: a rational animal.” The meaning of the second is: “A certain type of entity, including all of its characteristics (among which is the possession of only two eyes) has: only two eyes.” Each of these statements is an instance of the Law of Identity; each is a “tautology”: to deny either is to contradict the meaning of the concept “man,” and thus to endorse a self-contradiction.

When someone labels a so-called infinite Set defined by the rules EVEN or ODD they are denying that the sequence of numbers is all that it actually is. Placing a label on something that is incomprehensible, incoherent and which does not actually exist is to deny (I-VI). By assuming that a Universal transcendence form of Even or Odd somehow crosses from a transcendence to our reality, the delusional believer violates (III). No certain identity can be ascertained from an infinite set. An arbitrarily applied label can be suck on it to give an impression of an identity, but such labels are no more identity than is my name, my identity. But labeling an infinite set with one of its characteristics while ignoring the remaining characteristics is constructively a lie, a falsehood, a deceit.

a few thoughts on 1 Cor. 15:5-8's use of the verb ôphthê in the aorist tense

2009-01-31T16:07:00.000-08:00

I noticed that the greek aorist verb ôphthê used in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 to denote the appearance of Christ to Cephas, the twelve, the 500 bretheren, James and all the apostles, and Paul in verses 5-8 are in the indicative mood and passive voice.

Jeffrey A. Rydberg-Cox, Overview of Greek Syntax states regarding aorist verbe in the indictative mood that *The aorist or imperfect indicative stands in the protasis of past contrafactual conditions. The aorist or imperfect indicative with an stands in the apodosis.*

Rydberg also says that *The imperfect indicative stands in the protasis of present contrafactual conditions.*

Rydberg points out that *The passive voice denotes that the subject is acted upon.*

A contrafactual is A statement or other linguistic construction expressing an idea that is presupposed to be false, as I would go in the sentence I would go if I could.

Protasis refers to the clause expressing the condition in a conditional sentence, in English usually beginning with if.

Apodosis is the clause expressing the consequence in a conditional sentence, often beginning with then, as “then I will” in “If you go, then I will.”

Since ôphthê as used in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 asserts contrafactual conditions standing as protasis without corresponding apodosis, the appearances cannot be taken literally. Instead the author clearly meant the perception of Christ to be an invitation to religious drama by virtue of employment of the passive voice wherein the subjects are acted upon. The reader too, by faith, can partake of the ôphthê of Christ and become the corresponding apodosis of religious drama. The other use of protasis was as a component of ancient Greek drama followed by epitasis, catastasis, and catastrophe. The ancients were well acquainted with Greek drama and grammar. They would have implicitly understood the grammatical metaphor of aorist-indicative-protasis to the opening action of a religious drama. That this makes it quite likely that the author of 1 Cor. 15:5-8 actually meant to assert that members of the audience could partake of Christ via an envisioning through religious ecstasy seems reasonable.

Replies to Eric, a helmet, an a theist-mystic

2009-01-31T07:07:00.000-08:00

Here are my replies to several posters at Debunking Christianity from a thread called *Christian, Get the Point, Okay? We Do Not Believe!*

In reply to a theists/mystic who asserted that failure to believe in "another world" renders one a non-genuine Christian, I noted the following. Theists have accurately identified the key to theism. It is faith that there is existence and reality other than that which we experience via our senses or the extension of our senses via instrumentation. But all that exists is existence. Reality actually is real. Existence really does exist. What mystics take as only apparent existence is in fact reality.

The Abrahamic religions presuppose that their god made existence by wishing it to obtain. The Abrahamic religionists imagine their god as a form of primordial consciousness. It is axiomatically obvious that consciousness is a process that results in awareness of existence. Processes require cause and effect that results from the specific identity of instantiated extant existing things. Without identity there can be no cause and effect; without cause and effect there cannot occur any processes; without processes there can be no awareness. Even if somehow consciousness could occur without existence, cause and effect, or identity, then still it would be the case that without something to be aware of there could not then be any awareness and consequently no consciousness. Therefore God is just as impossible as it is impossible for motion to occur divorced from anything actually being in motion.
********************

Here I was defending John Loftus' Outsider Test found in his book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

Eric wrote: “Note, however, you're *still* confusing ratio credentis with ratio veritatis, and it is *this* that is at the root of the genetic fallacy, *not* a move
from origins to falsity. It seems to me that your response is premised on a superficial understanding of the nature of the genetic fallacy. “

I'll take a shot at this one.

Ratio credentis is a reason or explanation why something is believed. Ratio veritatis means reason or justification why something is true. The genetic
fallacy has been recognized as using reasons for belief as though they are reasons for truth. By assuming that the origin or cause of proposition is taken to have some bearing on its truth, the religious believer commits the genetic fallacy. They simply presuppose their religious story to be true because they were taught the story by their parents or loved ones. There is a large difference here between what the religious believer does and Loftus' Outsider test. Loftus respects the difference between RV and RC. This is at the heart of the Outsider Test the point of which is not to show that any particular religion is false but rather to show that religionists employ a double epistemic standard in dismissing the claims of all religions other than there own while claiming their religion is true. Use of such epistemic double standards is dishonest and results from the religionists' delusion. The point of the Outsider test is to prompt the religious person to honestly consider her own faith claims in the same skeptical light she would shine on some other faith's story. But more to the point here is the thesis that Loftus does not commit the genetic fallacy, for he is not saying the religions are false because people accept their faith due to the source of their religious teaching. Loftus and most atheists say instead that religion is false because it does not conform to or occur in harmony with the facts of reality. But religionists presuppose by way of unstated enthymeme that their religious claims are in fact ratio veritatis by virtue of where their teaching came from. In reality, however, all religious claims, Christian or otherwise, are believed ratio credentis because doing so makes the beleiver feel good. But belief or feelings do not make truth, and that is the pivot that the Outsider test turns upon. That it does so is due the fact that existence actually does exist in contradistinction to the teachings of theism. Since humanity knows axiomatically the fact that existence does in fact exist by virtue of sensory perception and by extension of our senses via instrumentation, we can have certitude, ratio veritatis, that religon actually is false.
**************************

Mr a helmet wrote: I'd say that would be an agnostic. An atheist made his case against the religion.

Sir, the A prefix means not or without. Agnostic then means to be without gnosis or knowledge of spiritual matters. This can be taken as to be without knowledge that a god exists. Athesim then would mean to be without theism or without beliefs that gods exist. Generally acknowledged are two flavors of Atheism, strong and weak or positive and negative, or explicit and inexplicit. Weak, inexplicit, or negative Atheism is simply a lack of beleifs regarding gods. Agnostics claim a lack of knowledge. They consequently also lack beliefs regarding the gods if beliefs are based upon knowledge. In that case Agnostics are the same a weak Atheists. If however beliefs are based on fantasy, then a person could claim a lack of knowledge and thus be classed as Agnostic yet still be a theist if they believed despite a dearth of knowledge. When a person claims gods cannot exist for whatever reason, then they are a strong or positive or explicit Atheist. I fall into the later category since I maintain that gods cannot exist and that it is impossible to have knowledge of gods. This makes me both an Agnostic and a Strong Atheist. All atheists are also agnostics, but not all agnostics are atheists.
**************************

Here I made the argument from the incompatible properties assigned to God such that it is both a personal being and infinite.

Eric: hello. I hope your feeling well. At this time, I assure you that I think your a fairly well educated person and probably quite bright related to topics
other than religious faith. Furthermore, I have to applaud John for his prescient insight that "You (Eric) are clearly, and I mean clearly, trying to weasel out of the test because you know the result. Try being intellectually honest with what you believe."

If I may second that by noting you failed to address my assertion that the Christian god is impossible. The most important issue here is not the Outsider
test or your approach to your faith, but rather is it possible for the Christian god, Yahweh-Jesus, to exist. That which is self contradictory can no more
exist or occur than can a square circle. Consider this very ancient (and true) argument against the Abrahamic theistic GOD.

1.To be GOD, YAHWEH must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.

2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.

3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.

4.YAHWEH has a specific identity.

5.YAHWEH therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.

6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, YAHWEH cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.

To refute this argument the Law of Identity must be shown false. If someone were to be successful in showing the Law of Identity false, the implication
then would be that there is no material existence for material existence requires the Law of Identity. If what we understand to be the world around us does not actually exist, then it is a fantasy of some sort as are we. Then all the evil in the universe is directly attributable to the source of the fantasy. If that were YAHWEH, then it would be directly responsible for all the suffering, pain, misery, death, affliction, natural disasters, predator-prey and parasite-host relationships. The infliction of suffering for sheer enjoyment of witnessing sentient beings (or fantasies) in misery qualifies as EVIL. If the Law of Identity is false, and if YAHWEH is responsible for what we think of as reality, then YAHWEH is malevolently EVIL. And all who worship YAHWEH are duped and deceived.

To the best of my knowledge, no religious believer has been able to refute this argument since the time or Aristotle. I doubt you can either. An appeal to encapsulations of existences or realms will fail you because of Jeffery Grupp's observations regarding the impossibility of unmediated attachments between relations in reality versus transcendent realms. See God's Spatial Unlocatedness Prevents Him from Being the Creator of the Universe: A New Argument for the Nonexistence of God

*****Eric replied to me with the following.*****

[[Robert B: "3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite."

This premise is false. Take two infinite sets: the set of all odd numbers, and the set of all even numbers. Both are infinite, yet we can distinguish one
from the other. We couldn't do this if they lacked identity.]]

I replied to Eric with the following.

The premise in question is true. Sets are rules used to categorize a grouping of things, ideas, concepts, or notions. Rules are finite even if the magnitude of the quantity of elements categorized by the rule can be counted forever. Measurement criteria used to discriminate differences and similarities between elements that are assigned to rules that are used to categorize groupings of things, ideas, concepts, or notions into sets are finite. Rules may apply to an infinite quantity, yet rules are finite. Additionally, if we consider the set of all odd or even numbers and ask which number is the collective whole ensemble of all even or odd numbers, there can be no specific answer because the whole assemblage of elements has no identity. Consequently, the Law of Identity is recognized as applying to rules that categorize numbers into sets as well as to specific numbers, but not to an infinite quantity of numeric elements categorized by a rule into a set of numbers. Therefore that which is infinite has no specific identity. The argument holds and the Abrahamic God is impossible.

Best Regards and Wishes

I further replied by presenting Peikoff's brief article on God from OPAR.

Eric: Hello, I hope your well. In defense of my argument from the lack of identity of the infinite showing God impossible, I submit the following from
Leonard Peikoff's “Objectivism: The Philosphy of Ayn Rand”

“The ideal of the ‘supernatural’ is an assault on everything man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy (or in the case of primitive men a failure to grasp them.) This can be illustrated by reference to any version of idealism. But let us confine the discussion here to popular notions of God. Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness. Is God the designer of the Universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to ‘design’ is not ‘chance’. It is causality. Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given. Is God infinite? ‘Infinite’ do not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e.: of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of ‘infinity’ denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite.

Can God perform miracles? A ‘miracle’ does not mean the unusual. If a woman gives birth to twins, that would be unusual; if she were to give birth to elephants, that would be a miracle. A miracle is an action not possible to the entities involved by their nature; it would be violation of identity. Is God purely spiritual? ‘Spiritual’ means pertaining to consciousness, and consciousness is a faculty of certain living organisms, their faculty of perceiving that which exists. A consciousness transcending nature would be a faculty transcending organism and object. So far from being all knowing, such a thing would have neither means nor content of perception; it would be non-conscious. Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy. At every point, the notion clashes with the facts of reality and with the preconditions of thought. This as true of the professional theologians’ arguments and ideas as of the popular treatments.”

“Objectivism: The Philosphy of Ayn Rand”, p.31-32, by Leonard Peikoff, ISBN 0-525-93380-8

Then I submitted an additional reply that read as follows.

Greetings Eric: I had a few thoughts and remembered a few points from a book I read a few years ago that are cogent to the discussion related to the argument I presented showing God cannot exist.

As a further response to your objection that infinite groups established by a Set rule segregating even and odd numbers into ensembles it should be recognized that infinity does not mean a number of greater absolute value than any other number. Instead infinity means that one can continue counting to an exponentially large number for any arbitrarily long time period and then continue counting for any additional long time period and then continue counting still further without ever reaching an end. There does not occur a single largest number. Consider two cases.

1. Any grouping of numbers established by a specific Set rule that contains an infinite quantity of numeric elements will continuously be changing as new additional large numbers are added to the ensemble by the Set rule. An infinitely large grouping would require an infinitely long time to be formed because causality is necessary to vivify a relation's unmediated attachment between a Set rule and potential group elements. Since the contents of the grouping would then
be continuously changing forever, the grouping cannot have a specific identity despite that all the numeric elements sharing a common attribute. This is so because an object is all that it is. If a person defines a grouping established by a Set rule as an object, then the grouping's identity must metaphysically be all of its attributes simultaneously. Those attributes would include the ensemble of the identities of all the numeric elements. As those ensemble identities would constantly change and because the individual ensemble elements would all be different, the group can have no fixed specific identity.

2. If the process of adding numbers to the ensemble is paused or stopped, then the grouping is finite.

In the first case, the group of numbers can have no specific identity. In the second case the group of numbers cannot be infinite. Eric's objection from infinite Set Groupings to the very ancient argument from the impossibility of an infinite having a specific identity is insufficient to overcome the argument.

The following text is paraphrased from George H. Smith's book, “Atheism: The Case Against God” p.41.

To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= ¬A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature. But the theistic God is asserted to be super-natural, and that is to be exempt from the uniformity of nature. Herein lies the contradiction fatal to any claim of knowledge about God. Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the alleged super-natural being. Such restriction then renders the alleged super-natural being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence and disqualify it from being God. To escape this contradiction, the religious mind proposes to somehow imagine a God lacking any definite attributes or properties. But a postulated existent devoid of properties or attributes is indistinguishable from nothingness and is incompatible with the concept of existence. For God to have characteristics necessarily means God must have definite characteristics. That is to say that God would then necessarily be limited, for to be A is to also not be ¬A. Any being with characteristics is then subject to the uniformity of nature imposed by those capacities. For a super-natural being to differ from natural existence, it must exist without a limited identity and nature. This amounts to existing without any nature or identity at all. If humanity is to have meaningful discourse about God, we must presuppose it to have properties by which is can be identified. By asserting that God is super-natural theism stipulates existence apart from the uniformity of nature and eliminates any possibility of assigning definite characteristics to God. But by assigning definite characteristics to God, theism brings its God within the natural realm and renders it not-God. Something cannot be both A and ¬A.

God then cannot exist, and any claim of knowledge of God is indistinguishable from fantasy of God.

(Sat. 01-31-09, 14:08 GMT: I noticed a typo in the first version of this message and so replaced the text.)

My review of George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God"

2009-01-30T18:36:00.000-08:00

Smith's book is brilliant (Good End Notes too). Rational arguments against the existence of god are solid and irrefutable. Maintaining faith in this fiction Christianity) has no rational basis. Smith asserts. "Atheists have long contended that the concept of god is unintelligible, this being a major reason why it cannot be accepted by any rational man. The theist who openly admits this cannot expect to be taken seriously. The idea of the unknowable is an insult to the intellect, and it renders theism wholly implausible." (Smith p.45) Smith shows how all definitions of god reduce to religious agnosticism. The agnostic's and Christian's common belief in the unknowable nature of god as expressed in alleged qualities such as ineffable, inexpressible, transcendent and unfathomable support the foregoing conclusion. This allows us to learn that "If god is completely unknowable, the concept of "god" is totally devoid of content, and the word "god" becomes a meaningless sound." (Ibid p.44) Therefor since "Religious agnosticism suffers from the obvious flaw that one cannot possibly know that something exists without some knowledge of what it is that exists." (Ibid p.43) Smith delivers to the reader the inescapable conundrum of Christianity. Two choices present themselves to the believer. Quit the defense of the supernatural, or broadcast belief in the existence of a supernatural being "while arguing that this being is knowable, at least to some extent, by the human mind." (Ibid p.46) To claim god is unknowable yet knowable is to forsake the keep of reason.

Chapter three explores various characteristics of god, so the reader learns that "...the attributes of the Christian God cannot withstand critical examination; the concept of God is permeated with ambiguities, contradictions and just plain nonsense." (Ibid p.50) Both positive and negative theology are failures in alleviating these logical inconsistencies. Negative theology defines what god is not while positive theology asserts what god is. Both fail because of the Laws of Logic, The Law of Identity: A is A or anything is itself; The Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or not-A; The Law of Contradiction: Nothing can be both A and not-A. (Ibid p.143)

On page 47 Smith lists the attributes of god from the National Catholic Almanac: "...According to this source, God is "almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, mmense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinity, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true." How is it possible for the Catholic writers to declare god is incomprehensible yet list twenty-two other traits? Smith found a Christian explanation. George Finger Thomas in "Philosophy and Religious Belief" asserts that god is not only ineffable but also immanent. God cannot be both ineffable and immanent for to be incapable of being expressed or indescribable is to not exist while existing or remaining within and being restricted to the mind are contradictory. No being as depicted in the National Catholic Almanac can exist any more than can a square circle. Thomas fails to reconcile god's incomprehensibility with other attributes.

Christianity and agnosticism share the same irrationality. The agnostic has advantage over the Christian. She knows better than to assign qualities to od, for to say anything about god is to limit god. To assert god possesses characteristic A is to say that does not have attribute not-A. (paraphrased from John Hospers, "An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis") "Existence entails a finite nature, and if God exists, then God must be a finite being." (Smith p.49) Smith concludes that no attempt to define god succeeds. "After judging religious agnosticism - the belief in a unknowable god - to be indefensible, we examined Christianity's attempt to escape from the irrationalism of agnosticism while retaining the notion of a supernatural being. The escape was a total failure. The attributes of the Christian God are merely a disguise, an elaborate subterfuge designed to obscure the fact that the Christian God is also unknowable. God's characteristics, while supposedly giving us information about God's nature. Actually accomplish the reverse: they plunge us further into agnosticism." (Smith p.87)

The only flaw I noticed was in chapter nine "The Cosmological Arguments" While Smith succeeds in refuting "The First Cause Argument" for god by demonstrating decoupling of causality from the epistemological context of existence, for "To demand a cause for all of existence it to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause ... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality ... Existence - not God - is the First Cause." Herein he implies the Steady State model of Cosmology. We now know through observational data of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the accelerated expansion of the Universe that the Steady State model fails. Smith wrote "Atheism: The Case Against God" in 1979, at least two years prior to Alan Guth's Inflation theory. Inflation is now established as a leading theory of cosmic origins. The Universe began uncaused by a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation that gave rise to the energy potential of a Higgs inflationary field. This resulted in a rapid(10^-32 second) expansion of space-time of the order of magnitude of 10^50. There was no cause or causality associated with this primordial or indeed any other Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation. All the energy of the entire Universe was compressed into a Planck sized region at the inception of the Inflationary period much like a similar sized Black Hole. This means the Universe began in a state of maximum entropy; thus, no information from any time prior to the Inflationary epoch could have survived. This means no ordering from outside our Cosmic Domain could have been applied to either Inflation or the Big Bang. Additionally, the rapid expansion created much room for order to form. As the fundamental forces decoupled from one another via spontaneous symmetry breaking, the nature of energy, matter, and the dark energy/matter congealed into what we see or infer. This well known and verified scenario solves/refutes all of the cosmological arguments for god. A new afterward addendum to the book would thus seem to be needed.