How 'god' maketh bleach.
This is how the Judeo-Christian 'god' directs his disciples to make bleach, which is used for all sorts of sanitation reasons and in purification rights for dealing with devils and other "unclean" things.
First, 'god' doth command thee to fashion thou a large pottery vessel with an open top. The lord calleth such a vessel a "bucket".
Secondly, the lord sayeth to fashion a multitude of thin dissimilar metal strips, all the same length and about the length of thy hand. Useth two kinds of metals, copper and bronze will do just fine, and if the lord thus willed it, he shall illuminate one on how to make a blast furnace capable of smelting iron. Thou shalt also make a very long strip of the one metal, and a very long strip of the other metal as 'god' didith command.
Third, stack the dissimilar metals one on top of the other, one kind after the other, with a strip of cloth between each strip of metal with a sprinkle of crushed and powdered brimstone on the cloth. Make the last "outside" strip of one side of the bundle one of the long strips, and thus likewise the other side the other long strip in its own turn. Thou shalt bind this bundle together with rope very tightly.
Fourth, thou shalt place this bundle in the "bucket" and then thou shalt piss on thy creation until it is submerged in thy yellowy liquid. The lord calleth this bundle a "DC battery".
Thou shalt then take another "bucket" and fill it with drinking water not befouled with anything unclean. Do not use water that has touched a pig or weasel, as they are unclean and an abomination unto the lord.
Thou shalt boil thy clean water.
Thou shalt dissolve common salt into the boiling clean water until no more salt can thus dissolve, then submerge thy bucket into another larger bucket with cool clean water to rapidly cool it, but take care to not mixeth thy briny solution with the other clean waters. The lord calleth thy briny solution "supersaturated" with salt.
Taketh thy "battery" with the long strips of metals and submerge only the ends of the long metals into the bucket with the briny waters. The lord calleth the long strips "electrodes".
Foul breath of dragons shall issue forth from thy briny waters in itty bitty tiny bubbles, and care should be taken to shield the dragons breath from a fiery open flame. The lord calls this breath "oxygen and hydrogen".
One full day shalt thou keepest this process going, and thy mayest need to have ones family help in replenishing the battery with fresh piss that the lord doth call "electrolite".
After one full day, taketh thy battery elements out of thy salty brine.
After all dragon breath has been fanned away, put thy bucket of briny waters over a fire and heat thy waters. A powdery substance shall form in thy briny waters. The lord calleth the powders "sodium hypochlorite".
When all the powders cease to issue forth, remove thy bucket and allow to cool slowly in the shade. After cooling, poor thy brine over a filter cloth and catch thee the powders accumulated as the lord hath commandeth thee.
Place thou a small child's handful (use the right hand, of course) of powders in another un-unclean bucket and fill with clean waters that have touched no pigs or weasels. This will formeth "bleach" used for cleaning thy nasty human filth and devil droppings.
No, sorry, just kidding.
"The Lord" doesn't tell anyone how to make a blast furnace and how to smelt iron, and certainly not the "heathen" Chinese who were doing it a thousand years before the relatively slower to catch on occidental west.
"The Lord" doesn't "teacheth" anyone how to make bleach, even though this recipe is genuine and the ancient Hebrews had the means to make bleach. Here is how "the word of 'god'" told "the chosen people" how to deal with contagions in the bible.
This one is called "God's law for lepers" and its the whole chapter of Leviticus 14.
Here's the shortened version:
Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the water-thinned blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times...
The text goes on to describe head shaving and throwing stones in "unclean" places etc.
It basically describes dealing with plague through witchcraft, dipping birds in bird's blood and slinging it all over the house, and ones walls and clothes etc.
The bible is the "word of 'god'"?
Ha-Ha-Ha!!
"Word of 'god'", my ass. Thanks for playin'.
Mr. Serpent
Monday, October 1, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Why "Mr. Serpent"?
-
It's an homage to the serpent in the "Abrahamic Tradition" i.e. the Judeo-Christian-Muslim idea of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were "sinless" and little more than dumb animals who didn't understand what good and evil were. As I read the stories (especially in the bible's Genesis 3) of Adam, Eve, and the serpent, its apparent to me that the serpent was a liberator, not a liar and deceiver as it is portrayed by Judeo-Christians. ("The serpent" isn't in the Koran, but he is in other extra-Koran literature).
Christian rhetoric includes talk of Jesus being "the keys to the kingdom", and 'god' being "the king" and heaven "the kingdom" and Christians being "his special chosen people" and "the elect" that were predestined to be chosen to go to heaven even before the foundation of the world, which of course means that everyone else was predestined to go to hell/Hades/lake of fire/spiritual death/cast into the pit or abyss/or absent from 'god'. (Choose your favorite form of 'god' torture from the list).
"He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." ~ Ephesians 1:4-5
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." ~ 2 Timothy 1:9
These are classic examples of delusions of grandeur.
If one gives a critical and literal reading of Genesis 3, one will easily understand why Judeo-Christian theology has created all sorts of sophistry and vapid apologetics regarding the story of "the fall" of mankind. Christians would have us believe that A&E knew it was not good to disobey 'god' BEFORE they knew what good and evil were. They would have us believe that A&E knew that it was immoral to disobey 'god' before their "eyes were opened" unto the truth. However, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil.
No, its apparent that A&E were persuaded to listen to 'god' because they were REALLY (within the context of the story) threatened with death, not some vague nuanced punshment that we, even in all our modern sophistication cannot make sense of even today. No doubt the dumb-animal minded A&E pre-fall would not understand "death" that is not really death. Judeo-Christians can't even agree which "not really death that day" version they want to tout. Is it that A&E became mortal that day and will die someday, or is it "spiritual death", i.e falling out of favor with 'god'? No, for reasons noted in the previous paragraph, it's obvious that this borrowed and "tweeked" myth was about people threatened with literal death should they disobey. The serpent, being wise, didn't tell a lie, it told the illicit truth, and 'god' was busted in telling a fib. (Hence the reason for the apologetic acrobatics. Christians wish to believe that their 'god' doesn't lie, even though there are verses in the bible that says he does.)
What the serpent was "guilty" of was telling "the woman" (that no one had bothered to give a name to yet) that, having freewill, she had a choice and could choose to pursue truth rather than remain a slave to the will of 'god'.
I see this as the "moral of the story" and even a synopsis of Judeo-Christianity as a whole. The gist of the story is that if you pursue what is true and it goes against the will of 'god', then he's going to mess you up and punish you. If you "have faith" and just ignore and pretend to not notice that things don't add up, you can stay in the gilded cage of paradise and remain chattel to a dictator that threatens to punish those that disobey his commands by burning them or giving them one or more of the punishments listed in the 'god'-punishments list noted earlier.
And what of "paradise" in heaven? It's explained as being much the same. Everyone in heaven must kowtow to 'god', tell him how wonderful and groovy he is all the time, fly around singing "holy, holy holy", OR one gets banished from heaven, "fall" from grace and eventually burned in hell and destroyed. Heaven is described as a pre-civil war deep south American slave plantation in the sky. If "Tobe" steps out of line and doesn't do the will of Master, he'll be severely punished, tortured and possibly destroyed. To say that 'god' allows Christians to exercise freewill is as ludicrous as suggesting that African American slaves were free when they could choose to serve as a slave or be tortured, mutilated or destroyed if they didn't.
'god'/YHWH/Allah does not tolerate any expression of freewill within the Judeo-Christian-Islam context. One must renounce freewill and adopt an attitude of slavery to the will of 'god' instead. If one doesn't do this, then one is "sinning" and will suffer eternal torment by one or more of the 'god'-tortures previously listed.
Christians don't have freewill, working within the context of Christianity, they have the opportunity to ABDICATE their own freewill in deference to the will of 'god', just as any slave would.
I'll leave you with some words from the horses mouth; the so-called "word(s) of 'god'" itself.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (New World Translation)
"What! Do YOU not know that the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within YOU, which YOU have from God? Also, YOU do not belong to yourselves, for YOU were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in the body of YOU people."
2 Corinthians 10:5
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"
Romans 6:22 (NAB)
"But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life."
Koran Al-Hijr (15)
30-31
So the angels fell prostrate, all of them together. Save Iblis. He refused to be among the prostrate.
(Allah)
32 He said: O Iblis! What aileth thee that thou art not among the prostrate ?
(Iblis, aka Satan)
33 He said: I am not one to prostrate myself unto a mortal whom Thou hast created out of potter's clay of black mud altered!
(Allah)
34-35
He said: Then go thou forth from hence, for lo! thou art outcast. And lo! the curse shall be upon thee till the Day of Judgment.
(Iblis, aka Satan)
36 He said: My Lord! Reprieve me till the day when they are raised.
(Allah)
37-38
He said: Then lo! thou art of those reprieved Till the Day of appointed time.
(Iblis, aka Satan)
39-40
He said: My Lord! Because Thou hast sent me astray, I verily shall adorn the path of error for them in the earth, and shall mislead them every one, Save such of them as are Thy perfectly devoted slaves.
(Allah)
41-45
He said: This is a right course incumbent upon Me: Lo! as for My slaves, thou hast no power over any of them save such of the froward as follow thee, And lo! for all such, hell will be the promised place. It hath seven gates, and each gate hath an appointed portion. Lo! those who ward off (evil) are among gardens and watersprings.
Mr. Serpent
-
It's an homage to the serpent in the "Abrahamic Tradition" i.e. the Judeo-Christian-Muslim idea of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were "sinless" and little more than dumb animals who didn't understand what good and evil were. As I read the stories (especially in the bible's Genesis 3) of Adam, Eve, and the serpent, its apparent to me that the serpent was a liberator, not a liar and deceiver as it is portrayed by Judeo-Christians. ("The serpent" isn't in the Koran, but he is in other extra-Koran literature).
Christian rhetoric includes talk of Jesus being "the keys to the kingdom", and 'god' being "the king" and heaven "the kingdom" and Christians being "his special chosen people" and "the elect" that were predestined to be chosen to go to heaven even before the foundation of the world, which of course means that everyone else was predestined to go to hell/Hades/lake of fire/spiritual death/cast into the pit or abyss/or absent from 'god'. (Choose your favorite form of 'god' torture from the list).
"He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." ~ Ephesians 1:4-5
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." ~ 2 Timothy 1:9
These are classic examples of delusions of grandeur.
If one gives a critical and literal reading of Genesis 3, one will easily understand why Judeo-Christian theology has created all sorts of sophistry and vapid apologetics regarding the story of "the fall" of mankind. Christians would have us believe that A&E knew it was not good to disobey 'god' BEFORE they knew what good and evil were. They would have us believe that A&E knew that it was immoral to disobey 'god' before their "eyes were opened" unto the truth. However, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil.
No, its apparent that A&E were persuaded to listen to 'god' because they were REALLY (within the context of the story) threatened with death, not some vague nuanced punshment that we, even in all our modern sophistication cannot make sense of even today. No doubt the dumb-animal minded A&E pre-fall would not understand "death" that is not really death. Judeo-Christians can't even agree which "not really death that day" version they want to tout. Is it that A&E became mortal that day and will die someday, or is it "spiritual death", i.e falling out of favor with 'god'? No, for reasons noted in the previous paragraph, it's obvious that this borrowed and "tweeked" myth was about people threatened with literal death should they disobey. The serpent, being wise, didn't tell a lie, it told the illicit truth, and 'god' was busted in telling a fib. (Hence the reason for the apologetic acrobatics. Christians wish to believe that their 'god' doesn't lie, even though there are verses in the bible that says he does.)
What the serpent was "guilty" of was telling "the woman" (that no one had bothered to give a name to yet) that, having freewill, she had a choice and could choose to pursue truth rather than remain a slave to the will of 'god'.
I see this as the "moral of the story" and even a synopsis of Judeo-Christianity as a whole. The gist of the story is that if you pursue what is true and it goes against the will of 'god', then he's going to mess you up and punish you. If you "have faith" and just ignore and pretend to not notice that things don't add up, you can stay in the gilded cage of paradise and remain chattel to a dictator that threatens to punish those that disobey his commands by burning them or giving them one or more of the punishments listed in the 'god'-punishments list noted earlier.
And what of "paradise" in heaven? It's explained as being much the same. Everyone in heaven must kowtow to 'god', tell him how wonderful and groovy he is all the time, fly around singing "holy, holy holy", OR one gets banished from heaven, "fall" from grace and eventually burned in hell and destroyed. Heaven is described as a pre-civil war deep south American slave plantation in the sky. If "Tobe" steps out of line and doesn't do the will of Master, he'll be severely punished, tortured and possibly destroyed. To say that 'god' allows Christians to exercise freewill is as ludicrous as suggesting that African American slaves were free when they could choose to serve as a slave or be tortured, mutilated or destroyed if they didn't.
'god'/YHWH/Allah does not tolerate any expression of freewill within the Judeo-Christian-Islam context. One must renounce freewill and adopt an attitude of slavery to the will of 'god' instead. If one doesn't do this, then one is "sinning" and will suffer eternal torment by one or more of the 'god'-tortures previously listed.
Christians don't have freewill, working within the context of Christianity, they have the opportunity to ABDICATE their own freewill in deference to the will of 'god', just as any slave would.
I'll leave you with some words from the horses mouth; the so-called "word(s) of 'god'" itself.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (New World Translation)
"What! Do YOU not know that the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within YOU, which YOU have from God? Also, YOU do not belong to yourselves, for YOU were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in the body of YOU people."
2 Corinthians 10:5
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"
Romans 6:22 (NAB)
"But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life."
Koran Al-Hijr (15)
30-31
So the angels fell prostrate, all of them together. Save Iblis. He refused to be among the prostrate.
(Allah)
32 He said: O Iblis! What aileth thee that thou art not among the prostrate ?
(Iblis, aka Satan)
33 He said: I am not one to prostrate myself unto a mortal whom Thou hast created out of potter's clay of black mud altered!
(Allah)
34-35
He said: Then go thou forth from hence, for lo! thou art outcast. And lo! the curse shall be upon thee till the Day of Judgment.
(Iblis, aka Satan)
36 He said: My Lord! Reprieve me till the day when they are raised.
(Allah)
37-38
He said: Then lo! thou art of those reprieved Till the Day of appointed time.
(Iblis, aka Satan)
39-40
He said: My Lord! Because Thou hast sent me astray, I verily shall adorn the path of error for them in the earth, and shall mislead them every one, Save such of them as are Thy perfectly devoted slaves.
(Allah)
41-45
He said: This is a right course incumbent upon Me: Lo! as for My slaves, thou hast no power over any of them save such of the froward as follow thee, And lo! for all such, hell will be the promised place. It hath seven gates, and each gate hath an appointed portion. Lo! those who ward off (evil) are among gardens and watersprings.
Mr. Serpent
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
-
"I have no need for that hypothesis".
Pierre Simon, otherwise known as the Marquis de Laplace ("Laplace" for short) was one of history's most formidable mathematicians. As the legend goes, after presenting the then Emperor of France, Napoleon Bonaparte with a copy of his book on celestial mechanics, Napoleon is said to have asked Laplace where his mathematics included the hand of 'god', as which point Laplace is said to have responded (in French, of course) "I have no need for that hypothesis". This account has reached urban legend status, but even though it may not be a strictly historical account, it is true in spirit, as Laplace is known to have repeatedly & publicly chided and mocked Isaac Newton for suggesting that the hand of 'god' would be required to occasionally fine-tune the celestial orbs to correct for the effects of entropy, (i.e. Newton's second law of thermodynamics). In the spirit of Pierre Simon "Laplace", I also state that I have no need for that hypothesis. Here are a few brief reasons why believing in 'god' is in some cases not a good idea and in other cases is a very bad idea.
1. Causation : (regarding the origin of the universe).
A. How can there be causation before there are any physical laws?
B. How can there be physical laws before there are physically existent things in our universe?
C. And how can there be physically existent things in our universe before there is any space-time framework for these physical things to "exist in"?
D. For that matter, how can there be causation before there is any time, which, according to the standard model of the Big Bang Theory, is theorized to have started with the expansion of space-time?
The common theist argument, "Everything has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause" is a bogus idea, as the ideas of causation itself break down when we regard the origin of the universe. It's highly illogical to reject the idea of an acausal universe merely because it's acausal, and yet turn around and accept the idea of an acausal universe creator. (Or an acausal universe creator-creator, ad infinitem.) It seems that we must either accept the idea of an infinite regression of causes with no "first cause", or we must accept acausality at some point. I'm not suggesting *WHERE* it should be accepted. I'm merely pointing out that to reject it in regard to the universe itself and then to accept it regarding some alleged creator 'god(s)' is to be irrationally inconsistent. One might even say hypocritical.
2. Entropy:
The claim by many theists is that increasing order or complexity cannot come about in a non-directed manner because this would violate the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. it would fly in the face of entropy. This idea is often used by theists to attempt to refute ideas of a godless origin of the universe and the theory of evolution of species. However, the claim is not true. First of all, natural selection, a key factor in the theory of evolution of species, predicts that, (all other factors being roughly equal), organisms within a species that proves best suited to their environment will tend to fare better than those that do not. It has nothing to do with complexity or some relative degree of order. Secondly, consider this example: You toss a pair of normal six-sided dice for thousands of rolls and plot the results on a histogram. Eventually a beautiful Normal or Gaussian bell-shaped curve is produced in a graph. This shows an ever-increasing "order" emerging from a non-directed process. In fact, this is what Probability Theory IS, which is to take account of or otherwise derive order from non-directed processes. (There is also the still somewhat controversial theory of Emergent Behavior, but for the sake of brevity I'll skip it here). Why is it that such non-directed processes with increasing order are not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Because "entropy" is about system stability, not decreasing order. In many ways, an unstable system becoming more stable is a form of increasing order.
3. "Complexity":
I.D. (Intelligent Design) enthusiasts tend to regard any universe that has any structure and laws at all to be "complex". They consider the universe to be apparently "fine tuned" just so perfectly as to allow for life such as us to exist and if the universe's laws and cosmological constants were just a bit different, life would be impossible. As the story goes, I and my "irreducibly complex eyeballs" beg the question of some creator or "designer" for the universe. However, I submit the argument that any being capable of designing universes, twiddling the adjustments for cosmological constants and can set planets and stars in motion, as well as create me and my complex eyeballs, must itself be more complex than I am. So, if the "complexity" argument is valid, then 'god' would need a designer itself, and its creator would need an even more complex designer, ad infinitem. If 'god' needs no creator, then the "complexity begs a creator" argument is invalid.
4. Unlikelihood :
ID enthusiasts consider an acausal and complex universe to be unlikely simply because of the acausality and complexity factors presumed. If an acausal and complex universe should be considered unlikely, then an acausal and even *MORE* complex universe designer should be considered even more unlikely.
5. "How" questions:
When asked a "how" question, like "How did the universe originate", theists will often respond with something like "Steve did it in a mysterious way". Well, this merely presumes a "Who", and sidesteps the issue of answering the "how", simply saying that the "how" is "mysterious", which is an adjective about how the "hows" are not known. Presuming the 'god' hypothesis answers NO "how" questions at all. The theist is left with exactly the same unanswered "how" questions I am, AND now they have the additional mysterious Steve to answer for and explain! In regard to answering "how" questions, accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually tantamount to taking a few steps back.
6. Teleology:
Teleology is a pseudo-scientific "study" born from..."the belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature; (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization."
"Everything happens for a reason"/"we all have a purpose"...is a product of instinct and an unjustified presumption and bias. This is exactly what physicist Brandon Carter was criticizing in what he labeled "The Anthropic Principle". Subsequent theist physicists either perverted his message or simply didn't understand his reasoning when they applied said self-coined title to the idea that the universe is apparently "fine tuned" and appears "intelligently designed". This is the opposite of Carter's point, which was that we each presume that our experiences constitute a "standard reference set" of what "is out there"; a presumption that is far more likely to be false than true.
7. Invalid Questions and highly illogical lines of thought:
Regarding point 5 above, theists might respond to a "how" question with something like "'god' spoke light into existence". This answers no "how" question at all, and in fact it is no answer of *ANY* sort. Rather it is a vacuous platitude masquerading as an answer. Much religious rhetoric tends to be riddled with such poetic non-information that deflects from the issue that no "how" questions are being answered in the slightest fashion.
"Do you have evidence that 'god' does not exist" is a popular question among theists. Well, let me respond by saying that if 'x' is described with contradictions, or characteristics that leads to contradictions, then yes, I can prove that 'x' does not exist. For instance, there are no omnipotent, omniscient, predestinating 'gods' that create beings with freewill because this leads to existential paradoxes, i.e. contradictions. That being said, I should also address the matter of a vaguely described 'god' and a-posteriori empirical evidence.
There is no such thing as empirical evidence of nonexistence. We can theoretically show a particular absence, but not universal nonexistence. That I don't have what is impossible to have is tautological and therefore meaningless. It means nothing and suggests nothing that I don't have empirical evidence of the nonexistence of 'god', just as it's meaningless and suggests nothing that you don't have empirical evidence that there are no invisible magic lunar cows living on the dark side of our moon.
If the notion that a complex universe occurring is unlikely, then since ANY life would be considered "complex" by ID standards, then ALL life finding itself in a very unlikely universe (presuming that there are a large number of universes that can occur) is CERTAIN, not unlikely, ergo there is no unlikelihood to beg any universe creation. I've been struck by the shear number of theists that seem unable to grasp this bit if abstract reasoning.
Theists also sometimes like to say that atheism is a "religion" and that "faith is required in order to be an atheist.
Well, this is not true. *NO* faith of any sort is required in order to be an atheist. As an example, I have *NO FAITH* that there are no 'gods'. I simply am not aware of any legitimate justification for believing that there *are* any existing 'gods'. And no, this does not make me an "agnostic", because I'm an atheist for the reason that all atheists are atheists, and that is that I possess absolutely *NO* theistic beliefs. In fact, I don't wish for ANYONE to be convinced that there are no existing 'gods'. Why? Because personal conviction isn't the point. The point is correct epistemology and what assertions we can legitimately justify making.
Here's another example of poor reasoning:
A. Bob's daughter had cancer. He prayed for her cancer to remiss.
B. Thousands of other Christians had kids with cancer.
C. They all prayed for their kid's cancer to remiss.
D. Bob's daughter's cancer went into remission and she lived, but the thousands of other kids cancers did not and they died.
Consequence: virtually *ALL* the parents involved considered these results evidence of an existing 'god'. (Sometimes 'god' just says "no", or had good reasons you don't understand).
(I'll leave it to the gentle reader to discern what is wrong with the above line of reasoning.)
Summary:
1. Causation:
It's irrational, perhaps even hypocritical to dismiss an acausal universe by definition and then glom onto the idea of an acausal universe creator by definition.
2. Entropy:
In actuality, the subject of entropy is irrelevant to both the theist's and the atheist's arguments as far as I have been able to discern.
3. Complexity:
Accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually a step backwards in regard to complexity.
4. Unlikelihood:
Accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually a step backwards in regard to likelihood.
5. "How" questions:
Accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually a step backwards in regard to answering comprehensive "how" questions.
6. Teleology:
Teleology is an unjustified bias that leads to unjustified and illogical conclusions. A presumed 'god' or "intelligent (universe or life) designer" is often the suggested 'designing' or 'planning' agent for said presumed "purpose" and "intent" of everything from sex, to eyeballs, to life on earth, to waterfalls, etc. This is exactly why I try to avoid using "intent" loaded phrases like, "the purpose of sex is to...", when evolution theory really has no "purpose" but it does have biological success stories and stories of biological failures.
7. Invalid Questions and highly illogical lines of thought:
Theistic thinking and arguments are rife with invalid questions and presumptions and highly illogical lines of thought. I only touched on a few, but I've literally seen hundreds and not one, IMO, have been legitimate.The list goes on, of course. Such as, theism being a product of instinct or emotions, strange experiences or super special favors 'granted' in time of need, etc, the irrationality of faith (Faith is either superfluous or a bad idea by definition), and so on. Why these are bad ideas by definition should be easy enough to discern, such as how the product of instinctive drives isn't necessarily "truth", emotions can lead us to believe all sorts of untrue things, etc. I think one of the key points regarding religion is that the "spiritual" should be asking themselves if they are attempting to pursue truth or comforting ideas.
My interpretation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story of Genesis 3 is that the serpent offered Eve "food" for thought and let her decide what she wanted to do. She presumed to choose her own destiny rather to continue to act as chattel and slaves to the will of 'god' and for this they were punished. I see the serpent as a liberator who literally didn't tell any lies, but rather an illicit truth, and 'god' the father is depicted as someone who got caught telling a fib. A&E presumed to pursue truth rather than to preserve the creature comforts they had in a gilded cage. They chose the hard truth that opened their eyes over the alternative comfortable fibs with ones eyes remaining closed; This was the "Original Sin".
Here's a few questions for you. Adam and Eve had their eyes opened when they partook of the forbidden fruit.
Who gains by ones eyes remaining closed, the good or the evil?
Which has something to hide?
(Blog by...)
Mr. Serpent
(AKA, The Dhampire LOGOS)
"I have no need for that hypothesis".
Pierre Simon, otherwise known as the Marquis de Laplace ("Laplace" for short) was one of history's most formidable mathematicians. As the legend goes, after presenting the then Emperor of France, Napoleon Bonaparte with a copy of his book on celestial mechanics, Napoleon is said to have asked Laplace where his mathematics included the hand of 'god', as which point Laplace is said to have responded (in French, of course) "I have no need for that hypothesis". This account has reached urban legend status, but even though it may not be a strictly historical account, it is true in spirit, as Laplace is known to have repeatedly & publicly chided and mocked Isaac Newton for suggesting that the hand of 'god' would be required to occasionally fine-tune the celestial orbs to correct for the effects of entropy, (i.e. Newton's second law of thermodynamics). In the spirit of Pierre Simon "Laplace", I also state that I have no need for that hypothesis. Here are a few brief reasons why believing in 'god' is in some cases not a good idea and in other cases is a very bad idea.
1. Causation : (regarding the origin of the universe).
A. How can there be causation before there are any physical laws?
B. How can there be physical laws before there are physically existent things in our universe?
C. And how can there be physically existent things in our universe before there is any space-time framework for these physical things to "exist in"?
D. For that matter, how can there be causation before there is any time, which, according to the standard model of the Big Bang Theory, is theorized to have started with the expansion of space-time?
The common theist argument, "Everything has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause" is a bogus idea, as the ideas of causation itself break down when we regard the origin of the universe. It's highly illogical to reject the idea of an acausal universe merely because it's acausal, and yet turn around and accept the idea of an acausal universe creator. (Or an acausal universe creator-creator, ad infinitem.) It seems that we must either accept the idea of an infinite regression of causes with no "first cause", or we must accept acausality at some point. I'm not suggesting *WHERE* it should be accepted. I'm merely pointing out that to reject it in regard to the universe itself and then to accept it regarding some alleged creator 'god(s)' is to be irrationally inconsistent. One might even say hypocritical.
2. Entropy:
The claim by many theists is that increasing order or complexity cannot come about in a non-directed manner because this would violate the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. it would fly in the face of entropy. This idea is often used by theists to attempt to refute ideas of a godless origin of the universe and the theory of evolution of species. However, the claim is not true. First of all, natural selection, a key factor in the theory of evolution of species, predicts that, (all other factors being roughly equal), organisms within a species that proves best suited to their environment will tend to fare better than those that do not. It has nothing to do with complexity or some relative degree of order. Secondly, consider this example: You toss a pair of normal six-sided dice for thousands of rolls and plot the results on a histogram. Eventually a beautiful Normal or Gaussian bell-shaped curve is produced in a graph. This shows an ever-increasing "order" emerging from a non-directed process. In fact, this is what Probability Theory IS, which is to take account of or otherwise derive order from non-directed processes. (There is also the still somewhat controversial theory of Emergent Behavior, but for the sake of brevity I'll skip it here). Why is it that such non-directed processes with increasing order are not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Because "entropy" is about system stability, not decreasing order. In many ways, an unstable system becoming more stable is a form of increasing order.
3. "Complexity":
I.D. (Intelligent Design) enthusiasts tend to regard any universe that has any structure and laws at all to be "complex". They consider the universe to be apparently "fine tuned" just so perfectly as to allow for life such as us to exist and if the universe's laws and cosmological constants were just a bit different, life would be impossible. As the story goes, I and my "irreducibly complex eyeballs" beg the question of some creator or "designer" for the universe. However, I submit the argument that any being capable of designing universes, twiddling the adjustments for cosmological constants and can set planets and stars in motion, as well as create me and my complex eyeballs, must itself be more complex than I am. So, if the "complexity" argument is valid, then 'god' would need a designer itself, and its creator would need an even more complex designer, ad infinitem. If 'god' needs no creator, then the "complexity begs a creator" argument is invalid.
4. Unlikelihood :
ID enthusiasts consider an acausal and complex universe to be unlikely simply because of the acausality and complexity factors presumed. If an acausal and complex universe should be considered unlikely, then an acausal and even *MORE* complex universe designer should be considered even more unlikely.
5. "How" questions:
When asked a "how" question, like "How did the universe originate", theists will often respond with something like "Steve did it in a mysterious way". Well, this merely presumes a "Who", and sidesteps the issue of answering the "how", simply saying that the "how" is "mysterious", which is an adjective about how the "hows" are not known. Presuming the 'god' hypothesis answers NO "how" questions at all. The theist is left with exactly the same unanswered "how" questions I am, AND now they have the additional mysterious Steve to answer for and explain! In regard to answering "how" questions, accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually tantamount to taking a few steps back.
6. Teleology:
Teleology is a pseudo-scientific "study" born from..."the belief that purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature; (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization."
"Everything happens for a reason"/"we all have a purpose"...is a product of instinct and an unjustified presumption and bias. This is exactly what physicist Brandon Carter was criticizing in what he labeled "The Anthropic Principle". Subsequent theist physicists either perverted his message or simply didn't understand his reasoning when they applied said self-coined title to the idea that the universe is apparently "fine tuned" and appears "intelligently designed". This is the opposite of Carter's point, which was that we each presume that our experiences constitute a "standard reference set" of what "is out there"; a presumption that is far more likely to be false than true.
7. Invalid Questions and highly illogical lines of thought:
Regarding point 5 above, theists might respond to a "how" question with something like "'god' spoke light into existence". This answers no "how" question at all, and in fact it is no answer of *ANY* sort. Rather it is a vacuous platitude masquerading as an answer. Much religious rhetoric tends to be riddled with such poetic non-information that deflects from the issue that no "how" questions are being answered in the slightest fashion.
"Do you have evidence that 'god' does not exist" is a popular question among theists. Well, let me respond by saying that if 'x' is described with contradictions, or characteristics that leads to contradictions, then yes, I can prove that 'x' does not exist. For instance, there are no omnipotent, omniscient, predestinating 'gods' that create beings with freewill because this leads to existential paradoxes, i.e. contradictions. That being said, I should also address the matter of a vaguely described 'god' and a-posteriori empirical evidence.
There is no such thing as empirical evidence of nonexistence. We can theoretically show a particular absence, but not universal nonexistence. That I don't have what is impossible to have is tautological and therefore meaningless. It means nothing and suggests nothing that I don't have empirical evidence of the nonexistence of 'god', just as it's meaningless and suggests nothing that you don't have empirical evidence that there are no invisible magic lunar cows living on the dark side of our moon.
If the notion that a complex universe occurring is unlikely, then since ANY life would be considered "complex" by ID standards, then ALL life finding itself in a very unlikely universe (presuming that there are a large number of universes that can occur) is CERTAIN, not unlikely, ergo there is no unlikelihood to beg any universe creation. I've been struck by the shear number of theists that seem unable to grasp this bit if abstract reasoning.
Theists also sometimes like to say that atheism is a "religion" and that "faith is required in order to be an atheist.
Well, this is not true. *NO* faith of any sort is required in order to be an atheist. As an example, I have *NO FAITH* that there are no 'gods'. I simply am not aware of any legitimate justification for believing that there *are* any existing 'gods'. And no, this does not make me an "agnostic", because I'm an atheist for the reason that all atheists are atheists, and that is that I possess absolutely *NO* theistic beliefs. In fact, I don't wish for ANYONE to be convinced that there are no existing 'gods'. Why? Because personal conviction isn't the point. The point is correct epistemology and what assertions we can legitimately justify making.
Here's another example of poor reasoning:
A. Bob's daughter had cancer. He prayed for her cancer to remiss.
B. Thousands of other Christians had kids with cancer.
C. They all prayed for their kid's cancer to remiss.
D. Bob's daughter's cancer went into remission and she lived, but the thousands of other kids cancers did not and they died.
Consequence: virtually *ALL* the parents involved considered these results evidence of an existing 'god'. (Sometimes 'god' just says "no", or had good reasons you don't understand).
(I'll leave it to the gentle reader to discern what is wrong with the above line of reasoning.)
Summary:
1. Causation:
It's irrational, perhaps even hypocritical to dismiss an acausal universe by definition and then glom onto the idea of an acausal universe creator by definition.
2. Entropy:
In actuality, the subject of entropy is irrelevant to both the theist's and the atheist's arguments as far as I have been able to discern.
3. Complexity:
Accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually a step backwards in regard to complexity.
4. Unlikelihood:
Accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually a step backwards in regard to likelihood.
5. "How" questions:
Accepting the 'god' hypothesis is actually a step backwards in regard to answering comprehensive "how" questions.
6. Teleology:
Teleology is an unjustified bias that leads to unjustified and illogical conclusions. A presumed 'god' or "intelligent (universe or life) designer" is often the suggested 'designing' or 'planning' agent for said presumed "purpose" and "intent" of everything from sex, to eyeballs, to life on earth, to waterfalls, etc. This is exactly why I try to avoid using "intent" loaded phrases like, "the purpose of sex is to...", when evolution theory really has no "purpose" but it does have biological success stories and stories of biological failures.
7. Invalid Questions and highly illogical lines of thought:
Theistic thinking and arguments are rife with invalid questions and presumptions and highly illogical lines of thought. I only touched on a few, but I've literally seen hundreds and not one, IMO, have been legitimate.The list goes on, of course. Such as, theism being a product of instinct or emotions, strange experiences or super special favors 'granted' in time of need, etc, the irrationality of faith (Faith is either superfluous or a bad idea by definition), and so on. Why these are bad ideas by definition should be easy enough to discern, such as how the product of instinctive drives isn't necessarily "truth", emotions can lead us to believe all sorts of untrue things, etc. I think one of the key points regarding religion is that the "spiritual" should be asking themselves if they are attempting to pursue truth or comforting ideas.
My interpretation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story of Genesis 3 is that the serpent offered Eve "food" for thought and let her decide what she wanted to do. She presumed to choose her own destiny rather to continue to act as chattel and slaves to the will of 'god' and for this they were punished. I see the serpent as a liberator who literally didn't tell any lies, but rather an illicit truth, and 'god' the father is depicted as someone who got caught telling a fib. A&E presumed to pursue truth rather than to preserve the creature comforts they had in a gilded cage. They chose the hard truth that opened their eyes over the alternative comfortable fibs with ones eyes remaining closed; This was the "Original Sin".
Here's a few questions for you. Adam and Eve had their eyes opened when they partook of the forbidden fruit.
Who gains by ones eyes remaining closed, the good or the evil?
Which has something to hide?
(Blog by...)
Mr. Serpent
(AKA, The Dhampire LOGOS)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
