Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Amarok]

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:

1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions

How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?

None Steve just wants them  to be

[RoadRunner79]

This is so far away from disproving Odin that I think we can conclude no theists can do it. So hopefully they can at least acknowledge that asking an atheist to disprove “god” is a silly thing to do.

I normally only try to ask people "why" for things they are claiming.  Such as a person claiming that Christians are irrational (and any claims that may follow). 

As to Odin, I didn't have much interest, so I didn't become involved in the thread, until thread creep made it into something else.  Now if I was making comments and claims against Odin, things would be different.

[robvalue]

How is it at all problematic that extra requirements make things less likely? How else could it possibly work? This is basic probability, if not just common sense.

Of course, you might luck out and be trying to prove something that is actually true, but be doing it in an utterly flawed way so that you’re not demonstrating it.

This is all pretending that there’s any possible way to determine probabilities about things we have no data on whatsoever.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.

For someone who claims that Aristotle's causes have been superceeded, you sure don't understand what they actually are. Material cause is simply the stuff(which is actually the best translation from Greek) out of which something is made without regard to its specific form or origin.

Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.

That's a highly debatable assertion. I do not believe that atheists accept the nominalist/conceptualist position on its merits. Nominalism is a woefully incomplete way way of describing the relationship between ideas and sensible bodies. Personally, I think atheists adopt that position entirely because they cannot abide the conclusions of any kind of realism.

Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc...Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology..

More unfounded assertions. Physical objects, in themselves, have no meaning. They aren't about anything. It is one of the fatal flaws of the atheist worldview - the vain and unsupported belief that there can be meaning in an meaningless universe. Physical objects can carry meaning but meaning is in no way inherent in physical objects nor is meaning capable of arising in physical objects without vague appeals to the magical powers of "emergence".

Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.

How about "metallic?" Is that just a convention or does it apply to something real and objective about the world? Are trees metallic if everyone agrees to it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I don't have any trouble with the conclusions of realism.  Though I would suggest that you consider the conclusions of your statement above, that physical objects aren't about anything.  Your own thoughts (and the words I'm reading now, about them) are physical objects..are they about something?

This isn't to say that you can't maintain whatever position you like on the matter (of matter )....some other way, I guess? It's just that being "about something" is either trivially easy for physical objects (and if there are other x objects..them as well..ofc) or nothings about anything in any way discernible to you or I. Put another way, you and I both are working in the same garden. Burning it down will starve you just as quickly as it might starve me, but why do that..what's that all about?

---

I do have sympathy, though..it's not difficult to find some instance of an atheist who seems to be arguing against some realist in this or that context - I'm of the opinion that most of the time they're simply arguing with -your- position on some matter..and that's hardly surprising, since you seem to think that realism and goddism are interchangeable.  Similarly, hard reactions to realist positions I argue with other atheists often take the form of their opposition to some goddist conflation of a realist position.

[I_am_not_mafia]

This is so far away from disproving Odin that I think we can conclude no theists can do it. So hopefully they can at least acknowledge that asking an atheist to disprove “god” is a silly thing to do.

Why do you think the argument has moved to the KCA? The moment things get too hot for the religionists they change the subject to something nebulous where they can bury the awkward questions with loads of noise. For example, when it finally dawned on Huggy that language and religion weren't the same thing he suddenly started talking out of the blue about how abiogenesis was a fantasy.

[Amarok]

Lol is road honestly arguing that things on have meaning if they exist as spooky platonic magic entities rather then highly accurate descriptions of material things .

---

This is so far away from disproving Odin that I think we can conclude no theists can do it. So hopefully they can at least acknowledge that asking an atheist to disprove “god” is a silly thing to do.

Why do you think the argument has moved to the KCA? The moment things get too hot for the religionists they change the subject to something nebulous where they can bury the awkward questions with loads of noise. For example, when it finally dawned on Huggy that language and religion weren't the same thing he suddenly started talking out of the blue about how abiogenesis was a fantasy.

Standard apologist  tactic

[SteveII]

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:

1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions

How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?

They all could/probably do if in fact the supernatural exists. However, that is not the argument. The point is we can see that even abstract concepts and objects that are not bound by the physical laws of the universe require a causal principle. This fact further supports the idea that a causal principle is an objective feature of all reality and therefore cannot be separated from the concept of existence. Tell me, can you conceive of a reality that has no governing causal principle? There would be no structure to even hold anything material together nor any duration/enduring of anything. There would be no possibility of even thinking (defined as a process of ordered thoughts). 

So, if we can't conceive of such a reality, why would we deny the premise "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is a lot more likely true than not? To deny it's not, is utter nonsense and seems to stem from some sort of irrational desire to prove the concept wrong. Further, it's not even a thing among philosophers to argue against things like the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It's almost like if a Christian says "white" there are those that are convinced that "black" must be the case.  

This is why I am done with Grandizer, Polymath, and Mathilda (and probably Jenny) on this subject. They seem incapable of taking that step back and seeing this point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Abstracta are commonly defined as non spatiotemporal x's that do -not- have causal relationships.

[polymath257]

Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.

For someone who claims that Aristotle's causes have been superceeded, you sure don't understand what they actually are. Material cause is simply the stuff(which is actually the best translation from Greek) out of which something is made without regard to its specific form or origin.

Like I said, the composition.

Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.

That's a highly debatable assertion. I do not believe that atheists accept the nominalist/conceptualist position on its merits. Nominalism is a woefully incomplete way way of describing the relationship between ideas and sensible bodies. Personally, I think atheists adopt that position entirely because they cannot abide the conclusions of any kind of realism.

Realism has a host of other issues: for example quantum mechanics isn't a realist theory of physics.

As far as mathematical entities go, I see them as equivalent to moves in a chess game: follow the formal rules and obtain certain positions.

Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc...Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology..

More unfounded assertions. Physical objects, in themselves, have no meaning. They aren't about anything. It is one of the fatal flaws of the atheist worldview - the vain and unsupported belief that there can be meaning in an meaningless universe. Physical objects can carry meaning but meaning is in no way inherent in physical objects nor is meaning capable of arising in physical objects without vague appeals to the magical powers of "emergence".

Right. Objects in and of themselves have no meaning. Meaning is something *we* assign to objects because of our needs and desires. Meaning isn't something inherent in the objects.

Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.

How about "metallic?" Is that just a convention or does it apply to something real and objective about the world? Are trees metallic if everyone agrees to it?

[/quote]

It is convention. And, at times, a poor one. Generally, on the scientific side, it has been operationally defined to some precision, so the convention is strong enough to not allow the flexibility of saying trees are metallic.

But the word itself is still conventional. The concept itself is still convention. We start with some phenomena and try to assign some operational definition to it that may or may not reflect how the real world actually acts.

Sort of like how the word 'planet' has changed over time. Is Pluto a planet? Depends on the accepted definition of the term. I.e, convention.

---

How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?

They all could/probably do if in fact the supernatural exists. However, that is not the argument. The point is we can see that even abstract concepts and objects that are not bound by the physical laws of the universe require a causal principle. This fact further supports the idea that a causal principle is an objective feature of all reality and therefore cannot be separated from the concept of existence. Tell me, can you conceive of a reality that has no governing causal principle? There would be no structure to even hold anything material together nor any duration/enduring of anything. There would be no possibility of even thinking (defined as a process of ordered thoughts). 

So, if we can't conceive of such a reality, why would we deny the premise "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is a lot more likely true than not? To deny it's not, is utter nonsense and seems to stem from some sort of irrational desire to prove the concept wrong. Further, it's not even a thing among philosophers to argue against things like the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It's almost like if a Christian says "white" there are those that are convinced that "black" must be the case.  

This is why I am done with Grandizer, Polymath, and Mathilda (and probably Jenny) on this subject. They seem incapable of taking that step back and seeing this point.

Really? What is the 'causal principle' in mathematics?  What is the 'causal principle' of ideas?

The *only* 'causal principle' for either of those is some sort of brain state that carries the ideas involved. But, since you claimed a supernatural (whatever that *could* mean), I think you are just talking out of your hat.

No, your thoughts on a 'causal principle' are simply your biases. They do not form objective evidence by a long shot. This is doubly true in math.

I can easily conceive of a reality without a 'causal principle' in the way you have defined it. In fact, I look at *reality* and I see exactly such. The real world is a-causal at the subatomic level. That is an established fact.

I *see* your point. I just don't find it to be a *valid* point. In fact, I think it is one of the many grave mistakes that you make.