Theism's fatal flaw
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 04:13 AM)CleverUsername Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 02:19 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Come to think of it, why doesn't Satan just make deals with everyone when they are an impressionable child? Is that against the Demi god rule book?

He does! Haven't you heard of all the young Harry Potter fans who sold their souls for magic powers, and all the similar incidents with other franchises? Why else would Satan make all this evil, demonic children's entertainment? Hobo

Oh, how could I forget about that. I still have yet to watch that because I was forbidden as a child to watch it for that exact reason (not even joking).

Although, I meant in a more straightforward way, like:
Deble: "Hey kid, want a new bike? Just sign here and it's yours forever"
*kid signs his soul over to the deble forever*
-repeat per child-

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 01:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is a fundamental flaw in theism that I believe is inescapable and insurmountable.

Typically when dealing with a theist I will ask him or her to name their primaries, name the fundamental starting point of their world view. After all if the starting point can be shown to be false then the whole thing comes crashing down.

Almost invariably they will say either "God" or the words found in the Bible. I will then usually point out that this is an improper starting point.

A starting point must be undeniably true, since the rest of the hierarchy of the worldview is dependent upon its truth. If the starting point is at all questionable, then the rest will be at best questionable. "God" is not undeniably true. I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true. So "God" as a starting point fails in this regard.

A proper starting point to knowledge must be fundamental. It must be conceptually irreducible. That means that it does not rest on any antecedent concepts. For if it does then it is not a starting point, one of the concepts it rests on is the staring point and we would have to discover which one is the most fundamental and that one would be the true starting point and we would have to make sure that this was true. In other words we can't begin our knowledge in mid stream if we want to be sure it is true. The concept "God" is not conceptually irreducible and so is not a proper starting point. It rests on antecedent concepts. It is even worse if the Bible is the starting point since it is a book consisting of Thousands of different words, each standing for a concept. So "God" fails in this regard.

A proper starting point, being conceptually irreducible and not inferred from prior knowledge must be something that is directly observable. It must be perceptually self evident. Obviously God fails this test in spades.

A proper starting point must be universal. It must be implicit in all subsequent knowledge. But we all learn many things before we ever hear about God. Since "God" is not conceptually irreducible then the concepts which must necessarily precede it do not assume its truth. Therefore "God" also fails in this respect.

But it is even worse. "God" is not only not directly observable but it is also not logically inferred from any concretes. When we look at the world we see only natural, finite, corruptible, mutable and imperfect things. We can't logically infer a supernatural, infinite, incorruptible, immutable and perfect thing. Inference from the natural can only lead to more of the natural.

But it gets still worse for the God belief. Not only is the starting point of the theistic worldview improper and logically uninferrable, but the only alternative we have if we want to apprehend "God" is to imagine it. We can't see it, taste it, hear it, touch it or smell it. We have to imagine it. It is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. Imaginary things are not real and do not actually exist.

So this, I think is a fatal flaw. Theism begins with a starting point which is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. What do you all think?

A FATAL flaw? Definitely not. Theism is still very much alive and kicking.

But it's a true enough complaint. Good luck getting them to admit it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 02:50 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 01:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is a fundamental flaw in theism that I believe is inescapable and insurmountable.

Typically when dealing with a theist I will ask him or her to name their primaries, name the fundamental starting point of their world view. After all if the starting point can be shown to be false then the whole thing comes crashing down.

Almost invariably they will say either "God" or the words found in the Bible. I will then usually point out that this is an improper starting point.

A starting point must be undeniably true, since the rest of the hierarchy of the worldview is dependent upon its truth. If the starting point is at all questionable, then the rest will be at best questionable. "God" is not undeniably true. I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true. So "God" as a starting point fails in this regard.

A proper starting point to knowledge must be fundamental. It must be conceptually irreducible. That means that it does not rest on any antecedent concepts. For if it does then it is not a starting point, one of the concepts it rests on is the staring point and we would have to discover which one is the most fundamental and that one would be the true starting point and we would have to make sure that this was true. In other words we can't begin our knowledge in mid stream if we want to be sure it is true. The concept "God" is not conceptually irreducible and so is not a proper starting point. It rests on antecedent concepts. It is even worse if the Bible is the starting point since it is a book consisting of Thousands of different words, each standing for a concept. So "God" fails in this regard.

A proper starting point, being conceptually irreducible and not inferred from prior knowledge must be something that is directly observable. It must be perceptually self evident. Obviously God fails this test in spades.

A proper starting point must be universal. It must be implicit in all subsequent knowledge. But we all learn many things before we ever hear about God. Since "God" is not conceptually irreducible then the concepts which must necessarily precede it do not assume its truth. Therefore "God" also fails in this respect.

But it is even worse. "God" is not only not directly observable but it is also not logically inferred from any concretes. When we look at the world we see only natural, finite, corruptible, mutable and imperfect things. We can't logically infer a supernatural, infinite, incorruptible, immutable and perfect thing. Inference from the natural can only lead to more of the natural.

But it gets still worse for the God belief. Not only is the starting point of the theistic worldview improper and logically uninferrable, but the only alternative we have if we want to apprehend "God" is to imagine it. We can't see it, taste it, hear it, touch it or smell it. We have to imagine it. It is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. Imaginary things are not real and do not actually exist.

So this, I think is a fatal flaw. Theism begins with a starting point which is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. What do you all think?

A FATAL flaw? Definitely not. Theism is still very much alive and kicking.

But it's a true enough complaint. Good luck getting them to admit it.

It is a fatal logical flaw, but most theists are not logical with respect to their religious beliefs. Theism is alive and kicking, but maybe there is hope that reason will prevail (look at the Scandinavian countries).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 03:07 PM)Iñigo Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 02:50 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  A FATAL flaw? Definitely not. Theism is still very much alive and kicking.

But it's a true enough complaint. Good luck getting them to admit it.

It is a fatal logical flaw, but most theists are not logical with respect to their religious beliefs. Theism is alive and kicking, but maybe there is hope that reason will prevail (look at the Scandinavian countries).

Not just a logical flaw. Their starting point of knowledge is demonstrably false. It is a problem of metaphysics and epistemology.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 03:21 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 03:07 PM)Iñigo Wrote:  It is a fatal logical flaw, but most theists are not logical with respect to their religious beliefs. Theism is alive and kicking, but maybe there is hope that reason will prevail (look at the Scandinavian countries).

Not just a logical flaw. Their starting point of knowledge is demonstrably false. It is a problem of metaphysics and epistemology.

True enough, both of you, but I'm trying to emphasize the point that it doesn't MATTER whether their logic is flawed. They're still here. Pointing out flaws in logic is not generally an effective approach, except with those who are already questioning and moving away from a theistic mindset.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
Scotsman,

With your permission, I would like to copy and paste this on another message board I frequent. I promise I won't take credit for it, but I just loved the original post and there are some uppity Christian's who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are that I want to see them wrap their nuggets around this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 12:09 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Oh, how could I forget about that. I still have yet to watch that because I was forbidden as a child to watch it for that exact reason (not even joking).

Although, I meant in a more straightforward way, like:
Deble: "Hey kid, want a new bike? Just sign here and it's yours forever"
*kid signs his soul over to the deble forever*
-repeat per child-

Rent, or get on Netflix. It's a fun series of movies. The last few get a bit dark - but it's still really worth a look....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 01:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is a fundamental flaw in theism that I believe is inescapable and insurmountable.

Typically when dealing with a theist I will ask him or her to name their primaries, name the fundamental starting point of their world view. After all if the starting point can be shown to be false then the whole thing comes crashing down.

Almost invariably they will say either "God" or the words found in the Bible. I will then usually point out that this is an improper starting point.

A starting point must be undeniably true, since the rest of the hierarchy of the worldview is dependent upon its truth. If the starting point is at all questionable, then the rest will be at best questionable. "God" is not undeniably true. I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true. So "God" as a starting point fails in this regard.

A proper starting point to knowledge must be fundamental. It must be conceptually irreducible. That means that it does not rest on any antecedent concepts. For if it does then it is not a starting point, one of the concepts it rests on is the staring point and we would have to discover which one is the most fundamental and that one would be the true starting point and we would have to make sure that this was true. In other words we can't begin our knowledge in mid stream if we want to be sure it is true. The concept "God" is not conceptually irreducible and so is not a proper starting point. It rests on antecedent concepts. It is even worse if the Bible is the starting point since it is a book consisting of Thousands of different words, each standing for a concept. So "God" fails in this regard.

A proper starting point, being conceptually irreducible and not inferred from prior knowledge must be something that is directly observable. It must be perceptually self evident. Obviously God fails this test in spades.

A proper starting point must be universal. It must be implicit in all subsequent knowledge. But we all learn many things before we ever hear about God. Since "God" is not conceptually irreducible then the concepts which must necessarily precede it do not assume its truth. Therefore "God" also fails in this respect.

But it is even worse. "God" is not only not directly observable but it is also not logically inferred from any concretes. When we look at the world we see only natural, finite, corruptible, mutable and imperfect things. We can't logically infer a supernatural, infinite, incorruptible, immutable and perfect thing. Inference from the natural can only lead to more of the natural.

But it gets still worse for the God belief. Not only is the starting point of the theistic worldview improper and logically uninferrable, but the only alternative we have if we want to apprehend "God" is to imagine it. We can't see it, taste it, hear it, touch it or smell it. We have to imagine it. It is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. Imaginary things are not real and do not actually exist.

So this, I think is a fatal flaw. Theism begins with a starting point which is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. What do you all think?

What is YOUR "universal, conceptually irreducible and not inferred from prior knowledge something that is directly observable"... what is YOUR starting point? I'll put God and the Bible to the side to arrive there with you.

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
Great post! Honestly, I don't know if I've ever really considered what my irreducible starting point would be, at least not in the way you described it. You've definitely given me something to think about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: Theism's fatal flaw
(12-02-2015 02:50 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 01:50 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is a fundamental flaw in theism that I believe is inescapable and insurmountable.

Typically when dealing with a theist I will ask him or her to name their primaries, name the fundamental starting point of their world view. After all if the starting point can be shown to be false then the whole thing comes crashing down.

Almost invariably they will say either "God" or the words found in the Bible. I will then usually point out that this is an improper starting point.

A starting point must be undeniably true, since the rest of the hierarchy of the worldview is dependent upon its truth. If the starting point is at all questionable, then the rest will be at best questionable. "God" is not undeniably true. I can deny the existence of God without contradicting a single fact that is known to be true. So "God" as a starting point fails in this regard.

A proper starting point to knowledge must be fundamental. It must be conceptually irreducible. That means that it does not rest on any antecedent concepts. For if it does then it is not a starting point, one of the concepts it rests on is the staring point and we would have to discover which one is the most fundamental and that one would be the true starting point and we would have to make sure that this was true. In other words we can't begin our knowledge in mid stream if we want to be sure it is true. The concept "God" is not conceptually irreducible and so is not a proper starting point. It rests on antecedent concepts. It is even worse if the Bible is the starting point since it is a book consisting of Thousands of different words, each standing for a concept. So "God" fails in this regard.

A proper starting point, being conceptually irreducible and not inferred from prior knowledge must be something that is directly observable. It must be perceptually self evident. Obviously God fails this test in spades.

A proper starting point must be universal. It must be implicit in all subsequent knowledge. But we all learn many things before we ever hear about God. Since "God" is not conceptually irreducible then the concepts which must necessarily precede it do not assume its truth. Therefore "God" also fails in this respect.

But it is even worse. "God" is not only not directly observable but it is also not logically inferred from any concretes. When we look at the world we see only natural, finite, corruptible, mutable and imperfect things. We can't logically infer a supernatural, infinite, incorruptible, immutable and perfect thing. Inference from the natural can only lead to more of the natural.

But it gets still worse for the God belief. Not only is the starting point of the theistic worldview improper and logically uninferrable, but the only alternative we have if we want to apprehend "God" is to imagine it. We can't see it, taste it, hear it, touch it or smell it. We have to imagine it. It is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. Imaginary things are not real and do not actually exist.

So this, I think is a fatal flaw. Theism begins with a starting point which is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary. What do you all think?

A FATAL flaw? Definitely not. Theism is still very much alive and kicking.

But it's a true enough complaint. Good luck getting them to admit it.


The fact that theism is alive and kicking is really irrelevant. The flaw I have pointed out is real and it is insurmountable. It's true whether theists recognize it or not. That's the thing about the truth. It's true independent of anyone's feelings, evasions, rejections or wishes. I don't need to get them to admit it. I'm just interested in the truth.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: