…and this is a 
Reading this post will damage your brain
Category: Creationism • Godlessness
Posted on: October 11, 2007 4:30 PM, by PZ Myers
John is right. This is in the running for the dumbest theist argument ever.
The atheist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don't believe in God." But this is no different than the critic of air saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don't believe in air." This isn't a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it's because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that's the point. It's because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
It's from Answers in Genesis, so what else can you expect?
Politics
Comments
God makes your brain melt into goo.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 11, 2007 4:49 PM
Ok,I admit that I'm a theist.But, even I admit that the
the statement was worthless.
As an aside, that silly post made me think of a new unit. Let's name it as the aiger and define it as :
1 aiger = number of words you read in an AiG post before you hit a (generally non-relevant) biblical verse.
Any takers ?
Posted by: astrolieber | October 11, 2007 4:55 PM
The paragraph would have made more sense if this were the first sentence and not, as it was written, the last. It's an interesting assertion, actually: the existence of an unresolvable contradiction would pose a significant challenge to any world view, atheism included.
In this case, the argument is utterly wrong, of course, but at least it's a coherent start.
Posted by: Michael LoPrete | October 11, 2007 4:55 PM
I read this yesterday and couldn't quite get my head around it either. Apparently, because you cannot 'touch' or 'feel' the laws of logic, that are non-material and therefore non-existent to the materialist (or something like that). Fundies seem to not be aware that the ancient Greeks were trying to work out logic and ethics at least half a millennium before Christ appeared on the scene. Fundies are apparently unaware that the ancient Greeks existed and did anything at all in the realms of 'pure' thinking. They genuinely seem to believe that ethics, logic and morality all started with the semitic tribes that formed ancient Israel, and no other culture ever got round to having any discussions about these things. I wonder who they think plato, socrates and aristotle were and what they were doing?
Posted by: steven | October 11, 2007 4:56 PM
OUCH, that hurt
Posted by: terry | October 11, 2007 4:58 PM
Having spent so much time on this blog, I'll be happy to answer that question from the theist's perspective. Ahem.
Who, who, and who?
Posted by: Brownian | October 11, 2007 5:05 PM
So god has to exist so that 2+2=4. If there was not god, that simple bit id mathetical logic cannot be figured out. Big sky daddy is truly the glue that holds everything together.
Hey, that symbolic logic table is prove that god exists. God is needed so that something that mechanical can work.
Posted by: Janine | October 11, 2007 5:07 PM
The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
This is the sort of conclusion that comes from never having met a real atheist or secular Christian or anything except extreme, literalist fundamentalists. The AiG writer has no idea what the worldview of a real atheist is, so he makes up a bizzare strawman. Had the writer ever met a real atheist or even a normal person, he would have found out that we believe in this thing called a "brain" that has the power of reason built into its architecture. Brains are completely outside of the experience of the AiG writer. He has never met anyone who has one and has no reason to believe they exist. He believes that reason is a magical power that can only come from a magical being. He is more to be pitied than scorned.
Posted by: John McKay | October 11, 2007 5:09 PM
Durpy durp durp durp. *drools*
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 11, 2007 5:13 PM
I think when you clear away all the dust that the author throws into the air, you find him/her begging the question:
Our ability to reason proves god exists because we wouldn't be able to reason without god.
Posted by: fardels bear | October 11, 2007 5:13 PM
1. My best friend is Harvey the Invisible Rabbit.
2. Harvey is the cause of all rain.
3. Yesterday it rained.
4. Harvey exists.
Theism in a nutshell, AiG style.
Posted by: Martin | October 11, 2007 5:18 PM
And what about our demonstrated ability to screw up the process of reasoning? The difficulties we have with long division alone suggest that the God who granted us the abilities of reason is an incompetent bungler.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 11, 2007 5:20 PM
What about some exile/quarantine so he doesn't infect the rest of us with his retardogenic vapours?
Uh-oh. I can feel myslef geting dummer alredy! I musta bin 'fected jus' bi I red this. Plez kil mi b4 is to laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait....ksdjla skljdkfwr80uiojreqjveeeehuscvajl asdv lsdvhklsdkl wfjkl wefiop
Posted by: Brownian | October 11, 2007 5:21 PM
I've seen the argument before, that God created the laws of logic (and, we assume, mathematics). Since the laws exist independent of humanity, the argument goes, who created them other than God?
But I've also seen the question posed about whether God could make a square circle, or make two plus two equal five. And the theists' answer to this has been that God can do anything that is logically possible, and those things are illogical, so we can't expect God can do that. It's silly!
Which sort of paints them into a corner: did he create the laws of logic, or is he bound to them just like we are?
Posted by: Curt Cameron | October 11, 2007 5:22 PM
The theist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don't believe in my brain evolved." But this is no different than the critic of air saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don't believe in air." This isn't a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires an evolved brain, not a profession of belief in an evolved brain. Of course the theist can reason; it's because evolution has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic--and that's the point. It's because evolution exists that reasoning is possible. The theist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
Posted by: Tulse | October 11, 2007 5:22 PM
And what about our demonstrated ability to screw up the process of reasoning?
Mmmmmm, I don't know. Maybe
.
.
.
Satan?
Posted by: Churchlady | October 11, 2007 5:25 PM
I love the air analogy. Trap someone in a room and pump the air out. Whether they believe in air or not, they will find it impossible to breathe, and eventually, reason. If reasoning is granted by God, surely it should remain as long as God is around. If reasoning is reduced, God must have been pumped out along with the air, and parsimony would suggest that God IS air. Since God is the greatest of all things, and nitrogen is the greatest part of air, this would further suggest that God is primarily nitrogen.
This explains why too great a concentration of nitrogen in the blood, such as experienced by divers, is colloquially known as "Rapture of the deep".
Posted by: Phy | October 11, 2007 5:26 PM
Welcome to Presuppositionalism and the joys and wonders of playing TAG (Transcendental Argument for God). My understanding is that this style of argument mostly comes out of Calvinism/Presbyterianism, and while it's not taken seriously in philosophical circles, it's effective among some theists (and very confusing to nontheists who are suddenly asked to "justify reason without assuming reason or God exists").
Basically, presuppers try to place the atheist in the same position as a postmodernist or extreme skeptic who argues that "there is no truth" while assuming that it's true that "there is no truth." That's a self-contradiction, or what's sometimes called Fallacy of the Stolen Concept -- assuming what you deny, in order to deny it. And that is a fallacy -- for self-evident, basic common ground assumptions in logic or reason that can't be reduced to anything simpler.
But God's existence is not like A=A or A=/=non-A -- unless they just up and say it is because there's nothing wrong with their sense divinus.
So the argument boils down to several things. First, the bland assertion that "God's existence is self-evident and cannot be doubted." Which isn't even an argument, it's an accusation that the doubter is defective. It's also a genetic fallacy: if you deny the maker, you have no right to believe in what was made. Which doesn't follow -- a source dispute doesn't mean you can't see or use the product. And then they just throw every philosophical paradox and conundrum in the book at you, demand that you resolve them, and then claim that they are all resolved satisfactorily with "Goddidit." Which is another example of both 'tennis without a net' and God of the Gaps.
It's just a neverending cornucopia of crap.
Posted by: Sastra | October 11, 2007 5:30 PM
The last sentence of the AiG piece ...
"On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience."
Having just read the preceding N paragraphs of AiG drivel, I suspect the author wrote this sentence first, then spent the rest of the time making up what passes in his mind for logic to fit his pre-determined conclusion. Nothing new there then.
Posted by: Kampar | October 11, 2007 5:32 PM
It's because doofuses exist that God is possible.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 11, 2007 5:34 PM
Profession of belief in God makes your brain melt into goo, surely?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 11, 2007 5:44 PM
This AiG argument must be some kind of desperation tactic by theists to stop an argument they are loosing by sounding so batshit nuts they stun they other side in silence by saying something utterly ridiculous. "God is logic" as in the God in The Bible, that's funny.
Posted by: Bob L | October 11, 2007 5:46 PM
There's dumber ways to spell this out, like here: http://proofthatgodexists.org/
I could have lived without laws of physics, logic or morality, but how dare they take maths away from me!
Posted by: halcy | October 11, 2007 5:46 PM
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 5:50 PM
If I've got it right, by the same argument, the atheist created God. This is very complex theology.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 11, 2007 5:56 PM
You know, when I was younger I used it think it was fun to damage my brain. Sometimes, even now, I still do.
But that? Damage; no fun.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 11, 2007 6:00 PM
Dr. Lisle, "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent [essay] were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having [read] it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Posted by: Eisnel | October 11, 2007 6:01 PM
If only we could make stupidity more painful...
Posted by: Dave | October 11, 2007 6:02 PM
No, God does it; he's an evil son of a bitch. ;- D
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 11, 2007 6:10 PM
"The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason."
Better than not being able to reason at all.
Posted by: salient | October 11, 2007 6:11 PM
From what I've read so far in "Philosophy 101" ("General Education" requirement that I'm having to go back and take), Descartes seems to have done pretty much the same argument in places...
Posted by: SMC | October 11, 2007 6:21 PM
Heck, why do we have to choose?
Posted by: Warren | October 11, 2007 6:36 PM
I would ask if the laws of logic are logical because God thinks them, or if God thinks them because they are logical. If they are logical because God thinks them, then they are purely subjective and could have been otherwise. If God thinks them because they are logical, then logic exists apart from God, and God is unnecessary to logic. Easy to refute? Bite me, Christer.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 11, 2007 6:40 PM
What the crap! That proofthatgodexists.org is such an exercise in false dichotomies, it's ridiculous. Just because one thinks that rape and child molesting are wrong, means that all morals are absolute? I don't think so. Does that mean that the "Thou shall not kill" is absolute? Seems to me like that one is always pretty flexible one for the religious...
Posted by: schpatz | October 11, 2007 6:41 PM
Brain! Brain! Must have brain!
Ow ow ow!
I just spent 45 of the most wasted minutes of my life (and I am measuring against things I did when I was much younger and much less aware of things like "Actions have consequences") I have come to the conclusion that it would have made much more sense for me to simply bash my head against a concrete pillar. At least THAT would stop hurting. Eventually.
That ... Essay would be shot to flames in any self-respecting logic course, and offers evidence that even a PhD (or MD - I have no idea what Dr Lisle is - if he even IS a real Dr. Maybe in Basketweaving.) can be stacked up to the eyeballs in equine solid waste. If work like this earned him his doctorate, we need to find out what school awarded it, and avoid it at all costs.
I wish I could successfully argue from a conclusion like this when I'm dealing with the IRS.
Posted by: Lurchgs | October 11, 2007 6:45 PM
Unfortunately, the argument will work for good Christians, anyways. The first two introductory paragraphs are the only part most true believers will understand, and after that they will simply become robots for Jesus, uttering "Yes, yes, yes..." as their eyes glaze over and they gladly leave all that complicated philosophical stuff for the more "intellectually" minded among them. After all, such knowledge is not really necessary for --Praising Jesus!
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 11, 2007 6:49 PM
Dear Dr. Jason Lisle:
"Likewise, logical reasoning requires God,"
This is where you assumed your conclusion. Just FYI.
--Brendan S
Posted by: Brendan S | October 11, 2007 6:52 PM
I think that the guys behind proofwhygodexists.org need urgent neck surgery. With a guillotine.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeessssh what bs !
Posted by: astrolieber | October 11, 2007 6:56 PM
you gotta love the man's "references":
Moreover...
Dr. Bahnsen most feared? most laughed at, more like.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 6:58 PM
SMC (#31):
Yes and no. Descartes does argue that if we aren't certain about God's existence, then we can't trust even our "clear and distinct" reasoning -- in which I take it he includes logic.
But the linked argument goes beyond that to argue that we can know it to be impossible for there to be reliable logic without a god. I don't think Descartes made this further claim.
from linked page:
One hears versions of this argument quite often, and I think it is a challenge that (we) materialists shouldn't ignore: we need to articulate what materialism is (and isn't) because there are many (otherwise intelligent) people, even in academia, who misunderstand the commitments of the materialist. And it is a real challenge to offer a consistent formulation of materialism or physicalism. It's easy enough to deny the existence of ghosts, but what is one to say about laws, morals, etc.?
Trying to work this difficulty into an argument for theism obviously fails, however, for it rests on a false dichotomy (the ever-present creationist argument from ignorance -- bolstered by their seemingly endless ignorance . . .). The theist sees god as the objective source for morality, standards of reasoning, laws of science, etc. Then when one denies the existence of this (supposedly) objective source, they claim (and presumably believe) that the only other option is the adoption of a subjectivism or conventionalism in all these areas.
But clearly there are other options: we should believe that the objective world (sans god) grounds all these facts objectively. But I do think it's a real challenge to understand exactly how this works.
Posted by: Physicalist | October 11, 2007 7:19 PM
The argument is a particularly tight circle.
One might liken it to a sphincter.
Posted by: Denis Loubet | October 11, 2007 7:20 PM
"The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason."
No, that would be: "...within Jason Lisle's worldview, the atheist cannot account for his ability to reason."
And that would be because, regardless of God's existence or not, Jason Lisle cannot reason.
Posted by: David Harmon | October 11, 2007 7:22 PM
Whoops, convention error: I used double-quotes instead of italics for the quote proper. Dang, and this after I've been trying to get consistent about italics vs. boldface...
And Denis Loubet, I am so stealing that!
Posted by: David Harmon | October 11, 2007 7:25 PM
It used to be painful, Dave. But now, everything comes with a damned warning label on it to protect the stupids.
Posted by: Dan | October 11, 2007 7:35 PM
Isn't it cute when two-year olds type at a keyboard like mommy and daddy?
Posted by: Larry | October 11, 2007 7:35 PM
Hi SMC,
Although Descartes' arguments have the same sort of question-begging/trickery feel, he really doesn't give any argument like the one given here. You may want to go back and look a little closer before your 101 exam.
Of course, his arguments are pretty much just as crappy.
Posted by: Dustin | October 11, 2007 7:39 PM
Why should I burden my beautiful mind with anything from AiG?
Posted by: True Bob | October 11, 2007 7:41 PM
I got the biggest chuckle out of the classification of the original essay on the AiG site as "semi-technical". Honestly, they're doing our work for us.
Posted by: Jimi | October 11, 2007 7:41 PM
LOL! What a great thread! "Retardogenic vapours"... ROTFL!
fardels bear, you are right. Check out the original thread.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 11, 2007 7:49 PM
"semi-technical"="hooey"
Posted by: True Bob | October 11, 2007 7:49 PM
"Semi-technical"... LOL!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 11, 2007 7:51 PM
I want those neurons back!
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | October 11, 2007 7:56 PM
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force...as if millions of neurons suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
Posted by: gsb | October 11, 2007 8:05 PM
IIRC, Jason Lisle has a Ph.D in astrophysics from Harvard.
It is a bit of a mystery what he is doing hanging around with AIG writing nonsense.
Posted by: raven | October 11, 2007 8:05 PM
You know that scene in Scanners? Yeah, that's the rough effect of AiG on reasoning people.
Posted by: Midwestern Gent | October 11, 2007 8:05 PM
"How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?."
This shows two common mistakes in theist reasoning. The first flaw in reasoning is to assume that the presence or absence of a supernatural being should have any bearing on the existence or non-existence of laws of logic or laws of mathematics or even (hypothetical) laws of morality.
The second flaw is called 'reification' - to assume that abstractions have concrete form. This leads to bizarre conclusions such as that mathematical or logical laws can't exist in a purely material universe. Something can be both true and also abstract.
Posted by: Steve99 | October 11, 2007 8:05 PM
"Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute."
OK, then stop blathering on with nonsense like this and do it.
Posted by: Dahan | October 11, 2007 8:08 PM
I see. There are other applications.
The atheist uses English to say words, words that are in many tenses. How can this be? This is self-contradiction. but a Christian can respond because he knows that God speaks English.
Quod erat demonstratum... that this is really, painfully stupid stuff
I suppose that no one has ever pointed out to this man the pre-Christian origins of writings on logic. What a rabid, deluded fool.
Posted by: brandon | October 11, 2007 8:30 PM
Owww....
Posted by: G | October 11, 2007 8:42 PM
Denis Loubet #41 says, "The argument is a particularly tight circle. One might liken it to a sphincter."
Indeed. Any tighter and he could have dispensed with the "argument" (or semblance thereof) altogether, and merely piped out through a purple point, "God exists because I just said so" and said as much. Circularity reduced to singularity.
Actually, he doesn't even need the "reason" except to put a certain flourish to it in the dressing.
This wallpaper-pattern method of "thinking" is tedious in the extreme. It comes from endless rote recitation of prepared prayers and passages from scripture. Its a stutter-storm of the mind expending a great deal of effort that goes nowhere. The APPEARANCE of substance is what's important...religious observance is full of it. Logic and rational critique just muck up the desired preordained pattern; these things are therefore wicked impurities in the crystalline lattice of faith.
But, like the illiterate medieval copyist monk who can't understand what he's "illuminating", doesn't the result look pretty?
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | October 11, 2007 8:53 PM
Ah, I've had a really crappy day and this post gave me a much-needed laugh.
Posted by: Karey | October 11, 2007 8:59 PM
Can someone please explain to me how I wound up in the corner playing with a ball of blue yarn after reading that gibberish on the AiG site?
Oh look! A monkey!
Posted by: Dan | October 11, 2007 9:04 PM
The phrase "I think, therefore Jesus is Lord!" joins other phrases, such as "DNA is hard, therefore Jesus is Lord!", in the armory of right-minded fundamentalists everywhere.
Posted by: mark | October 11, 2007 9:08 PM
I keep trying to read it, but every time I read this:
I become illiterate. I tthink itz a dfens mekanzim. i haf to go li duwn befor i lah gha ieiofn, shour dlgkj;o.
Posted by: Dustin | October 11, 2007 9:18 PM
So I wonder if AiG misses the irony that their God fails with this argument. According to their logic God despises reason in humans.
Posted by: Bob L | October 11, 2007 9:25 PM
Ok, let's see if I'm getting this right:
One must believe in an unseeable, impalpable deity because there exists an unseeable, impalpable gas ?
Okay... so.. Cogito Ergo Deus ?
My brain hurts. Me Go now.
Posted by: DLC | October 11, 2007 9:38 PM
A hypothetical "critic of air" would claim that he was breathing in something other than air -- just as the atheist claims that reason is not dependent on God. The difference is that in the first case a scientist would be able to explain and demonstrate how air is different than whatever the heck the air-critic thinks he is breathing, show him air, show him the other stuff, and persuade a reasonable air-critic to change his mind.
In the second case, the presuppositional apologist would dismiss any other theories on reason as "inadequate" and simply state the analogy over again, so that the atheist understands that not believing in God is just like not believing in air. In the one case, demonstration by science. In the other case, philosophical sophistry and browbeating.
Bad analogy. Oh yes.
Posted by: Sastra | October 11, 2007 10:33 PM
people! people!
get a grip.
Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist and since God is the greatest thing, then he has to exist.
get it?
sheesh
Posted by: Kevin | October 11, 2007 10:50 PM
OK, I didn't go look at the article itself, just because I re-read that snippet several times and STILL couldn't figure out how the heck it was supposed to make sense. I mean, if someone who doesn't believe in god can't reason, then wouldn't someone who doesn't believe in air be unable to breathe? If that were true, it might be kind of fun to not believe in gravity and be able to fly, I think. If the ability to reason comes from the existence of god and not the belief, and the ability to breathe comes from the existence of air and not the belief in it, then the ability to be abducted by aliens comes from the existence of aliens, not the belief in them. And the ability to be a brainwashed idiot comes from the existence of brainwashing, not from the belief in it. Wait, I think I'm starting to get it. . .
Posted by: Alison | October 11, 2007 10:50 PM
Curt Cameron: Which may have been why the theist (but non Christian) Descartes thought god COULD have made 2+2=5. (For those wanting a reference, contact me off site and I'll look it up. I think it is in the Discourse on Method.)
Sastra: "not taken seriously in philosophical circles". Except by Alvin Plantinga, of course. For the reason, see the Philosophical Lexicon.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | October 11, 2007 10:55 PM
I'm surprised so many people here seem to have never heard a transcendental/presuppositionalist/Van Tillian argument like this one before. C'mon atheists! Get with the program! You can't call yourself a True Atheist® unless you're versed in Theistic Apologetics 101. It's a 1 unit General Ed class, and last I heard, it's a small GPA booster, so don't take it Pass/Fail.
First homework assignment: Read up on Cornelius Van Til.
Posted by: AL | October 11, 2007 10:59 PM
"The phrase "I think, therefore Jesus is Lord!" joins other phrases...."
Cogito, ergo Jesus.
Posted by: AL | October 11, 2007 11:04 PM
Alison, you seem to have read it incorrectly; he is saying that a person who doesn't believe in god can reason, but only because god gave him that abilitiy, whether or not he believes in god. Which still doesn't make any sense, for reasons already provided.
Posted by: J Myers | October 11, 2007 11:08 PM
Keith, the Dutch and their pressup BS... is there any reason we should take Alvin Plantinga (and his 'evolutionary arguement against naturalism') seriously?
Posted by: J Myers | October 11, 2007 11:14 PM
You've got to wonder if creationists are this irrational in all areas of their lives and if they are how do they operate in the real world. Hard to fathom.
Posted by: S. Fisher | October 11, 2007 11:16 PM
The article makes light of my fellow air skeptics and our thankless crusade against breatharians.
Posted by: Ex-drone | October 11, 2007 11:22 PM
According to their logic God despises reason in humans.
why, I think you've nailed it right on the head!
that does seem to be exactly what they've been trying to tell us all these years.
unfortunately, they've abandoned reason and logic to such an extent, that they simply appear unable to communicate in a way that most reasoned persons can understand.
that's just a guess, of course, since I can't make heads or tails of what the hell they are gibbering about myself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2007 11:28 PM
"The article makes light of my fellow air skeptics and our thankless crusade against breatharians." -Ex-Drone-
Priceless!
Posted by: Dahan | October 11, 2007 11:36 PM
Sometimes, I wish atheism was like Zen, so I could just hit these people with a stick until they enlightened.
Posted by: NinjaDebugger | October 11, 2007 11:59 PM
Well, the "ultimate" question, if you want to call it that, is why is there anything at all as opposed to nothing. As #3 says, it's a legitimate question to ask. However, as it stands, "because it is" is currently a far more satisfactory answer than anything else which can be proffered, including "god did it."
Posted by: H. Humbert | October 11, 2007 11:59 PM
Dead. On.
I agree completely and thought of that too, many times. The laws of nature are subjective and relative compared to an absolute deity. Otherwise, if they are absolute irrespective of the deity, that deity is not absolute. TO say that the Deity IS those laws, then you don't have a deity. You have laws.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | October 12, 2007 12:05 AM
Al (# 71):
Some of us are new to the program. I'll try to get to the homework assignment, but my other classes have papers and midterms coming up . . . (Any chance I could get an extension . . . ?)
Posted by: Physicalist | October 12, 2007 12:09 AM
Is it just me or does this line of reasoning words strung together remind you of the philosophical concept of "universals vs particulars" - as in, that there has to be a place storing the pure, universal version of everything, including logic? It's like they're saying that the color RED is proof of the immaterial, because red isn't made of anything.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | October 12, 2007 12:10 AM
Ichthyic @ that's just a guess, of course, since I can't make heads or tails of what the hell they are gibbering about myself.
My read of it is it can be summed up as "Since we can prove God doesn't exist, it proves God does exists" which proves this Van Til fellow as a BS artist with big brass ones.
Posted by: Bob L | October 12, 2007 12:16 AM
"Since we can prove God doesn't exist, it proves God does exists"
that reminds me a bit of how the babelfish disproved god's existence in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 12, 2007 12:29 AM
Al (#71), it's so absurd, people can be excused for not being familiar with it. For those who've never waded through this particular heap of theological manure, read about presuppositional apologetics on wikipedia. Here's my favorite line:
They call this an argument? They simply define reality and god such that their Xian god must exist; therefore, the Xian god exists.. and any objection you raise proves it (because they say so). Well, glad we finally managed to settle that one--wasn't that easy? *brain melts*Posted by: J Myers | October 12, 2007 12:56 AM
I sheel foor that we all -- er -- most steeply rebut the defensible, though, I trust, lavatory, Aspasia which gleams to have selected our redeemed inspector this deceiving. It would -- ah -- be shark, very shark, from anyone's debenture . . . .
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 12, 2007 12:57 AM
Sure, it's a really dumb argument, but a bit like Al in #71, I don't see it as particularly new or surprising. It seems to me just a variation on the oft-used "X can't exist without God, X does exist, therefore God." With the first of those three statements simply assumed without any evidence. "Morality" is the most frequent X used, and that claim has been discussed here plenty already.
Sure makes for a fun thread, though.
Posted by: MPW | October 12, 2007 12:59 AM
It's been tried, actually... and we know how that turned out ;-)
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 12, 2007 1:02 AM
Aiieeee! Teh brain damage, teh brain damage...
Posted by: MTran | October 12, 2007 1:05 AM
Re; 23.
Thank you, Halcy. I just had to check out that link. I am not sure if it was more stupid than the 'god is logic' argument but the combination of the two did not do me much good. I love how rape and child molestation being wrong (As examples of absolute moral good) are conflated to the realm of science, math and logic. While I will agree that rape and child molestation are wrong, it is not the category as algebra. (Yes, I know how strange that last sentence is.)
Posted by: Janine | October 12, 2007 1:05 AM
Isn't this AiG thing a confused attempt at narrowing the "argument" from consciousness? (Can't recall who that one is attributed to.)
I don't think it's quite as brain spinningly goofy as Anselm's ontological "argument".
Close enough, though. It (still) burns...
How do these people survive such devastating brain trauma?
Posted by: MTran | October 12, 2007 1:35 AM