Count the fallacies with Christopher Hitchens!

Watch Hitchens meet head-on with one of those "christian nation" living-in-my-fantasy types. (they're the worst since when you get some of them on your shoe, it takes forever to wash it off.)

I gave up counting at five fallacies; watch and be amazed at how many miles the christian got out of that presidential non-sequitur!

Proofs for the existence of God part 3

The third proof we'll look at is presented by William Lane Craig, a leading Christian apologist and philosopher. Craig is known for being as well thought out in his philosophy as he is well rehearsed in his debates. Given some of his great performances against some of the better thinkers in the Atheist movement, he has painted a bit of a target on his back – he's wrecked Hitchens, put Stenger on the ropes, and has been dodged by Dawkins. Here is a syllogism of the argument:

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
p2. The universe began to exist
c1. Therefore the universe had a cause

The argument is similar to Aquinas' proof that we looked at in a previous post, except this version goes a bit further by putting the Christian God (CG) outside of Space and Time (S/T). In putting the CG way out there, it makes the proof a bit more believable when it states that the CG was the creator of everything in the universe. After all, it's crazy to assume a being that exists inside of S/T created that S/T – everyone knows you can't exist in something you haven't built yet.

Craig start running aground because even if we granted the claim of the CG transcending our S/T, it doesn't mean that it necessarily exists outside all space and time, that's an assumption on his part, not a claim backed by our knowledge. It may be plausible that since the CG exists outside our S/T, it could have its own S/T, but William Lane Craig doesn't roll with a God that has it's own S/T, he maintains that the CG transcends every S/T – the CG is space-less and time-less – and he does so by simply asserting it as true. We have zero empirical evidence to believe this, it's another faith position.

This argument seems to have some special pleading as well, that's a common problem with these kinds of arguments, if a believer can't make the argument work, they'll just change the rules to help it along. The problem with this proof is that it grants the CG an immunity to the infinite regression while at the same time stating that nothing can be immune to the regression. Well, how logical is that?

I don't normally hear a lot of talk about this next problem, but I think it's worth considering at least; there seems to be an equivocation fallacy relating to one of the terms being used. It's not so clear in the syllogism, but if you ever hear brother Craig talk about this proof it becomes much more clear. In the early part of the proof, the word “cause” is used in the sense of coming from preexisting materials, in the same way my nephew builds his playthings from a preexisting pile of Legos. But as the argument continues, the definition of the word “cause” changes to reflect something that doesn't come from pieces preexisting. One minute we have a pile of Legos which we use to build something, and the next minute, we act as if the Lego pile never existed – I think there's something wrong there.

But that's not all, this argument has another problem: if the CG has a mind – which it must if it's making choices, taking conscious action, or otherwise exercising its own volition – then its mind must exist outside of S/T, with the rest of the God. If that's the case, it follows that we could characterize the CG's mind as being non-temporal (having no time) and non-spatial (having no space, or matter). But that's a big problem since a mind that's non-temporal (read: non-changing) is by definition non-functioning: a mind has to be allowed to change, since it has to be able to reason, will, and feel to be considered a mind, and the only way a mind can do those things is if it has time to do so. A timeless mind would get nothing done since it couldn't take in new information, it can't think about that new information, or form thoughts about what to do with it, since it doesn't have the time to do any of that. By putting the creator outside of S/T, Craig has only accomplished making a self-contradicting entity – one having a changeless mind – and entities of that variety cannot exist.

Thanks again for sticking with these longer posts, I hope some of you found it worthwhile. If you think this subject is worth hearing about, subscribe or digg it please!

Douglas Wilson

After watching "Collision" for the third time or so, I felt that Douglas Wilson did such a good job defending his faith and religion from the assault of Christopher Hitchens that I thought I should look up some more about him, and see what else he had to say about Theology. Since he did such a good job of presenting his Christian beliefs in a well read and organized way, I thought for sure I had to new reference for how a Christian can be moral. He seemed to have a clear (read: modern) idea of right and wrong -- from the stance of a humanist, or something like it.

I was wrong.

Sadly, brother Wilson seems to have a bad hangup with slavery, and gays of course. He seems to think that some of us should not be allowed to rise beyond the level of chattel slaves. He really thinks that slavery is okay, since his God has commanded it. To him, something as disgusting as slavery is cool, so long as the Magic Man says it is.

Douglas Wilson, you are wrong. Flat out, plain to see, absolutely, and commonly know to be, wrong. Not only are wrong, your view on liberty is revolting -- in the harshest meaning of the word. I would love to see you suffer, as others have, under a system as corrupt as slavery. I would love for your bulbous, swollen form to rise with the sun and work until your owners felt they've had a good share out of you. I would love for you to experience the shame and injury of having your chubby back whipped past the point of bleeding. Though I don't wish slavery on you, I wish you could get a real taste of it, just to drive the point home: your view on this matter is fucked.

I'm rarely, if ever, this harsh on a person for their views. People make mistakes in judgment, we get led down the wrong paths, blah blah -- but this goes further. Wilson says we should observe the biblical tradition on slaves because if we don't, we may give way to worse things -- like homosexuality.

...

What else can be said; Douglas is morally bankrupt, he's lost his way. Hopelessly perverted by some ancient teachings that cannot be reasonably attributed to their claimed authors. Teachings that cannot be reasonably accepted as decent. Teachings that are sufficiently evil enough to prevent them from being advocated anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line. This kind of garbage belongs in history books, and is to be looked down upon by any person with an ounce of enlightenment.

I wonder if Douglas is so far gone he also treats his wife in the biblical way? Maybe he's stoned to death a few of his own children, for being nothing more than mischievous. I wonder, when was the last time brother Wilson killed a person for not keeping the sabbath? That's in the book as well Douglas; please don't be inconsistent. If you're going to be stupid, be ALL THE WAY stupid and murder people for working on the sabbath day. You won't, of course, since you haven't yet -- but that thought is inviting isn't it? Kill a few people in the name of Jebus, be found guilty by your own admission, and be promptly remanded to a federal facility filled past the brim with other violent offenders, the vast majority of which are Christian.

Since you're there, share your thoughts on slavery -- I'm sure it would be a hit.

Hitchens does the ten commandments

Relevant? Anti-Theist content? Brother Hitchens? It's certainly worth the watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lM61aDyPg