God

Posted this as a reply to a friend- It was originally a reply to on old professor. It is in a premature state but the overall point is here. Please read with this information in mind.




God

The philosophers God, aptly named God 4.0, with the four characteristics (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent) attributed to it’s definition is an easily refuted God (I’ll explain why in a moment). These attributes are the same basic attributes defining God within most of today's theistic texts. So if arguments for God 4.0 are deemed logical, then, at least on a fundamental level, there would have to be some plausibility given to the accuracy of at least one of the texts. Likewise, if it is determined that God 4.0, the foundation for all these textual deities, is impossible, then all the Gods of all the texts are also impossible. If determining any single attribute contradictory, then this also deems all the Gods of text, false. Determining one attribute contradictory does not, however, disprove a God entirely, simply a God with that attribute. But as I am about to show, all the attributes are easily refuted. 

A tricky question

I once answered this question:

If you don't believe in choices, and that everything is determined, then why do you try to convince others to "choose" that there is no such thing as choice?

and I felt my answer to be accurate but long winded, and not as to the point as I would have liked, so this a a more clear follow up attempt.  

Blame

(I encourage commenting and debates, however, please read the entire article first to make sure I have not already addressed your proposed issue. Thanks.)

BLAME

The strangest things have been occurring recently: Many whom agree with me on the subject of free will, disagree with my claim that responsibility is an illusion administered by those who wish to feel justified when they blame and seek retribution. (which, oddly enough, there is scientific evidence for)

I find this half agreement to be completely bizarre, because to admit there is no free will removes any accountability. The only conclusion I can draw from the outcome is that those claiming they agree that there is no free will are either lying or they do not truly understand what "no free will" means.

So, this article is to make a point. It is to explain why there is no free will and why this proves there is no accountability. I will also argue against the ever-disappointing philosophical stance called compatibilism.

Probability

It is true that there is probability, but not in the way most think. It is not some actual thing that has some effect, rather it is an estimation of our ignorance. It is a neat trick to make sense out of events that happen too fast and contain too many variables to be calculated accurately. A good example is weather prediction. Everything is presented in terms of probability (eg. chance of rain), however, in actuality it either rains or it doesn't. There is wind or there is no wind. Still, the variables involved in predicting such complex events are innumerable. The moon, the rotation of the earth, the time of year, our angle to the sun, the temperature of every molecule of our atmosphere, an accurate count of the molecules of our atmosphere, topography, emissions, animal activity, water currents, water temperatures, and so on. With such a daunting number of variables, and the challenge each present, it makes sense to have probability sciences to help us understand such events, at least to some degree.

Why I'm a 7 on Dawkins' Atheist Scale.

First, it should be noted, for those who do not know, The Dawkins' Scale is a measurement of belief or disbelief in god (see image to the right). Dawkins himself claims to be a 6.9. I, as the title suggests, am a very solid 7. It is unusual for someone in the science field to pick something with certainty. For accuracy, most scientist make approximations accounting for estimated uncertainty. But not all things have any uncertainty that should be accounted for. An example I'm fond of is: There is no such thing as a married bachelor. This is easy enough to see: to be a bachelor means to be unmarried. This requires no estimation for uncertainty, and I am going to attempt to prove that the idea of god does not require it either.

Atheism

ἄθεος

Upon being asked the question of  "Why are you an atheist?" I find that there are too many reasons and yet only one reason...

I crave the truth. 

This, however, is not quite to the point for those who ask. When asked by a theist, who finds the very idea of godlessness so alien that growing a third eye seems like a mundane everyday activity, this could never make sense. The "truth" to theists, words of scripture, is in direct contradiction with scientific and objective truth, but they believe the words of scripture are the truth, so actual objective truth seems false. More so it must be false, or the purposes they have ingrained into their existences become invalid, and by association, so does their existence. A theist cannot accept or grasp this explanation in the same way a bachelor cannot be married. To understand this explanation would mean to be atheist.

The only way to answer then, is to challenge, and this becomes an endless torrent of logic, and facts, and displayed doctrine contradictions and logical failings, and so on. Some theist attempt to push back with the anger of an annoyed child who has his hands over his ears and ranting maddening gibberish in hopes to avoid absorbing even a word of truth. Others, however, try to challenge back with pseudoscience, not realizing that for them to truly understand the scientific stances on the supernatural, then they could not be theists. Not understanding that science, the study of testable explanation of the natural world, is a direct contradiction to the supernatural and, by extension, to their arguments.

Mass Media

The first thing that usually comes to mind when I think about media, news, or journalism is my old sociology professor defining anchors as "talking heads". It's a point of view that just stuck. I recall he had a great deal to say about the media, but perhaps he wouldn't rightfully be a sociology professor if he did not. The second thing that comes to mind is, unfortunately, "commentation".

Free Will

For as long as I can claim to have attempted to be a calm, collected, and objective thinker, I have been a determinist. Determinism, for those who don't know, is the philosophical position that everything is in the state that it is because, giving the conditions up to that point, it is the only state it could be in. Another way to look at it, is that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. In a nutshell, there is no such thing as free will.

Guns.

The subject of guns is sensitive. Extremely sensitive. Whoever presented the maxim, "religion and politics should not be a topic of conversation at work", forgot to add guns in there. Saying anything negative or positive about guns in any public place is almost hazardous. Rednecks from lands undefined will magically show up with every intent to "beat sense into you" at the mere utterance of distaste toward guns. While in contrast, those in opposition are likely to skip to commencing fisty cuffs for anything in favor. So despite the maxims exclusion, it seems people are better off removing the topic from "the list of things that are safe to talk about".

Subjects of Interest

Just a little insight into what I'm planning:

My hope is to attack many issues with this blog. Many are benign but many are controversial. I will try to be as objective as a subjective entity can attempt, and hopefully explain all points of view accurately. I will also give my own views and assessments on each subject with enough weight and evidence that it is hopefully unarguable. This is not, however, with hope of not being scrutinized. So, by all means, send your complaints. If there is fault, I will be happy to appeal. Being reasonable means, being able to accept logical criticism as well as being able to evolve one's thinking when new knowledge and evidence is revealed. If I feel your scrutiny or criticism is inaccurate, then I will produce a rebuttal. Argumentation, debating, and critical conversation are some of the best tools for discovering and understanding truth. 

I'm certain I will be able to come up with more issues to write about, but the list I have at the moment is as follows (probably not in this order and quite possibly more than once depending on the subject and its complexity).

1. Gun Control
2. Abortion
3. Human Rights (social)
4. Consciousness
5. Morality/Ethics
6. Scientific Experiment vs Animal Rights
7. Education
8. Food Processing and Farming
9. Religion
10. Evolution

I can already think of many more, but ten seems like a good start. Plus, considering many, like the subjects of Religion, Evolution, Education, and maybe a couple others, there will be multiple post per subject.

I hope to have the next post written soon.

Cheers

-Josh

Robots!!!

Yep, the first post is about robots, and for a huge reason. I've viewed many articles and streamed many videos with information regarding to robots of today, and of the future. Of the many are those that make notice of the decreasing mental capacity of humans who have fully immersed their lives with some device or another. An easy example, which most people can relate to, is losing the ability to recall phone numbers thanks to the contact feature on cell phones. Another, less popular example, is the loss of understanding one's position due to the use of navigational systems. I could note other negative effects of robots such as the loss of countless jobs due to the production of robot employed factories, but I would like to keep the subject focused on the consequences developed, or those that may be developed, in the brain through mankind's ever more intimate relationship with technology, and ultimately, robots.