651. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218629 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Carto pueris basia dare desiderat. Sed pueri basia Cartonis non quaerant. 'Ubi sunt pueri boni?' petivit Carto.

That'll make no sense. I've forgotton too much

652. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218622 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I'm sorry, in Wheelcocks it's:
nominative, gentive, dative, accusative, ablative, vocative.

653. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218615 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Nautae puellis rosas agricolarum dant....

654. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218614 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Was that Wheelcock's latin book Carto?

Nautae agricolas in agro vident.....

655. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218611 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 2:44 pm

kkelly, ablative refers to the heat shields on reentry vehicles that burn off and take heat away from the people inside. Like the Apollo capsules. The space shuttle on the other hand doesn't have an ablative heat shield.......:P

Stultus
Stulti
Stulto
Stultum
stulto
Stulte
Stulti
Stultorum
Stultis
Stultos
Stultis
Stulti

Oh look, I declined a second declension noun that applies to my post!

656. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218595 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Carto virum latinum in foro videt?

657. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #218292 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 6:59 am

I think you're stretching the analogy further than I intended although a fundi might suggest being gay is an absence of following God's orders.

Being gay is an identity. Being atheist is an identity. They may be identities foisted upon the bearer and not chosen. But their you go.

658. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #218276 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 6:27 am

Do you want being gay to be an identity? Or would you rather just be considered part of the normal spectrum? The reason I ask is there are some vague parallels between the way gays are discriminated against and the ways atheists are discriminated against. I don't want to pretend the similarities are great or whatever but it seems to me the gay pride movements, or the really gay Mardi Gras here in Sydney have done great things for gays being accepted. I think that's been a good thing. It would be better if being atheist (or gay) was considered normal, but we're not there yet....Perhaps it's OK to say I'm atheist and proud?
Apologies if you find the analogy in poor taste.

659. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #218261 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 6:14 am

If nothing else Steve, it's a great piece of atheist identity politics. The God Delusion made a point of telling atheists it was OK to an atheist and say to religious believers that their beliefs are a delusion or not sacred cows. PZ saying that a cracker is a cracker and he won't be threatened or told the he has a right to an opinion but not a right to express it (I've read this a few times by tolerant Catholics on his blog) and not towing the line that you must respect religious beliefs is something similar.

660. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #218227 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 5:00 am

I also think he was smart enough to bring up the Lateran council which decided the cracker was God, that was/is nothing more than an arbitrary whim of a sect, not some divine order or scriptural thingy (belivers are big on scripture). Then went on to describe atrocities committed in the name of this whim. I think many catholics would've been put back in their box then when they considered how their anger and outrage was echoing the pogroms committed in the name of cracker desecration. Or maybe I read too much into it.

661. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #218224 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 4:57 am

He proved that he's not gonna act in a way they expect. He's also good for atheist identity politics.

662. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #218209 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 4:21 am

I think PZ's post today about how nothing is sacred, question everything and the anti-climactic end the cracker received was sterling stuff.

663. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218186 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 3:27 am

This earned me a vehement Christian "Fuck You!

664. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #218181 by Brian English on July 25, 2008 at 3:15 am

Clatz, not only can you come, you can organize it. Sounds like you know how an Aussie pissup erm conference works. :)

665. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218140 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Have a good one Laurie.

666. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218123 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:34 pm

I wasn't asking you to stop Laurie. :P

667. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218121 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Laurie, shall I just make a mistake now, or wait for the inevitable?

668. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218112 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:23 pm

There's nothing Nietsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the bending of the wrist. Socrates himself was permanently pissed....

669. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218105 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:18 pm

David Hume could out consume....

670. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218101 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Laurie, that wasn't five minutes!

671. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218098 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:12 pm

TWP, the philosopher's song is a classic.

If you like philosophy, this is for you:Philosophy Football

672. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218088 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm

The gourd! Follow the gourd! It is a sign!

673. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218079 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Black Mamba, very funny. :)

674. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218053 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Laurie, my English is pretty poor. Please forgive.

675. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218052 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Laurie, the road to reality is in my possession and stubbornly resists to educate me. It's been 16 years since I attempted any math of that level. I need help.

676. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218049 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:33 pm

You are the Messiah. I should know, I've followed a few.

677. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218047 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:33 pm

And the lord did smiteth them, being naughty in his sight.

Skip a bit brother.

678. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218043 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Scot, it's how society is. Everything seems aimed at the lowest common denominator, everybody is an expert because everybody is entitled to an opinion which they believe correct and people think science is a democracy and not a meritocracy.

679. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218041 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Well, yes I'm one of those individuals. How shall we fuck off oh lord?

680. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218037 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:27 pm

The Monty Python cannon:
Monty Python's flying circus (4 seasons I think)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (movie)
The Life of Brian (movie)
The meaning of life (movie)
Live at the Hollywood bowl (says it all)
And now for something completely different

Non cannon:
Jaberwocky
Baron von Munchhausen?
Time bandits
Eric the Viking
etc....

681. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218035 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Scot, that ties back into my point about science reporters in the media.

Laurie, thank you, though I don't know why you compliment me thus....

682. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218031 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Splitters!

683. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218030 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Ta ta for now? Goldy is a ridiculous girly man. As the great Cartman spaketh: That's really gay right there

No insult intended to our posters who are happy.

684. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218024 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:15 pm

TTFN = Time to fuck off now?

685. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218015 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Another problem is the idea that there are other 'forms' of knowledge outside of the scientific/rational sense. This means everybody is an expert without having to learn anything. Science is just one way of knowing. Arggghghg!!

686. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218012 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Scot, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing....
One of my bug-bears is science reporters in the media who know even less than I do spouting false shite and all that. I think people like to pretend science is simple or easy so they can dismiss it, maybe?

687. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217997 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Well, he did seem to say he was an atheist takin' the piss above. I can't tell.

688. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217996 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Scot, there was an article about recently. That a non-expert assumes that he is as capable or more than those who are experts. As the person begins to learn the subject matter, they start to realize that they know very little about the subject and are less likely to claim superior knowledge. In my case I'd say this was true for philosophy. I thought it was a bunch of word-wankery, dismisable without too much thought. Now I have no bloody idea what they're talking about, but I realize this point. :D

689. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217992 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Scot, he's just takin' the piss. :)

690. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217955 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm

I'm blond internally, so I'd like Robert to demonstrate how the argument goes through as well. Considering that most philosophers don't give it much thought. Robert doesn't think much of David Hume (unless it was another Hume he referred to), and he's previously derided Kant, without explaining why, so perhaps Robert will demonstrate his superior philosophical knowledge, and in an easy to digest manner. That would be worth reading....

691. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217952 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:31 pm

You will notice in the piece I posted above, it like Wikipedia states axiom 4 as:

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

692. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217950 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:29 pm

I see what you're getting at Robert. As I said, my writing skills lack somewhat. :)

693. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217949 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:28 pm

You don't like Hume Robert? How strange, one of the greatest philosophers.....You must be something special.

694. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217948 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:27 pm

TWP, here's a summary from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

There is a small, but steadily growing, literature on the ontological arguments which Gödel developed in his notebooks, but which did not appear in print until well after his death. These arguments have been discussed, annotated and amended by various leading logicians: the upshot is a family of arguments with impeccable logical credentials. (Interested readers are referred to Sobel (1987), Anderson (1990), Adams (1995b), and Hazen (1999) for the history of these arguments, and for the scholarly annotations and emendations.) Here, I shall give a brief presentation of the version of the argument which is developed by Anderson, and then make some comments on that version. This discussion follows the presentation and discussion in Oppy (1996)(2000).

Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B necessarily iff A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by �" i.e., strictly implied by �" a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the listed theorems do follow from the axioms. (This point was argued in detail by Dana Scott, in lecture notes which circulated for many years and which were transcribed in Sobel 1987 and published in Sobel 2004. It is also made by Sobel, Anderson, and Adams.) So, criticisms of the argument are bound to focus on the axioms, or on the other assumptions which are required in order to construct the proof.

Some philosophers have denied the acceptability of the underlying modal logic. And some philosophers have rejected generous conceptions of properties in favour of sparse conceptions according to which only some predicates express properties. But suppose that we adopt neither of these avenues of potential criticism of the proof. What else might we say against it?

One important point to note is that no definition of the notion of "positive property" is supplied with the proof. At most, the various axioms which involve this concept can be taken to provide a partial implicit definition. If we suppose that the "positive properties" form a set, then the axioms provide us with the following information about this set:

1. If a property belongs to the set, then its negation does not belong to the set.
2. The set is closed under entailment.
3. The property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set is itself a member of the set.
4. The set has exactly the same members in all possible worlds.
5. The property of necessary existence is in the set.
6. If a property is in the set, then the property of having that property necessarily is also in the set.

On Gödel's theoretical assumptions, we can show that any set which conforms to (1) - (6) is such that the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in that set is exemplified. Gödel wants us to conclude that there is just one intuitive, theologically interesting set of properties which is such that the property of having as essential properties just the properties in that set is exemplified. But, on the one hand, what reason do we have to think that there is any theologically interesting set of properties which conforms to the Gödelian specification? And, on the other hand, what reason do we have to deny that, if there is one set of theologically interesting set of properties which conforms to the Gödelian specification, then there are many theologically threatening sets of properties which also conform to that specification?

In particular, there is some reason to think that the Gödelian ontological argument goes through just as well - or just as badly - with respect to other sets of properties (and in ways which are damaging to the original argument). Suppose that there is some set of independent properties {I, G1, G2, …} which can be used to generate the set of positive properties by closure under entailment and "necessitation". ("Independence" means: no one of the properties in the set is entailed by all the rest. "Necessitation" means: if P is in the set, then so is necessarily having P. I is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set. G1, G2, … are further properties, of which we require at least two.) Consider any proper subset of the set {G1, G2, …} �" {H1, H2, …}, say �" and define a new generating set {I*, H1, H2, …}, which I* is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the newly generated set. A "proof" parallel to that offered by Gödel "establishes" that there is a being which has as essential properties just those properties in this new set. If there are as few as 7 independent properties in the original generating set, then we shall be able to establish the existence of 720 distinct"God-like" creatures by the kind of argument which Gödel offers. (The creatures are distinct because each has a different set of essential properties.)

Even if the above considerations are sufficient to cast doubt on the credentials of Gödel's "proof", they do not pinpoint where the "proof" goes wrong. If we accept that the role of Axioms 1, 2, 4, and 6 is really just to constrain the notion of "positive property" in the right way �" or, in other words, if we suppose that Axioms 1, 2, 4, and 6 are "analytic truths" about "positive properties" �" then there is good reason for opponents of the "proof" to be sceptical about Axioms 3 and 5. Kant would not have been happy with Axiom 5; and there is at least some reason to think that whether the property of being God-like is "positive" ought to depend upon whether or not there is a God-like being.

695. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217944 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:19 pm

If I was just an atheist screwing around would you guys be pissed? You have to admit I play a good Christian though hua? Come on guys!

696. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217940 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Robert, I thought we'd already agreed that the first says:
If P then necessarily P

and the second one says

if possibly P then necessarily P.

The second one referring to possible world semantics.
I don't think this was in doubt. The only query I had the other day was that the Wikipedia example of Goedel's proof said the first, not the second. You seemed incapable of understanding this, which is probably due to my writing skills.

697. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217934 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Thank you for no attempted slight. Why don't you explain it to me? If you think I'm up to the challenge.

698. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217931 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Robert, a good day to you. Any proof of God yet? I hope you still aren't clinging to Goedel's ontological argument.

699. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217928 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Goldy, I'm a girly man too. I just like teasing you. :)

700. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #217926 by Brian English on July 24, 2008 at 6:58 pm

We can talk and come to resolutions about these topics, we just shouldn't try and hold our claims with the utmost conviction.

Be loose with your beliefs.

Once you convert to Christianity you realize that there was a reason you were liberal with your beliefs before.

Now that I have truth, the ultimate truth, I can tighten the wench, and while I am entitled to converse, I cannot ever "change" my Christianity.

It will always be there. Thats because I KNOW that I have the truth. You guys are unsure. I KNOW.