Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

Since I now have time to write a nice, high-quality blog post about nonpoint energy field theory, let’s take a look at it. You can find the logical “proof” here.

If A is only T, K and O
and if B is only T, K and O
Then A is B.
No, the logical proof is using properties T, K and O. So, we will reword it:
If A has properties T, K, and O
and if B has properties T, K and O
Then A is B
Now the fallacy is glaring. Imagine the following example:
If apple A is red
and if apple B is red
Then apple A is apple B
As you can tell, the problem exists when there are two red apples. They are clearly not the same apple just because they are red.
And further, because this “proof” uses god, it looks more like:
If god has properties T, K, O, A, and B
and if the 0th has properties T, K, and O,
Then god is the 0th dimension
In this example, I thought of A and B as answering prayers and preforming miracles respectively. Of course, you could always define away the problem by saying god doesn’t do those things but that is just another ad hoc explanation.
To further reject that possible ad hoc explanation, why call it god. Even if you fixed the fallacy, there is no reason to call the universe god when we already call the universe “the universe.”
I see no way out now. Nonpoint energy theory is dead in the water.

I’ll pray for you

Almost every atheist has had someone tell them that they will be prayed for so that they may find god. I noticed that there are a lack of good responses to a statement as simple as this. Of course, it is more of an emotional statement rather than a logical one but many theists seem to value emotions over reason.

The two responses I came up with are:

  • If there really is a magic god who answers your prayers, then why are you wasting your time praying for me. It would be much more effective to pray for world peace or something like that.
  • You’re going to waste time praying to a supernatural being asking him to make a person who doesn’t believe in him believe in him. Sounds like one of the biggest wastes of time.
And as of today I am  starting a list of people who are praying for me. I think it would be a really nice demonstration of how prayer doesn’t really work, particularly for converting atheists.

So much like myself

See a newer (and better) version of this article here: Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

I recently read a blog post “proving god” and partook in a very interesting Twitter debate about the logical proof presented by this person. Now I am sure this post will be ripped apart by the philosphical wizards that they are, but there are some logical objections I would like to make clear.

But before I get to that, I would like to explain that this person, @schicagos, is much like myself, or a post version of myself, who believed in pantheism. I once believed pantheism

Pantheism is the belief that everything is god. But why call it god? The argument was made that when you define god as “all knowing, all powerful, and all present” that you can prove his existence.

And yes, the logical proof given was a really redundant way of proving that what exists truly does exists and then assigning the label god to it. That is not productive at all.

I could call my water bottle god (sure, it isn’t all present or anything) and remove the additional definition of god but that would be excessive. We can already call the water bottle a water bottle.

This guy went out of his way to redefine everything to mean god. Having been here before, it seems to be out of denial that there is no god.

I’m sorry if my ideas are getting jumbled here, but it is hard to debate and blog at the same time. But in effort to keep this coherent, here are some of the points that have made that haven’t been properly addressed.

  • If this “god” can know things as was asserted and it knows this because it is in the state of what it knows, then a pen knows about itself because it is in its own state.
  • Why call everything god if we already call everything “everything”?
You know it is wrong when
  • It was asserted that rocks know things
  • 7 people are attacking the claim
  • The person defending the claim starts to repeat himself
  • The person defending the claim doesn’t know why to call it god
  • You just need to believe in it so it is true for you. (Kind of wondering why all the work was put into a logical proof if faith is required)

Further points will be addressed via edit or in the comments.

Understanding != Source

I recently read a horrible article filled with numerous fallacies claiming that Richard Dawkins is wrong above evolution because of quantum mechanics. Well, first of all, I must point out that quantum mechanics does not disprove evolution. String theory does not disprove evolution.

After this bold assertion the article went on to say that a god is the source for the laws of quantum physics because geometric figured like strings and triangles are mental constructs. Basically, it uses the same flawed intelligent design argument but it adds a few more assertions.

Because the article claims that strings and triangles are mental constructs, they must first have existed inside a mind somewhere, right? Wrong. The ability to understand something does not make any source for that something more probable. Also, I am shocked by the lack of people who can understand one dimensional space which these “strings” are. To consider a string to be an actual string (which I’m guessing this article did as it wasn’t exactly clear on that point) would be a straw man fallacy.

What did they achieve?

Nothing. They took the already refuted argument for intelligent design and added more unbacked assertions! Adding more assertions to a faulty argument does not make it true. Here is an example:

A god does not exist and the earth takes 317 days to revolve around the sun.

Does the unproven assertion that the earth takes 317 days to rotate around the sun have any affect on the validity of god? No. Even if I was right, it doesn’t matter how long it takes as it has nothing to do with god.


All intelligent design is absolutely crazy no matter how you put it. I think my debate with this guy on YouTube about intelligent design has come to an end because he has finally realized it is nonsense as well. There is no controversy. Evolution is an accepted fact; there is evidence for it. There is no need to “teach the controversy” when there is no controversy.

The Bible, a Logical Fallacy

One of the things that bothers me about how theists understand the Bible is that they think it is somehow proof of god. I once spent multiple hours stretched across a few days explaining to one particular person that they can’t use the Bible to prove the existence of god to me. After I got it through to them the debate was a lot better and we could discuss religion properly without this person resorting to a Bible quote at every point as their only argument.

The truth is that the Bible can not be used to prove god. To do so would be the fallacy of begging the question. Basicaly the fallacy goes:

  1. God wrote the Bible/inspired the Bible/influenced the Bible…
  2. Therefore, the Bible proves god exists

The fallacy exists in that the conclusion is assumed in the premise. It is assumed that a god wrote the Bible in order to prove that god exists. Does it make sense to assume that god exists to show that god exists? Is there any evidence that shows divine authorship?

If there was compelling evidence that a god did in fact exist, I probably wouldn’t be writing this right now. To assert that a god was the author for any lesser evidence that his existence in addition to evidence for his authorship would be affirming the consequent, another logical fallacy.

So, next time you try to use the Bible to convert an atheist or someone from another religion to your religion, consider the fallacy involved and you better hope they don’t spot it.

Biblical Contridictions

This portion of the article is in response to another article by Juan which can be found here. Juan has also made other comments on my blog including one which attempts to prove the existence of a god to me using the above fallacy.

Juan’s article addresses a few common contradictions in the Bible where the Bible conflicts with science or even itself. Although I can’t possibly expect everyone to counter every contradiction in the Bible as there are quite a few, there was at least one mistake I noticed during my quick skim of the article.

People Actually Look for CONTRADICTIONS? They practically find themselves!

The topic in question is whether or not the earth is in the center of the universe. Here is what Juan says:

I really can’t believe I even have to address this one. The effort and time put by people to find these “contradictions” could be spent on actually figuring out what they really mean.

However, it is not exactly hard to find these contradictions has people have been imprisoned for suggesting otherwise. It seems that the Catholic religion is still suffering from the backlash of this imprisonment and has has multiple popes preform actions including the decensoring of Galileo’s writings and apologies for the actions of the past.

Wait! There’s More?

Yes, there is more. For this information I would have you look at the Skeptics Annotated Bible. It points out thousands of contradictions within the Bible as well as various things which are immoral or just flat out crazy. You haven’t read the Bible until you’ve read it like this.

I’ve seen as many as 10 contradictions in a single chapter from Matthew not even counting other absurdities.

Read Your Bible!

I’m not the only one who is saying it. The cure to religion is having people actually read what is in their Bible. Everything from racism to sexism, rape to killing, genocide to child abuse. And this is still called the “good book.”

Intelligent Design – Looking at the Logic

Intelligent design as a logical argument essentially states that was the universe was created by god and this can be known because of the complexity of the universe. Let’s look at how the logical argument would go in the form of a debate:

  • The universe is complex or designed, it therefore requires a creator or designer
    • Wouldn’t a creator of a complex universe be even more complex and therefore even more in need of a creator?
      • No, god is less complex
        • Then in that case, the universe can arise from a natural system without the need for the problem of complexity. Any complex god would then require a less complex god or naturally arising system to come into existence but such a system could then create the universe as well without the need for a god.
      • Yes, god is more complex but he has always existed or time doesn’t apply to him.
          • This is what scientists say about the universe . It’s called space time.

Hopefully I managed to get all the main points in there but I would be welcome to additions.

Intelligent design is often seen by theists as a scientific approach to theology but it relies on various unverifiable assertions thus meaning that it is not science.

For example, the argument commonly goes that the universe appears designed or is so complex that it therefore requires a designer. An argument against this position is the frame of reference used to define design. To claim that the universe is designed one would have to know what a universe that is not designed would look like to compare it to. Of course, anyone can make up their own vision of a universe lacking design which is I why I don’t favor this argument.

Also, intelligent design is not science because science must be testable and verifiable. Of course, it is refuted via a simple logical sanity check and has no need to progress to the level of scientific scrutiny, but intelligent design is not testable either and therefore not science.

If you look at how testable intelligent design is you see as set of assertions which are added upon to create  a system which “proves” god. However, with no evidence shown, these assertions are unfounded and act as mere premises rather than verifiable fact. Creation scientists do a better job and creating a goal to twist evidence towards than they do for supplying evidence.

Intelligent design does not meet the scientific burden of proof or even present a valid scientific hypothesis (and that’s not even considering that many theists claim that their god is un-testable which makes intelligent design meaningless even as a scientific theory).

As you can see, intelligent design is not science in any way. Not only that but it has even failed logically. It is clear that it should not be taught in science classes as it is clearly not science. Don’t children deserve better than unfounded claims used to advance a religious agenda?

Re: Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed

Cover of "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"I recently finished watching the documentary “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed” at the recommendation of a person I have been debating on Youtube (I would hardly call it a debate as it barely got started). One impression I got was “wow, I just wasted an hour and forty minutes watching this” and another impression I got was “there is something in this video that is right.”

Of course, the thing that is right is not intelligent design, it is the fact that people should be allowed to research intelligent design and talk about it. They should be allowed to address it with science if they so desire. Of course, I will not be the one to lend them any such credibility, but if they want to address it with science, they are more then welcome to use their own funding to do so.

If you want to talk about it at a real scientific level, bring something to talk about. Get some evidence! We can’t expect scientists everywhere to start working on proving or disproving some random hypothesis in the same way we don’t allocate resources like that to UFOs, space aliens, ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Don’t accuse us of being close minded when we merely await the evidence. One would be a fool to believe in that which there is not evidence for and ghost stories, monsters, and god are all things which need exceptional evidence as they are exceptional claims. In fact, many religions have gone out of the way to say their god is not testable by science but now I wonder why they think that can prove god with science. God has been disproved time and time again by science but the goal post have always been shifted or it was said that god can’t be tested. Now people think they can prove god with science? I’ll be one of the people to use one of their fallacious arguments against them. If god is not testable via science, you certainly can’t prove him with it.

We don’t need to disprove these hypothesis because there is not a shred of evidence suggesting that they might be true. If there is evidence, show it! Don’t allude to the evidence like this video does; don’t pretend you have evidence. And when you have the evidence, I want to be the first to know about it. I want to see it.