Atheist: Do you even understand what logic is?

Me: Yes, I have a thorough understanding of logic: etymologically, historically, and practically. You?
Atheist (statement A): God is a failed hypothesis.

Atheist (statement B): Just because I can’t disprove God, is no reason to believe he exists.

Me: Pick one. God is an hypothesis, OR God is non-falsifiable. Both cannot simultaneously be true.
Atheist: If you were presented with absolute proof that God doesn’t exist, would you stop believing?

Me: Begging the question. The only thing that would ‘prove’ the non-existence of God would be for the universe to stop behaving rationally. In which case, even if I still existed, I could not believe in anything at all.

Published by Little-Known Blogger

I spent the first years of my life in a trailer park outside of a tiny town in rural Missouri. I grew up to be a long-haired, gun-hating, military-hating, Presbyterian super-liberal. Well, perhaps the “growing up” happened later. While in high school, I was on the cross-country and wrestling teams, and actually won my weight-class in a State powerlifting competition. I went on to attend college on a Bright Flight scholarship, where I promptly became an atheist. I trained for a few years in Shotokan karate and Cheng-system taijiquan before training in my first real martial art, Hwarang-Do, under the late Franklin Fowlkes (later the Founder and Grandmaster of the Five Elements Martial Arts System). I married an older Taiwanese woman my junior year, got divorced in short order, and dropped out of college. After completing my AA in Psychology, I decided I needed a complete change of scenery and joined the U.S. Marine Corps (having early been assured that there was no way that a skinny liberal like me would ever survive Boot Camp). Contrary to what the Hipster Zombies will tell you, this did not “brainwash me into being a Conservative”. Instead, it made me a very unhappy, short-haired liberal, surrounded by guns and the military. However, I spent my whole contract (after schools) on the island of Okinawa, where I was exposed to points of view not dominated by the American liberal media. During this time, I taught ESL classes as a side-job, trained under some of the highest-ranking masters of karate on Okinawa, and discovered the practice of Buddhism. I also spent some time in Korea, where I got to train in hapkido. It was during this period that I came gradually to realize how stupid and evil American liberalism actually is. This was partly due to my Military Police command sending me to Small Arms Instructor school, which gave me more exposure to guns than I could ever have imagined—thus negating my idiotic liberal distaste for them. After the active-duty portion of my Marine Corps contract was over, I worked several jobs, from security contracts to operating a forklift in a warehouse. In 2002, however, when the invasion of Iraq was getting under way, I signed up with the Missouri Army National Guard, and have remained with them since, continuing as a Military Policeman. I am also full-time corrections officer, a member of the Anglican Church, and at one time was an Instructor Candidate in Dekiti-Tirsia Serradas Kali (until my instructor moved away). My hobbies (beyond blogging) include strength training, shooting sports, martial arts, creating digital art, and being a huge science and science-fiction geek.

Join the Conversation


      1. Not correct, but normally I would ignore that detail, I only mention it because you whole argument was based on it…

        Not all hypotheses are conjectures.
        All _scientific_ hypotheses are conjectures.

        Details, I know, but it’s somehow sad to see someone fight a straw man and then lose to the details.

      2. First, this conversation exclusively occurs in the context of someone attempting erroneously to apply scientific methodology to non-scientific domains. Therefore, scientific definitions are used.

        Second, the term ‘ hypothesis’ is understood to take its ‘scientific’ (that is, correct) definition in common conversation (even among those not fully aware of the implications of that definition). To use an archaic definition when better terminology exists is just sophistry.
        It would be like you calling someone gay, and then when they objected, saying, “Oh, I just meant you were in a good mood.”

        Finally, a statement which cannot be falsified cannot, by definition, fail. Therefore, the above person MUST be using the term ‘hypothesis’ correctly (as a falsifiable conjecture).

  1. I have a couple of questions about this thought here: “The only thing that would ‘prove’ the non-existence of God would be for the universe to stop behaving rationally.”

    By “prove,” do you mean prove conclusively (that is, to the extent of excluding other reasonable hypotheses)? Second, what do you mean by the universe “behaving rationally”?

    1. Well, ‘proof’ was brought into the conversation by someone other than myself. But for me, if it isn’t absolute, then the correct term is ‘evidence’.

      As for ‘behaving rationally’, I mean that the laws of cause-and-effect, identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle would cease meaningfully to apply to reality.

      1. You are very welcome! And, no. Using the term “some deity’s will” implies a completely different category of substance. I am referring to God: metaphysical, perfect, First Cause of the universe. You are referring to gods: personal, supernatural anthropomorphism of natural phenomena.

        “Some deity” would require that there could be more than one. This would be a necessary condition of gods, since they embody some specific aspect of the physical universe. It is not possible with God, who as First Cause must be singular.

        “Will” implies both subjective perspective and activity. Gods are subjective–no matter how supernaturally powerful they are imagined, they are still PERSONS, with limited perspective. You can always say “this-is-Thor” and “this-is-not-Thor”. God, being metaphysical, exists beyond subject-object duality. God is neither personal nor impersonal, and does not have limited perspective.

        “Will” also implies activity. God is defined as perfect. To be perfect is to be complete. If God took any action, then while that action was ongoing, God would not be complete; God would be imperfect, and therefore not God. The universe is not rational because God took action to force reason upon it; the universe is rational because it is the nature of God as First Cause, that the universe be rational.

        The Upanishads are probably the best explanation of this generally available. It is also described in the Bible, but lost to the general population due to poor translation.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: