Things Theists say (broadly speaking)

 In the eleven years of doing youtube as a skeptic I've encountered plenty of theists who really believe the things that I do not. I've noted a trend of things that come up in those talks, here are some of those things:

~~~~

0: You believe/think (X)!

Assuming that I believe (or do not believe)/ or feel about things in (X) (Y) or (Z) ways. This is very common and one of the most annoying things I encounter - just ask me. Stop shoving ideas in my head or feelings into my brain! 

1: The universe came from "nothing".

This isn't something I, nor any atheist/skeptic/non-believer that I am aware of believes in. No one that I know of makes this claim. This *click* book has a click-bate name, if you read it you will find its not a "nothing" - just he uses that word. However even if he did think it was "nothing" that would be HIS stance, not mine. I do not KNOW where/how universe "came to" be - or even if those are the right words, cosmology is very hard - you need to deal with complex maths and modeling to even start to do it right, and that is way beyond me, and way beyond most people.

Not knowing does not mean thinking it came from nothing.

"But if it didn't come from God....where did it come from?" that is a loaded question that assumes it came from somewhere - but the answer is... I do not know. I do not pretend to know. Its a mystery that I'm okay with. But - yeah no we don't think the universe came from "nothing" - I'm not sure that a nothing is even possible! No rules? What would that look like? If you had no rules then you wouldn't have anything to stop something coming from nothing would you? If you have a rule then you do not have a nothing.

2: Look at the trees!

I've looked at them. Now what? Oh see we should be amazed at trees I guess. Why? Well because... it was made by GOD. Really? How can ya tell? Well this goes into an analogy about how things are built by people yadada therefor tree is built by god. But - no, trees evolved like all other living things, and so that doesn't need a god at any point to do any of that.

3: It only makes sense if God did it.

That's nice. But that doesn't make it true. Just because something "makes sense" to you does not make that thing TRUE. What matters is if the thing is true, not if it "makes sense" or not. The true nature of reality might seem incoherent to us. Or it might be really silly like the number 42, 69 or 27! Who knows! But your appeal to your own personal limited thinking does not and is not an argument nor is it proof of anything other then you don't know logic. LEARN LOGIC.

4: Atheists have no moral justification.

What is your argument? Who cares? What if it is true? So? This is of course a poisoning of the well and a full misunderstanding of what "atheist" is/means. To be atheist does not tell you anything about morals, ethics, how to vote, where to live, what to put on, etc. It is an answer to the question "Do you believe in god?" If no - then you are an atheist. That's it. It is NOT a worldview. Theists keep thinking that it is, but it isn't. It just is a view that we do not believe in a god. So to say that we have no (X) when that wouldn't even apply is rather clunky. But - yeah.... we do have moral justification in ethics. A lot of ethical systems exist out there to pick from. The atheist can't pick DCT (divine command theory)- but is free to pick from any of the other ones. So we have plenty of grounding. This non-starter of a try at an argument is to suggest that DCT is the BEST ethical system - that no other ethical system grounds morals - because GOD. God somehow (?) grounds morals. Is it good because God said it or because it is good? Euthyphro remains unanswered to this day (at least in a coherent manor to my knowledge).

Saying that God = Good and thus whatever is "Good" is God doesn't ground anything at all, it just asserts. It moves the problem back. We humans made morals including DCT. The problem(s) with DCT are numerous but at the top of the list is that you can't really be sure its GOD that said to do (or not do) the thing. Worse then that, you do not get to question God. Every moral system other then DCT you get to question if the thing is or is not right. You get to ask why/how that action is good. DCT is all about might makes right. God said it, that settles it. Appeal to authority 101. Of course this leads to disaster when two groups of people claim God said to do something - one says hats on Sunday, one god says no hats on Sunday- well... time to kill some hat lovers! Yay! Also of course there are two groups of people who are fighting over a single spot on the earth because God told them both that that spot belongs to them, and not the other people. Yikes. 

More to come....

Pseudologic spotting.

People with zero videos... weird.

So I've noted that three people have all posed insane things about formal logic as of late.

And one person who has videos but none of them are anything to do with logic (a few video games and some home video family-type vids).

In every case I am bewildered at both how they SEEM to know a lot about formal logic, and yet - they don't.

Its odd to me that if they did have the understanding they suggest that they would not also make content - why limit yourself to text?

Speculation about the motives of people of course, is just that. There is nothing special about this. Plenty of people do not have content. It just "feels weird" - ah - emotion! See there is the first step towards pattern seeking that would be all to easy to go down the rabbit hole with.

These people posting are - I think, using chatgpt or something like it, and/or taking from random webpages ideas about formal logic to make there own. Why? Well - no idea why. I had to call one out for being trollish at this point because they keep digging in deeper with things that are less sensical.

Formal logic is most useful for the abstract world. It works great in maths and on paper but doesn't (always) work with real world objects.

For whatever reason these keyboard warriors have come "at me" for my video on the atheist experience's broken argument to defend that broken argument. Its not REALLY broken you see.... yea well no it is. BUT... no still broken.

BUT. Nope.

However, one person that I'm including in my odd people that talk logic was not about that argument at all, rather he mentioned something I've never heard of or read about!

"S5 logic"

https://philarchive.org/archive/ANDMLT#:~:text=The%20modal%20logic%20system%20S5,logic%20goes%2C%20system%20of%20logic.

https://mally.stanford.edu/S5.html#:~:text=The%20axioms%20of%20S5%20are,p%2C%20then%20p%20is%20true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)

Example of how it gets "abused"

https://joshualrasmussen.com/s5/

(Former skeptic Joshua Rasmussen left Christianity to pursue truth through reason and philosophy. Over time, his intellectual pursuit led him back to a strong belief in God.)

With abstract objects (X) and (Z) we can do a lot of fun things, and then one can get to strange formulas that then when non-abstract should (one would think) still work... but... it doesn't always work. Oh sometimes it does. But other times - nope.

Why? Well because the real world is not one of the abstract. (mostly) we are dealing with real day objects here.

However, the person(s) that want an abstract world ie: "Spiritual" could abuse formal logic.

Does not matter if it is for or against God - I do not care. I only care that the argument is SOUND. (to be sound it must be valid as well) the SOUND part is really what matters most because that means you have found no logical errors.

Well - how does one look for logical errors? By looking at the real world! Ah - so see, informal (and formal) logic has it limits. Its great to have A=B, B=C, C=D, therefor A=D Sure that works! But... if you turn that to "God is a lobster, lobster can be eaten, eating them can be done by atheists therefor God can be eaten by atheists!" well... that doesn't work anymore! But!?! It worked as abstract...!!! Sure. But not in the real world once we pulled it from the abstract letters to become real objects - or assume they are real objects - then it clearly no longer works.

Logic, has its limits. So with the abstract one can very much play with the notions of "possible" to get to "actual" to say that god is possible therefor is actual and you can indeed put all sorts of logical formulas around that to """prove""" that is true. (Not enough quotes in the universe)

So... people are - I am deeply afraid - abusing formal logic because well - it CAN be abused. They have not bothered with informal logic or simply do not care and/or are trolls and/or .... bleep if I know - all I know is that - they are not using it in ways they should.

However, no where does it say how one "should" use logic of course. Anyone can use it for - well anything. Even to make things appear to be real when they are not.

Pseudoscience is a thing people use! And well... so is pseudologic!

It shouldn't surprise me - I've been telling theists this for years! I guess it comes at a strange angle to see people who might be atheists (I assume they are, no idea) would use pseudologic to make an argument that a broken argument is not broken.

Why? Just use a better argument?!

Well bleep who knows.

People are weird.

Kinda like this theist who I have been typing at who insists that everyone worships something even though I've told him I do not, he insists that I do. He can "see" that I do. So he must be right. Even though he isn't right because I know I do not worship anything.

Its a wacky world we live in.

Learn real logic so you can spot pseudologic.