I will no longer be updating this blog as I will be focusing on my studies.
Any comments refer to my facebook.

And STRENGTH by limping sway disabled

Ok. Initially I was going to write a post about the use to brainwashing tactics used by believers (seeing that it’s my expertise & interest). But when I mean ‘believers’, what I am really referring to are christian believers, christian preachers, pastors, or anyone whose goal when talking to you is to spread their version of the word of the judeo-christian god to you (the non-believer, the freethinker, the Buddhist, the atheist, the Muslim, the agnostic etc). However, seeing that it was market day at UQ today and I’ve been handing out fliers to everyone at uni today, I thought it would be nice to show you what I wrote on the flier. It was nice because the president herself personally asked me to make this flier, which she was very impressed. So I guess I’ll write the post about brainwashing tactics next time.

The flier was basically a series of counter-arguments to counter accusations made by christian believers. These are very common christian claims and are popularly used in church groups & debates. Frankly, we freethinkers are so tired of these arguments as we refute them and show believers how it’s an invalid argument & unsupported claim, yet they still use it again. I hope that when you read this that:
1. As a believer, you stop using these arguments. Hopefully, it will enlighten you to think critically about your belief, and really question the motives & reliability of your pastor/christian preacher (who is clearly diverting you from an enlightened and virtuous path, by convincing you with false misinformation & irrational arguments).
2. As a non-believer or freethinker, I hope you learn these counter-arguments and use them as ammunition if you happen to engage in a discussion with believers using these arguments to convert you. I think everyone needs to learn and understand these arguments and stay informed, so they are not influenced and brainwashed by these tactics christian preachers use to try to convert you (I’ll talk more about the actual ‘coercive persuasion methodologies’ next time).

Oh yeah, the pictures weren’t in the actual flier. I added them in for this blog, because I promised you all I’ll have some pictures. If anyone wants me to explain the counter-arguments more please don’t hesitate to msg me or leave a comment (because the flier was designed to be short). Or if you have come across christian arguments that you want me to refute, you can send them over also.

FAQ

Your motivation for supporting a separation of religion and state is to make Secular Humanism the default public religion.
Religion (n.): Belief in the reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe. Secular Humanism is a belief system that does not (and discourages) belief in the supernatural. Simply put, secular humanism is the absence of religion & the supernatural.

A separation of religion and state amounts outlawing religion.
No it does not. People have a freedom to believe whatever they choose to believe, atheists/freethinkers strongly respect that. Separation of religion & state prohibits religion (any particular religion) to be involved in public affairs such as the government and policy making (i.e. health, education, legal system), it does not outlaw religion altogether. To raise consciousness, how would you feel if a religious doctrine that you do not believe was involved in the government & all aspects of policy making? Believers and non-believers alike surely don’t want this, yet believers are so keen to impose their religious doctrine on society. Separation of religion & state ensures nobody (believers, atheists, and agnostics) has a particular religious doctrine imposed on them; it maintains the un-biased position of respecting all beliefs by restricting preference of a particular one.

Your belief system is as reliant on faith as religion is. Upholding the value of science and reason is a faith position.
Atheism (unlike religion) is not a doctrine, with no god/supernatural power to which to claim existence. As atheists do not believe in the existence of a deity, calling atheism a faith based position is like saying adults have faith in believing the non-existence of Santa Clause (you cannot have faith in nothing). The claim that it takes the same (or more) amount of faith to be an atheist than it is to be a theist is false (another misconception spread by theists to make atheism look like religion). For example, does it take more faith (or any faith at all) to disbelieve the claims of Zeus it does to believe him? Of course not. Atheism is not making the claim of certain existence of something, hence it requires no faith to disbelieve god (while it requires faith to believe in him).

Belief systems of freethinkers & atheists rely on logic (i.e. Ockham’s razor) and evidence (i.e. evolution), not on unwavering hope & subjective feeling. The fundamental principle of science is that belief must be based on evidence. Suppose there is controversy over what killed the dinosaurs, one scientist believes it was an asteroid because he has faith in it, another believes it was germs because it’s his tradition to believe in it, and another believes it was aliens as it was privately revealed to him & it makes him feel better; it would be absurd if such a thing happened in science, so why is this not the same for religion?

Everything in the universe is designed (The Argument of Design/Intelligent Design). Take a stopwatch for example, each interacting part of a stopwatch must exist for the entire thing to function, if one minuscule piece is missing the entire stopwatch ceases to function (irreductible complexity). Hence, all parts must exist simultaneously for something to exist; a gradual process like evolution cannot achieve this. There must be a designer for this to happen and this designer is god.
It’s a horrible argument & analogy for 3 reasons. First, all examples for this argument are man-made (i.e. watch, door, bicycle). Hence, you know there is a designer because you can find out the human or machine that designed/constructed the object. Second, the examples used in the argument cannot reproduce. Reproduction & death are fundamental for evolution to occur. If they’re absent, information do not get passed on and evolution cannot occur. Third, there is no evidence of irreductible complexity, all claims made by intelligent design advocates (i.e. the eye, flagella, blood clotting cascade) were scientifically tested and proven to be false [www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg & http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,7].

All living organisms reproduce...

...all man-made inventions can't.

Pascals Wager shows it’s a more rational choice to believe in god given the possible consequences (relative to non-belief) if god exists or not.
Pascals wager is an invalid argument for 3 reasons. First, it blindly assumes the religion under observation is the true & only religion (the particular religion the person making the argument believes in). Second, Pascals Wager can be used for other religions and justify belief in it, even one that is made-up. Hence, since all religions claim they’re the true one & they all have equal chance of being true, picking any particular belief will inevitably result in an unfavorable outcome (by the logic of Pascals Wager). Third, forcing yourself to believe a particular religion because all other options have unfavorable outcomes is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad metum). Belief should be based on evidence & proof, not whether the alternative is unpleasant.

Pascal's Wager: A religious person's invalid argument.

‘Medical miracles’ (i.e. waking up from a 30 year coma, or after being clinically dead for 3 mins) or ‘miracles’ in general (i.e. surviving a horrific accident without a scratch) is proof of god’s existence.

What do you call when a perfectly healthy person suddenly drops dead? Is it proof of god’s non-existence? Surely not. But why believe in the former and not the latter when both arguments are of equal value? Because whatever happens, happens. Life has an element of chance, which means unbelievable things do happen even if they seem impossible. It’s a common cognitive bias (apophenia or type 1 error), something that is imposed on reality. It really makes you wonder (given all these assumed miracles today) why there is never a regrowing of a severed limb, it is always something that would have gotten better anyway.

When in doubt of your faith, God is testing you, so keep having faith.
First, God is claimed by Christians to be omniscient (all-knowing). Second, to ‘test’ is to find out because you do not know (i.e. like how scientists find out something by doing an experiment). Notice the internally inconsistent argument here. This mentality is dangerous as it constructs a belief system whereby no amount of evidence or argument can convince you otherwise, rendering you immune to change your opinions (if they’re wrong). What would you say if scientists and doctors stuck to their beliefs or diagnoses given that there is contradicting evidence, or no evidence at all?

Religion adds a value and inspiration to believer's lives which Atheism/ Agnosticism can not compete with.
There is no evidence to support this claim. An equally convincing counter-argument is that “atheism adds more value to atheist’s lives which religion can not compete with”. There’s absolutely no reason to believe in the former but not the latter. The argument of utility (“because religion is useful & benefits the world, it is therefore true”) is a common argument by believers. It is also a logical fallacy because it makes the assertion that the more useful a belief is, the truer it is. To raise consciousness, consider the following: a religious doctrine was fabricated that is more useful & helpful than all current religious doctrines (i.e. no absolute laws, encourages education in mathematics & science), does that mean it is truer belief than all current religions?

Sure you can be moral without religion but your moral code comes from religion whether you like it or not. We live in a Christian society after all.
The usefulness of moral codes (i.e. don’t kill, don’t steal) is meaningless given the complexity of society today. To show that moral codes are not religious by nature, consider eastern atheist religions (i.e. Buddhism, Taoism) that developed independent of and before monotheistic religions like Christianity, which have the same moral codes as western religion (if not better). It is a common misconception that Christian societies are more prosperous than secular ones; while there is no evidence of this, sadly it’s still cited as truth by advocates of Christianity. There is however a literature of evidence showing religious societies as more corrupt [Paul (2005). Journal of Religion & Society, 7, pp.1-17], less safe, and less intelligent than secular ones (i.e. Norway, Japan); with higher divorce rates.

How do you deal with death without a belief in the afterlife?
Atheists & freethinkers accept that there is no afterlife after death. Hence, they cherish life more than believers because they acknowledge that once they die, that’s it. By not making this life’s purpose solely for the next life, we cherish the here and now more as we only get one chance to live. Atheists & freethinkers do not live with fear of hell. This is one of the hardest things for believers to shake and one of the best rewards. Believers fear hell and love heaven as a result. Eternal life (while it seems nice for the first million years) destroys the significance to live on. There will be no pleasure in hoping, cherishing, learning, purpose etc; it renders life in the afterlife meaningless (and worst part is you cannot die). To shake the idea of hell one must let go of the false hope of heaven.

You reject religious moral codes because you want to indulge in a hedonistic lifestyle.
First, the assumption that atheists in general like to indulge in (let alone live) hedonistic lifestyles is false. This misconception is an attempt to demean atheists as immoral people. Atheists are moral people too; in actuality, our sense of morality is innate (evolutionary) and therefore not religious. A non-religious moral upbringing is more beneficial to society as it allows room for improvement (not trapped in tradition formed by the moral zeitgeist back then, which is considered very immoral now). If one wishes to use the moral code of the bible to form their morality, one must not exclusively observe what they already believe as morally good, but the entire bible altogether (i.e. Matt. 5:17, Deu. 13:6-10, Deu. 22:13:21).

Belief systems of freethinkers & atheists rely on logic (i.e. Ockham’s razor) and evidence (i.e. evolution), not on unwavering hope & subjective feeling. The fundamental principle of science is that belief must be based on evidence. Suppose there is controversy over what killed the dinosaurs, one scientist believes it was an asteroid because he has faith in it, another believes it was germs because it’s his tradition to believe in it, and another believes it was aliens as it was privately revealed to him & it makes him feel better. Alternatively, what if doctors believed they have the right diagnosis because they believe in themselves and have faith that it’s the truth? It would be absurd if such things happened in science/medicine/or any other occupation that requires belief, so why is this not the same for religion?

On the virtue of TEMPERANCE and obligation of moral decorum

Ok, so I switched to this new blog cos everyone else has switched (plus it's easier to manage with Facebook). People who've been reading my previous blog will know this isn't an average blog about life (i.e. like what movie I saw and who I went out with or whatever life throws at you) and superficial life philosophy (i.e. we all know what this is, the typical girly teenager rant on how life is like an apple or that choosing men are like choosing shoes). No. This blog is a collection if my thoughts simplified (hopfully) so that people can easily understand it. Apologies if this newest entry is a bit long and doesn't have any pictures, I'll make sure to add some fancy pictures in my new post.

Much has happened since my last post over a year and a half ago. It was a period marked by an extraordinary influx of philosophical & scientific understanding, which persistently continues to satisfy my desires and fill the void I feel in life (and in the lives of others). The extent of wisdom and advancement in state of mind while I was away was simply unimaginable and breathtaking.

It has been ages since I wrote on this blog. To be honest, it took a relatively huge amount of will, desire to correspond, and boredom to write again. I would prefer to say things to people face to face as discussions are personally satisfying and invigorating for me. I was actually hoping to finish off my ‘tarot series’, but whether this will be completed I guess would have to depend on whether I’m inspired to continue writing.

I have always had this quote in my head for some time, and I would like to use it to start this post:

“We are all children. Whether we are adults or not, we are still children”.

It’s not a quote by some intellectual or great minded individual, I fashioned this saying since I was very young. The power of a saying derives its power not from its author, but from the truth it reveals. I guess when I first thought of this I was in a phase of 3rd person observation in my life, I was very young then. What I mean by this is that I was seeing the world and the people in it (including myself) through the eyes of an observer who is not part of this world (to negate bias).

To be honest (and I still hold this view today) teenagers & young adults alike (and adults) on the whole are still children, and behave like children. Inexperienced, untrained in philosophical thought, and naïve (regardless of what religion they believe or university subject they do). Nonetheless, there is certainly a very small minority who are not this majority (i.e. the intellectual elites of scientists and philosophers). Chances are, the person reading this is not a member of this minority (though it would soothe your egos if you think you are). As part of this infantile quality, we (and I say ‘we’ to refer to this majority) are not aware of this. Most are under the illusion that we have grown up, moved on or evolved in the next phase of mentality, when in fact we have not.

So why all this talk about children and the state of mind you ask? Well it just so happens is that the topic for this post is on child abuse, abuse in the context of religion and religious indoctrination. A component that has considerable value and priority in the atheist/freethinker proposition & movement that has been growing exponentially most recently.

Note: There is a common practice among believers (especially of the christian/judaism/islam religion) to automatically ignore arguments like the one I am about to present. For a believer, if they begin to perceive that an argument as one that puts their faith in doubt, they have a preconceived notion that it is evil because it takes them away from god. Therefore, to think about any evidence and rational argument that may open doubt to their faith is a temptation that should be avoided (note that this is also a mindset that encourages narrow-minedness, so it discourages critical-thought). It is a common practice that their church or bible study group has taught them. This also applies to any physical evidence that can put out their faith in doubt (i.e. evolution disproving the genesis of the bible). I urge believers that my aim is not to offend their belief, but to put out a rational argument in a bid to raise consciousness and help them ignite some critical-thought in their belief. What the church and bible study group discourages, I encourage, and this is to think critically and have the courage to doubt & change your own beliefs.

Part 1: A better concept of abuse

First of all, it is important to lay clear the concept of ‘abuse’. Most typical people think of ‘abuse’ in terms of action that induces harm to the victim. In the context of children, an example of this would be to hit a child or sexually molest them in some way. However, this is only physical abuse, which is only a small portion of the larger definition. ‘Abuse’ in fact expands towards much broader dimensions. Simply speaking, ‘abuse’ involves the following: 1) to treat a person (in our discourse, a child) as a means rather than an end*, 2) it may not necessarily involve harm towards the abused, and 3) the abused may not necessarily be aware of the abuse.

* ‘means’ are the requirements or things that need to be done for a goal (or an end) to be achieved. For example, In order to get money (an end), one must work in a job that pays (a means), this can be a stable job like working in a restaurant or robbing a bank.

Part 2: Drawing the parallel

Allow me to draw a parallel to clearly illustrate what I mean, and in the hope to raise consciousness. When reading what is ahead, it is important to keep in mind that the examples and ideas presented as a parallel to the practical nature of religion, and religious teaching by parents (and pastors) today.

Let us hypothetically suppose (not that this does not happen) that two parents are advocates of a political party. They believe, like all people, that the policies of this party are what must be implemented in the political system and would most definitely result in the greatest good for society. Also, an aspect of this belief would also entail (no doubt) that other political parties would do harm if they ran for government, and that their policies would damage society. These parents, with their beliefs (and the right to believe them of course), involve their child to also advocate this specific political party.

Now it would be absurd and ridiculous if a parents subjected this to their child, but most of all it is abusive. This is abusive because the parents are simply using their child to further their own agenda, using the child as a means to achieve an end as if the child is an object to be manipulated and used as a political tool.

There are 2 counter-arguments one can make which gives the illusion of relieving the parents in their charges of abuse: First, it can certainly be argued that the child may grow to like the political party. Second, the parents think that they have good intentions and are doing good for their child (by consistently presenting him to the ideologies propagated by the party). However, these are false counter-arguments for the following reasons.

First, just because a child may grow to like the party is not a valid (or even rational) reason to subject him to support it. A child’s mind is innocent and too young (one may say uneducated) to understand concepts like freedom/human rights/sexism/free speech in their truest and most practical form. Early exposure to such beliefs without consideration of criticism (because the parents are strong advocates of the party, and hence will rarely present alternative perspectives), challenge, and with a critical mindset (it’s a scientific fact that children take what their parents say as truth without question, and hence fail to absorb it with a critical mindset) is unwarranted for the child. In this sense it is intellectually abusive as it is indoctrination, or lack of a better term ‘brainwashing’. We (specifically, our brain) forms our opinions about the world based on the type/amount of information we receive, if information is controlled (as what the parents did) then you can make a person believe in whatever you want them to believe. There is no better example than Nazi Germany to support this fact.*

*For those who are not familiar with modern history. The Nazi party manipulated and controlled information in Germany & initiated the Second World War. Adolph Hitler & his Nazi party dehumanized the Jewish community and changed how Germans viewed Jews in Germany, through powerful and ingenious propaganda (i.e. information control and manipulation). Consequently, the German people (in just a few years) saw Jews as animals and rodents spreading disease in Germany. As a result, 6 million Jews lost their lives by non-military means (i.e. at death camps), note that this is a very conservative estimate. For the record, it is interesting to point out that Hitler’s regime and his anti-semitism was heavily influenced by the christian doctrine (Hitler’s bibliography ‘Mein Kampf’ provides proof for this). Also, Nazism at that time didn’t only not receive criticism from the catholic church, but it was supported and financed by them (http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm) to a degree (the church provided a name list of all catholics & christians in Nazi Germany, effectively giving them a complete list of names of all the Jews in Germany).

With this in mind, even if the child grows up to like the party, it at no slightest bit mean that the parents are automatically relieved in their charges of abuse, nor does it mean that it was right for them to do it. The child’s voluntary and unquestioned support for the party will be the direct result of his many years of indoctrination, to believe that the party is better compared to all others. Whether the child is happy supporting the party or not, or whether the child supports it without any external pressure is not relevant. For example, you want your belief that the earth if flat to live on after you die. You bring your own child up believing that it’s right to think the earth is flat and your child grows up to happily believe it after you die. But it still does not mean that you did not indoctrinate (and hence intellectually abused) him to further your own purposes.

In terms of the second counter-argument, it is typical for one to make the false argument of saying “is like teaching your child how to swim, how to do brush their teeth, killing is wrong, or look at both sides of the road before crossing”. All these things benefit the child and obviously the parents will teach their child about it everyday because they have the best intentions. Specifically, the counter-argument is the following, that ‘if parents had good intentions or wanted good for the child, it is not abuse’. However, these counter-arguments are terrible and not well thought out, rendering them invalid.

There is no doubt that teaching children good values are good, but it must also be followed up by teaching how laws or values are not always black & white. Say that a parent teaches the child that killing is wrong and this law is absolute and must not be disobeyed. By this, the parents would be indoctrinating the child to think with a narrow-minded mind, because that there are many situation where it is good to kill, or lie, or steal, or whatever; laws are not absolute in the complex society we live in. What the parent should have done is continue to teach the child by highlighting the dynamic nature of values and moral zeitgeist. This is something that no (or if any, very little) parents do when they teach religion to their children.

In addition, just because the parents think that they are doing good or have good intentions (clearly all parents think this) does not a moment mean that they are relieved of their charges of intellectual abuse. For example, a mother telling her child “it’s ok to look down at blacks/asians/homosexuals etc” throughout his childhood and teaching him how it’s a virtue to do it is clearly intellectually abusive, yet the mother thinks she has good intentions and want good for her child.

It is easy to show that the counter-argument “it’s like teaching your child how to swim, how to do brush their teeth” is a false one. Here, the argument is false because parents in the examples are teaching their children ‘how’ to do something (that is useful no doubt). However, telling your child that ‘a certain belief or idea is right because it is, do not criticize it’ is teaching them ‘what’ to think. Both are very different, and the latter is a method of indoctrination.

Nonetheless, one can naively dismiss the account that parents are not biased, and are not like what is described above. I say naïve because 1) they have not really looked at the testimonies given by atheist/agnostic children of christian parents, and 2) looked at the statistics of christian discrimination. However, one only needs to look at their own lives to see if it’s true. If your parents/family is highly religious (especially christian/islam/judaism), have they explained to you alternative beliefs (in a way that follows a rational process to understand why they believe and the reasons behind it, not in a way similar to “there are people out there who don’t accept our belief, they will go to hell”)? Taken you to a freethinker’s meeting or Buddhist teaching seminar? I assume that if you religious and have religious parents, they have not done this.

However, one can say this for atheist parents (not an unreasonable claim). First, this assertion is false once you realize that atheism is neither a belief nor a claim like religion. This is a common misconception. Atheism (and agnosticism), by definition and practice is the ‘absence of belief’, which should be distinguished from anti-theism which is ‘against a belief’ (usually towards a specific belief). You cannot teach anyone an ‘absence of belief’ (i.e. while you can teach someone astrology, but you can’t teach someone a ‘absence of astrology’). It is not something that can be taught or indoctrinated to a child (in fact, every child is born without the concept of god, hence an atheist). Simply speaking, atheism (and agnosticism) does not have a doctrine that can be used to teach a child, unlike with religion.

Part 3: Raising consciousness - religion, abuse, & breaking the taboo.

Hopefully Part 2 has (in a inspiring way) drawn the parallel by showing the intellectually abusive nature religion & religious indoctrination on children. Allow us now to take a step back and draw another parallel to wrap things up.

Suppose that I went to primary school and labeled a group of children by the following: a Marxist child, a Communist child, a child who supports/is against abortion, a child who supports free-speech etc. I did that I would be looked down on by matured minded adults with words like ‘mad’ or ‘absurd’. The reason for this is because we all know that these children are too young to understand these complex issues, and it would be corrupt and & morally wrong to teach these things to children while they are still too young to even comprehend these issues, it would deprive them of their innocence.

But what these beliefs have in common is that they are all beliefs, like a religious belief. Why then do parents persist to teach their children the religious doctrine that they happen to believe (whilst teaching them to avoid other perspectives)? Or determinedly threaten them with hell if they don’t believe and accept it? Or continue to label their child a christian/jewish/islamic child (when it would be absurd to label a child a communist child)? To me and in the morally responsible community, this is abuse.

Using this same discourse, I would also like to raise consciousness on the taboo we have on criticizing religion. In the current society we live in, enlightened by modernity, it is normal (in fact encouraged) to challenge or even criticize one’s political belief. This also goes for one’s personal (and strongly held) belief on a particular football team, celebrity, movie, book, political ideal, social issue etc. However, only one’s religious belief cannot be challenged or criticized. It is in fact discouraged and looked down on by believers alike.

But why? Why in this society (enlightened by modern education, rationality, and scientific thought) do we have this taboo against criticizing religion? The reason, I suspect, is that religion is associated with being ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’. If you associate sacredness to a political belief or belief in a celebrity, you can also manufacture this taboo (rendering it immune to challenge and criticism). But what do we mean when we say that something is sacred? It means that “here is something that is sacred and holy. You are not to criticize it. Why? Because you’re just not”. A clever method of brainwashing someone to not question a particular belief (it works so well that it has brainwashed societies).

However, one may say (without thinking) that “it’s because in religion we are talking about god, and god must not be questioned and should be wholly respected”. Sadly for these people, they fall right back into the trap again, returning under the spell (shaped by years of linguistic manipulation and social brainwashing). In logic, this is called circular reasoning (i.e. “religion/god must be respected and not criticized because. Why? Because you have to”).

I hope this latest blog has opened the eyes of my readers towards a new perspective of looking at reality, and hope that it has raised consciousness. Our human minds fragile and flawed things. It is very common for people who are not untrained in the philosophical mindset to think that what is in their mind reflects reality (naïve realism), when in fact that it does not. It is therefore important to base your beliefs and thinking on rationality and logic, rather than intuition and emotion.

I’ll give an example to illustrate what I mean. Suppose you have a very thin piece of paper of any size you want, but with a thickness of 0.1 mm like normal paper. Now what would the thickness of this piece of paper be if you physically folded it 100 times (i.e. folding it from one side to the other)? For a typical person, using their intuition, they would think that it would equate to something roughly the size of a phone book or your hand. However, then you apply mathematics and logic, the thickness of this piece of paper would stretch from one side of our known universe to the other side (which has been proven). In reality, a piece of paper folded 10 times would have the thickness of your hand, whilst it is typically physically impossible to fold it over 12 times. Try this yourself.

Using this example, it is now clear that it is vitally important for one to use logic and reason (a fundamental principle in science & philosophy) to form one’s own belief about the world, and not form it using on primitive intuition, personal opinion, and emotional attachment (or faith). Alternatively, if one uses faith to decide what to believe and use it to support some claim (i.e. god exists or santa clause exists), the counter-argument to that (i.e. god exists or Santa Clause exists) will have equal weight & value if you use faith believe it. Only evidence and rationality (which are based on true premises) should be used to judge if something is true or exists in reality, instead of faith and personal opinion. I will end with a nice quote by Christopher Hitchens to end my blog:

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

I hope you have found this latest & newest entry insightful and eye-opening, and I hope to have raised your consciousness on the problem of faith & religion that threatens rationality (and a sustainable future) today.

^_^

And breath’d such life with kisses in my lips, that I reviv’d, and was an EMPEROR

It never ceases to amaze me that so many religious people lecture others as if they believe what they teach is the absolute truth. One of the major problems in respect to this is not that the things teach are possibly incorrect; it is that these people don’t address the flaws/issues in their teachings at a suitable extent, and omit them from their teachings. Nonetheless, when the situation comes up to discuss these issues/flaws, the responses are always subjective invalid interpretations. For example, in answering why X leads to Y; “It is because X comes from/is required from G, therefore that’s why X leads to Y”. Explanations from the book in response to flaws in the system (which comes from the book); believing someone that they’re rich just because they say so. The issue isn’t really answered, merely covered up and blurred. A circular logic of death, it’s guaranteed to make any rational person a moron.

No one ever asks “Why do I believe in this religious system, and not the other?” or “Why do others believe in their religion, and not mine?”. No, it’s not simply the assumption that “everyone has their own beliefs and we should abide by it”. Because everybody thinks they think rationally, which leads to the conclusion that someone has to be wrong, it’s just a matter of finding out why you’re wrong and why the other person is right. Just because one thinks they’re right/wrong does not make it so. But personally, it’s quite entertaining to see ignorant people acting they’re as if not.

The Nequeological Argument

nequeo (latin): not to be able, to be impossible

If you google “nequeological” on the internet, chances are you won’t find a definition. That’s because it’s not a real word. It’s a word I made up for this philosophical argument I have came up with quite some time ago last year. Chances are, this argument is one that has not been written down before or named (though possibly theorized) by anyone. But if anyone DOES find that this is not the case, please message me. Like the 'Ontological Argument' that I have criticized against in a previous thread, I’ll illustrate the Nequeological Argument in simple form.

Also, if anyone thinks this to be ‘another’ anti-religious thread. I take my hat off to you. Congratulations, you have the intelligence quotient of a piece of toast. This thread (the entire blog in this matter) is not intended or aimed to be anti-religious; it is ‘pro-truth’ (so to speak). If a religion isn’t outrageously flawed there would be nothing to talk about, it is my fashion to point out these shortcomings and flaws so that people are able to be less ignorant when they read it as it gives them a new perspective to think about. Only an ignorant person believes without question; ignorant people/ignorance is a negative force in this universe. The premise of this thread (and this entire blog in that matter) is to go beyond the fabrication of illusion and ignorance (a common product of religion I must say), and explore such issues not contemplated upon by the normal person (you).

Edit: 21st May 2007. Premise 2, 3, 4, and 5. Just thought that I need to elaborate on a point as I felt I didn't write it properly, and change the wording of the premises to make the whole argument better.

Premise 1. Under this system, God exists.

Obviously. If ‘he’ didn’t there wouldn’t be religion and this thread wouldn’t exist. Note that the characteristics of God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. Any violation to any one of these characteristics proves that God does not exist, and that a flaw exists in the religion meaning it can't be true (as the system is created by God and hence perfect/flawless. any violation to this demonstrates that it's not true), as it indicates a contradiction.

Premise 2. Impossibility in the physical world does not exist.

Under this system of God, anything is possible. Therefore, impossibility does not exist in the real/physical world by the systems definition. Because if it did, then God would not exist (and miracles would not happen) because it violates ‘his’ nature.

For example, if there is an impossible thing, then God is not omnipotent as ‘he’ is limited in his power/ability. It would also infer that God is not the greatest, as ‘he’ too has limits. Something that has limits cannot be perfect/greatest/God.

Premise 3. The concept of impossibility exists.

It is certain that the concept of impossibility exists, purely because we can think of it. For example, A cannot be B at the same time, or objects cannot at the same time be another object. We as human beings hold what is conceptualized as impossible. However, because God is omnipotent anything is possible. Physically (Premise 2), A can be B, an apple can be an orange at the same time (issue too philosophically complex to be understood by the average person.)

Edit: Just to elaborate, this is a common explanation of God's omnipotence in the physical world by expert Christians/Catholics/theists/religious philosophers. Of course, the notion that there can be a four-sided triangle, that God can create something greater than himself, that 'he' can destroy himself and come back into existence, or create a stone that can't be lifted is beyond the realm of logic, rationality, and common sense. I said that it's "too philosophically complex to be understood by the average person" because to actually understand how these people theorize these arguments is in fact too complex to understand by average people. Premise 2 in truth is not true, but for the sake to acknowledging these fine philosophers/theists/Christians/Catholics (though one may perhaps see them as delusional and irrational) and their arguments, and for the sake of argument, I made it sound that it's true. So I apologize for the confusion. :)

Premise 4. As everything is possible under this system, impossibility therefore is not possible (or impossible) in the physical world.

This is self explanatory. But how do we know that impossibility per se does in fact exist? We know because we have a concept of it, we know it exists because we know what it is.

Premise 5. Therefore, impossibility in fact exists (conceptually & physically). [Premise 2. is not true]

Premise 6. ‘God’ by definition therefore can not logically exist. Because the nature of the religious system contradicts itself (that God is omnipotent); the system in which ‘God’ exists in consequentially contradicts his own existence. [Premise 1. is not true]

As always, feel free to critique this (via comment or email, anonymity can be arranged). I encourage it. It's better than socializing within one's religious group circle (i.e. Christian groups), oblivious from outside perspectives, seeping deeper in ignorance.

: )

See the WORLD in a grain of sand

Yay! Holidays!

Like most people reading this you’ll understand the feeling. To friends who have just completed their first year of university, believe me, this feeling gets better every year. It’s a sign that you’ve survived, ready for more advanced stuff (but not until after the 3 ½ months of holidays of course, haha).

Then there are many friends who will graduate this year (who I will never see at uni again *sob*, but will always have a place in my heart), and make a significant transition from students to whatever they wish to be. To these friends, good luck!

Time is a wonderful thing isn’t it? People in and out of our lives, but never really gone. Such change…yet we’re still the same…


Anyway…to business. I would like to share with you all a certain….proposition. Which came from a discussion 4 weeks ago (though I couldn’t remember the exact nature of the discussion). I would recommend you to not read this in one go and give yourself time to digest it over a couple of days. Oh yeah and since you haven’t noticed before, what’s in italics are my comments and side notes. It’s divided into 3 parts so you can digest it easier, and so you can refer to which part if you want to comment/criticise it.

PART 1:

I’ve always wondered why Christians say that God can instantly make something or do something, because he is all-powerful and all mighty. Then I wondered what the word ‘instant’ actually means, because to many I assume it means ‘immediately’ as if it takes zero time. Many Christians would use the word ‘instant’ to describe how God created light/earth/man/whatever to demonstrate his omnipotence. Because saying that it took time to create whatever implies that he is restricted or constrained in some way implying a limit to his power, which is obviously absurd in the minds of Christians/Baptists/whatever.

This led me to ponder on the possibility to arrive at an ‘instant’, whether it is even possible. As one of my specialities is metaphysics, I am naturally inclined to do this. Because to an average (perhaps ignorant) person, ‘instant’ is actually possible.

Allow me to demonstrate something. You have what you call ‘INSTANT’. That is, the concept of it (something so quick and immediate that it takes no time at all). You also have something that takes time; this is the measurement of time as we perceive it (humans are a measurement of all things, we perceive time differently from other animals and even other people), which we will call (X). Illustrated below on a continuum:
INSTANT--------- (X)

It is logical that to get to INSTANT from (X) you must at least travel some distance (left) on the continuum (in terms of time, get faster). This point we will call (Y) and can sit anywhere on the continuum, as illustrated below:
INSTANT----- (Y) ---- (X)

As you can see, there is immediately an infinite loop. To put it simply (I know using this example isn’t appropriate, but it helps you visualise it. Just be sure to apply the example to in relation to time after), you want to travel from point A to point B. But to get to point B you must at least travel halfway there, and half of that half, and half of that half, and so on…

Note that we are talking about very very small periods of time here, so tiny that we perceive as ‘instant’ (as if time stops) when in truth it isn’t. It’s just that our measurement (objective or subjective) isn’t sensitive enough to detect it (i.e. using a 1-metre stick to measure millimetres).

[Note. Refer to speed of light, it has been shown that light can travel faster in different mediums (actually it was shown to travel faster in a specific gas), thus confirming the above proposition. We perceive a stop in time because our unit of measurement isn’t small enough or sensitive enough to detect a change in time when in truth time exists for that object, that in truth it still takes time.]

Therefore, you can never get to INSTANT because (Y) will always be the new (X). As you get closer to instant, there will always be a point that is faster than your new point. Therefore it is logically impossible for instant to exist, it is merely a concept that exists only in ignorant minds (like a married bachelor, can exist only in the mind, but not in real life) at least in my opinion. Since ‘instant’ cannot exist, God could not have achieved anything instantly. The subsequent conclusion is that God takes time to do anything. That is, to initiate an action or decide with his will.

Now that I’ve demonstrated the impossibility of ‘instant’, that even God in truth needs time to act or decide with his will…I will move on to the next part of the proposition.


PART 2:

Since instant is a logically impossible thing, how could God create time before it even existed?

[Of course, a smart person would bravely ask “how do you know that God created time?” Well firstly, it says it in the Bible (not in Genesis, but in Job 38). Second (and I prefer the second because the reasoning of it isn’t circular, as in “it’s true because the Bible says it’s true”), if time had existed before God it would mean that God had not always existed, which according to the Christian system is ridiculous. In addition, the very concept of God dictates that he is the greatest and most divine being, nothing therefore can exist before him. Because for something to exist before God indicates that that thing is equal or even greater than him, because this thing exists before God. The concept that something is even equal or greater than God is also seen as silly in the eyes of Christians.]

[Oh and by the way, I’ll demonstrate how all this is false.]

1. We know that logically it is impossible for ‘instant’ to exist.
2. We know that God created time (as stated in Bible).

A more suitable question to ask therefore is in fact “how can a decision (which takes time to make) to create time can even occur before time existed?” Since it takes time to decide if time should be created (refer to first part of proposition), in a world where time does not exist, how can a decision to create time even commence? Clearly, it can’t.

The only other alternative is that God exists in an alternate world where time exists, and he can use his will to decide to create time in this world. With this alternative, no. Because it also takes time to create time in that alternate world, you basically have the same problem but in an alternate world. The same problem exists even if you create an infinite number of alternate worlds for God to create time in this world.

To be honest, I would love to see if anyone could think of other alternatives for God to possibly create time given the circumstances (I really do). If not, it would be wise to accept this 2nd part and I will continue to the final part.


PART 3:

For the final part of the proposition, I’ll illustrate the ramifications of God in not creating time:

1. Since it is shown that God cannot create time, time must have always existed or created in the absence of a will. That is, without the presence of God (or without a will, as God is the will) and without any real purpose. Either way, does it therefore not indicate that God was created (note that when I say this it implies that implies an existence without any real purpose or from any will)?

For he existed after time, yet he exists as stated in the religious system. But since God is divine and almighty, the idea of God as a ‘creation’ impossible. What ‘created’ him (note that the concept of God is not physical, but abstract) must be greater than him, and what is created is not the greatest/most divine (because what created it is greater and more divine, yet it is not a God because it has no will). Yet this (which created him) is does not have a will, meaning that this is not a God (nothing can create itself). Nonetheless, the system/bible states that God is the greatest (nothing can be greater than God) and most divine. Either way, does it not demonstrate the impossibility for God to exist and that the system/bible is false?

2. The only alternative involving God to exist and not a creation is for both time and God to have mutually existed, that both had always been. Nonetheless, this alternative means that God did not exist first and is not the greatest. Because for something to be the greatest, it must exist first.

[If something (we’ll call this X, though it can be more than one thing) existed before it (we’ll call this Y, but in aspect of the proposition it is God), then Y would be the result of that initial existence (X). Which is logical as nothing can create itself.]

We know that time and God are independent of each other, as time cannot be God and vice versa (it says this in the bible, so I’m just working with it). Since this alternative has time and God to have mutually existed and that both had always been, both must be equal as either one cannot be greater than the other (because for something to be the greatest, it must exist first).

But the Bible states that God is most divine and greatest, and nothing can be equal or greater than God. But as logically demonstrated, time is. Either way, does this not demonstrate the illogicality for the concept of God to exist (because he is not the greatest)? And that what is said in the bible, that God is the greatest and most divine, is false? Since the bible implies that all in the bible is true and has actually happened. Does is proposition (which shows an aspect of the Bible to be false, because it is illogical) not demonstrate the ‘fact’ that ‘the Bible is true’, is false?


Thus ends my proposition. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading it, but what I hope more is for you to ponder on the points made. I would also hope for readers to comment and criticise the points made if they disagree with any of it or wish an explanation, because I’ve left out a lot of details as they were too boring to read. Unlike certain groups/individuals who take an aggressive stance on those who criticise (viewing them as outsiders and disregarding propositions/points with an ad hominem argument), I enjoy criticism because it’s unchartered territory. So yeah…all criticisms and comments welcome.

I would also like to in advance apologise to those who sense an anti-religious or anti-Christian tone in the proposition, as it was not intended. I’m merely applying logic on aspects of the religious system.

I probably might not make another blog after this one anytime soon, I’ll be very busy having fun (i.e. beach and overseas) during the holidays (mwahahaha!). I might update with a few pics if I feel like it though. :D

Happy holidays everyone!

Not from the stars do I my JUDGEMENT pluck

Edited: 21st May 2007.

As many have noticed, this blog (unlike many others) is not about my life. Because how I see it, writing what happens in my life or how I feel is such an unwise way of telling the readers the person I am. Sure, I can say that I did this or felt that (went shopping with friends, danced at some party, or fell in love etc). But it wouldn’t be unique if I did…

Though I do realize the purpose of blogs. Human nature has such a desire and need to be known. To make ourselves known that others care for us, that we do exist, that someone has cared enough to read about our lives. To leave our mark on this world.

In my most honest opinion however, I believe it to be better if I gave my readers a view of my real self. Not by telling you how I feel and what burger I ate today or movie I watched. But my views…my philosophy. For it is the most essential and the important part of what a person is, immortal compared to the fragile memory. What we still keep when everything is gone. And this…is my gift to you. My mark on the universe.

In my years of philosophical discussion, the theme of religion continues to be brought up (along with others like divine justice, perception, illusion, equality, freedom, goodness, art etc. Metaphysics, but religion has been the dominating theme in our discussions). Numerous convincing and logical points have been brought up questioning the idea of religion (note that although the majority are atheists/agonists, there is a group of religious people to present all sides in the discussion. Note also that certain subgroups of the atheist/ agonist side DO criticize the validity of points of their own side).

Despite numerous convincing and logically valid points however, the religious group continue to respond with “You won’t believe it until you believe in God”, or “it all depends on your faith”, or “you have to trust him to know the truth”. It seems that the people giving these answers fail to realize the circular reasoning behind it. It also appears that faith is the fundamental factor in the belief (making it somewhat subjective), which makes me question the psychological aspect of ‘faith’ (seeing that so many other people don’t believe, the first thing that came to my mind was individual differences). Therefore, I believe it is necessary to explore the psychology of faith and religious teachings (compared to philosophy), how it influences our rationality.

Note. By definition (and when generalized to a global scale), there is little difference between religion and delusion, extremely difficult to draw the line between them. Which is why I believe exploring the psychology (external) of religion is equality important as exploring the philosophy (internal) of it. I know this deviates from what I usually write. I’m not saying that religion is a delusion, but to those who are religious, now you know what it feels like for someone suffering from delusions, and trying to change delusions is difficult.

But where to begin? I believe it would be best to illustrate the intricacies and system of both philosophy and religion.

Religion (which I will generalize) is the belief of a higher order. It is this higher power which people worship, usually of the ‘good’ side of the continuum. Believing in such a system inevitably forces one to deny (whole or aspects of) other belief systems (i.e. a Christian denying Buddhism or Greek Orthodox or Atheism), consequently ignoring them. Students of religion are encouraged to have faith and trust in the higher power, for it is the central aspect of religion.

Philosophy is the rational deduction and reasoning of abstract concepts. This system encourages the questioning and criticism of the actual human reasoning. Students of philosophy are encouraged to question their own reasoning as well as others. Its limit is that it evolves (reasoning changes to be better, meaning that what is deducted may not always be the truth), and the fact that it’s limited by mans ability to comprehend (which grows in time).

[Note. If you believe any of this to be wrong or inaccurate, please contact me and correct me. But I think I summed it up pretty well by thinking of personal bias, and eliminating it.]

Now we are ready to begin.

As already stated, religion sits on the good side of the good/evil continuum. Meaning that its teachings are (inevitably to the human mind) of good nature. Within these teachings, certain morals or rules are taught. For example, killing is bad, stealing is bad, take care of others, and respect the elderly (the specificity of these teachings isn’t the focus here, it’s its effect which I will demonstrate later). For a person initially exposed to religious teachings (note that I’m not saying these teachings are bad), the mind subconsciously comprehends that “the rules and morals that this religion teaches is good, benefits everyone, and that everybody agrees with it”. The mind therefore automatically (and subconsciously) processes it as “if the teachings are good and true, then the rest must also be true too” (the rest being other teachings of the religion, like how the belief came to be and other stories). Simply speaking, a person sees that the religious system teaches good behavior and morals (that everyone believes is true), and automatically assumes the whole religious system to be true. This is a logical fallacy (forgot the Latin name), a flaw in human deductive reasoning which in truth renders it invalid. It is illogical thinking.

With this assumption made, one would hence go on to learn the teachings of the religious system. Assuming what was said in the previous paragraph was erased, an individual would justify the existence of the system (as in that it is true and supported) based on its teachings (teachings being what is in manuscripts/scrolls/other people teaching the teachings). This is circular reasoning (another form of logical fallacy), rendering the argument invalid. To illustrate this simply, from the teachings a person believes in the existence of the system (i.e. a higher order exists, stories of deus ex machina did happen), which is supported by the teachings themselves. In other words, it is like believing that ‘person X’ did something because ‘person X’ said so. [Another example taken from Wikipedia: 1) Suppose Paul does not lie when he speaks, 2) Paul speaks, 3) Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.]

Now you understand why faith is a fundamental part of religion. Because despite such flaws in human reasoning (in addition to the paradoxes and problems associated with the system), faith is what enables one to continue in learning and understanding the teachings. Note that it’s the teachings only, not the paradoxes and problems associated with it. Faith being trust, as believers place trust in the system. As one who doesn’t place enough trust in the system or the higher power are considered somewhat weak (lacking faith) and/or not really part of the group (to those who have faith). Take note of the circular logic here, as explained previously. But this presents us with another issue, and issue dealing with faith/trust.

Edit: 21st May 2007. Upon further metaphysical thought, faith is NOT trust. There is a difference. Trust is based on past experience, it is earned (for example, trusting your mother because she hasn't betrayed you in the past. Not trusting a stranger because you don't have past experience with him/her). Faith is based on emotion, it is based on hope, without rationality, because to base something on emotion is not rational (for example, having faith in a stranger because you feel something with them, as in a connection when it's in fact an emotion. Having faith that your brother will not kill another person solely because he is your brother and you feel a strong emotional bond with him). I apologize for my ignorance, but now I know better.

[Consider this example: As you are walking in the countryside, you see a stranger in the distance walking towards you. You greet the stranger and he greets you back, and soon you both become great friends for weeks knowing everything about him. Under a campfire one night, he asks you “Lend me your possessions and I will reward you tomorrow”. You would obviously trust him and happily give it to him. Now consider the same question when you first greet the stranger in the countryside. Would you trust him and do what he says? Obviously no. Your trust in him was built in the time you spent with him; your trust grows as your friendship grows.]

Trust is to be earned. There are words for those who do not question and understand all before making a decision: naïve, foolish, impulsive, ignorant etc. It is wiser to know everything and ask every possible question before making a decision (especially one so important as belief). With so many problematic issues in relation to religious systems (i.e. the problem of evil, the problem of omnipotence, the problem of omniscience, problems of immortality, the problem of divine justice, problems of original sin, the problem of petitionary power, the problem of autonomous agents), and some in support of such a system (i.e. the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, Pascal’s Wager). One would wonder why believers of the system would be so confident in the system as to place so much faith and trust in it (not all these arguments/issues have been resolved yet), and why believers are so eager in learning the teachings (i.e. the books and scriptures telling stories and figures of long ago), teachings based on the system.

Isn’t it more rational and wise to understand and resolve these initial issues first (the issues stated above) before learning the teachings? Where is the purpose in learning complex teachings (i.e. complex books/scripts) of the system when one does not even have a clear mind of confidence in the basis of the system (which the teachings are based). Obviously philosophy seeks to resolve these issues, so why would so many people rather look towards religion? Isn’t it ignorant to take one side without considering the viewpoints of all sides? You wouldn’t choose a faction to fight for without considering the policies of other factions and question your own faction first would you?

To those who have already dedicated their time and effort to the system may (I believe) find it most difficult to revert back and look at these issues. To move away from a system or group to which one has lived to identify with, it becomes part of the person. Moving away from the group will be like moving away from a big part of yourself, like losing something that you hold dearly. So moving away from the belief system would be a psychologically aversive decision. One will also fear that it may make them acknowledge and realize possible flaws of the system, the fear that they have dedicated their energy and life to nothing. The possibility that they believed in something foolish (saying it to be ‘foolish’ just to give insight to the mindset of the person) is in itself devastating. Like waking up from a world of harmony and stability into chaos, where nothing is certain and nothing is stable. Many would rather revert back and forget they ever realized the reality (you won’t know how this feels unless you’ve experienced it yourself). And so, the common response is to continue with the teachings and ignoring arguments (or simultaneously performing an argumentum ad hominem), to continue in having faith/trust.

It may also be difficult to break away from the belief system, to in a way oppose the majority (that being the group in which you belong), as the group/majority is a powerful body. Powerful enough to pressure an individual to conform and stay at their place in agreement with the majority. It is human nature to conform, as conformity leads to harmony, and conflict is psychologically stressful.

“The minority is generally formed by those who have an opinion, while the strength of the majority is illusory, formed by gangs who have no opinion.”
Soren Kierkegaard (1850)

I’m not sure how to end this, because I can go on more about it. But it’s best for the mind to think of things itself. The purpose of this blog isn’t to bash religion; it is to make one aware of a correct and wiser path in choosing a belief (whether it is Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology (lol), Agnotism, Atheism etc). Only a fool chooses to live out an illusion than reality. Make the wiser path towards belief and understanding, it’s a life long path so don’t choose the direction so early. Think first and consider before deciding. Religion and philosophy, you decide. Make your own judgment.

The FOOL doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a FOOL.

Before I begin such an exploration into the ontological argument. I would firstly like to say that this has by far been one of the difficult theological arguments for me to understand at its deeper levels. My god (no pun intended), at first when I read the surface of it seemed easy to understand. But as I went deeper into how the argument was made and the examples to illustrate it, it got confusing to understand. This argument was introduced to me during a discussion with particular others during the end of holidays, and from the bottom of my heart, I was truly excited that such an argument existed.

The ontological argument is an argument stating that it is illogical and contradictory for one to say that God does not exist. The argument was first proposed by Anselm during the medieval era, and it’s description eventually got evolved/reformulated by several philosophical figures, even proved to be valid using mathematics by Gödel (obviously these names mean nothing to you, but they’re for reference). The nature of the argument proposes that God’s existence can be proved a priori (latin meaning ‘before experience’ or ‘before evidence’). Take note however the problems of an a priori argument (see Hume or Popper, or for example see next note in [ ]).

[This example was taken from Wikipedia and was by Hume, I did it because I was too lazy to think of one myself and type it out. I actually tried, but it came out to be similar to what Hume had.

Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational arguement by arguing as follows:

1.
The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
2.
The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3.
It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4.
Nothing can be proven to exist a priori. Including God.]

Take note however that this is not a full exploration of the argument, to completely prove if it’s false. I’m not qualified to do so…yet. I have chosen not to do a full exploration for several reasons: 1) It is too complex at it’s deeper levels, 2) There are several versions of it and the language used is confusing, 3) The interpretation process is frustrating, 4) I have other things to do than to spend 2 straight days doing philosophy/theology.

The ontological argument was taken from Wikipedia and other sources.

Ontological Argument (Simple Version):

1. God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. God exists.

Ontological Argument (Complex Version):

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
1. I agree with this.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
2. I also concur (to a certain degree, which I will explain later in proposition 4).

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
3. For obvious reasons (that reason being that if it’s true there is no point to the argument), assume it to be correct.

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
4. God does not exist in reality (see above), but the concept of God exists in human understanding. It is correct (to a certain degree) that whatever exists in reality also exists in human understanding, or vice versa. For example, I see a chair in front of me in reality; it also exists in my mind, in my understanding. I comprehend that this in front of me, is a chair.

But what is within our understanding does not always exist in reality (which is what proposition 4 is trying to argue, saying that whatever exists in our understanding must also exist in reality), in particular abstract concepts (the concept of God is an abstract concept). Take note that what is meant by reality is the realm beyond the realm of human understanding, the physical world.

Allow me to give an example; I will use words as an example. Words exist in our minds but do not exist in reality. If you write a word on paper, what exists is only ink on paper but not the word itself. It exists only in the mind; the mind comprehends and understands the ink on paper as a word. Therefore, words that exist in human understanding do not exist in reality.

Another example, I have a concept of justice (abstract concept, you cannot measure or see justice in reality, only what justice leaves behind, the consequences and events in reality). I am exposed to a situation in reality, which is consistent with my concept of justice, therefore I comprehend that justice exists. However, my concept of justice is different with the concept of justice of another. Because men are not perfect entities, we are incapable to hold a true (or perfect) concept of justice. Therefore, because of our inability to hold or comprehend true justice, the concept of justice we have is different from the concept of justice of another. Simply speaking, because men are not perfect entities, it is impossible for us to hold perfect concepts.

This includes the concept of God. We individually hold a concept of God, but because we are incapable to hold or comprehend perfect concepts (because of our imperfection), everyone’s concept of God will be different. One however may argue that everyone agrees with what is written in proposition 1 (or what I wrote in ‘The Proposition’). If you are thinking this then I am truly disappointed in you, mainly because the medium of articulating such a concept is through language, and language has it’s limits (imperfect medium).

We agree with the concept proposed to the limit the language allows the concept to be proposed. It is therefore not the true concept of God that we comprehend and understand, but the illusion that we are able to comprehend a perfect concept of God. A concept created by imperfect beings using an imperfect medium (language, we think in language. Hence we are imperfect beings).

Therefore, it is not true concept of God that exists in reality, only the concept we have created. Therefore, comprehending that God also exists in reality is false. This proposition stating that if the concept of God exists in our understanding, God must also exist in reality is therefore also false. God therefore does not exist in reality, only the fabrication of an illusion that he is.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater
than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
5. The original work by Anselm (Proslogion, Chapter 2) gives the following example to illustrate the point:

“For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thoughts and thinks that it exists because he has done it… And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of existing in reality as well, which is greater.”

Since man cannot comprehend or hold a true concept of God, the idea that God exists in reality is false. I do however agree with proposition 5. I agree that whatever exists in reality as well as the human understanding is greater than that which exists only in the human understanding. I also agree of existence (existing in reality) as a perfection. Take note however that in the original work by Anselm, the concept of ‘perfection’ does not mean ‘the greatest/absolute best’ as we understand it today. But ‘complete’, ‘absolute’, and ‘unlimited’.

6. From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the
entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
6. False because proposition 4 is false.

From (Proslogion, Chapter 3):
“For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing [or it is inconceivable for it not to exist], and that would be greater than something which cannot be thought of as not existing [i.e. It does not exist!]…For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought…”

This is what I also cannot understand; it is an extension to the proposition. I fail to understand it, but because this is based on the assumption that past propositions are true (which I have shown isn’t), I conclude it to be false as well.

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are
accepted as true).
7. False because proposition 4 is false.


Anselm in his Proslogon 3 made another a priori argument for God this time based on the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that if God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent. Therefore God must be necessary, to sum it up:

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God exists

This is where I fail to understand the rest of the argument. In the future perhaps when I am able to understand it…but here is where I stop.
Hope, you've enjoyed reading this and hope it has widened your understanding. Criticisms are very welcome.