fluffy654

fluffy654 @ 2006-06-21T00:06:00

2006-06-20T23:12:24Z

The Ontological Arguments

The first incidence of this type of argument is normally accredited to Saint Anselm (1033 - 1109) in his work, "Proslogion", however the actual term “ontological” was not used until much later when it was coined by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Initially, this type of argument was very popular and therefore can be said to have been largely successful. However, it received heavy bombardment from critics both from other schools of thought such as Thomas Aquinas who much preferred his cosmological arguments as well as various humanist thinkers who didn’t accept that god could be proved outright. This meant that it lost out in favour of other arguments for the existence of god that were felt to be more viable. This in no way means that the ontological arguments are done and dusted, however, since there have been quite a few attempts at a modern revival, most recently by Norman Malcolm (1911 - 1990) and Alvin Plantinga (1932 - )

Without repeating what will come later, an ontological argument is essentially an argument for the existence of God based on a priori knowledge alone. That means that they are not dependent on any kind of worldly experience and focus on analysing and unpacking definitions together with reason alone to reach conclusions.

The most common, modern rebuttal to any ontological argument is that we cannot imagine God into existence. However, no defendant of the ontological arguments have ever made such a claim and none of the more prominent philosophers have used it as a means of countering them. Therefore, I would encourage you to disregard that common misleading assumption for now.

Lastly, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) commented that it was far easier to remain unconvinced by the ontological arguments than to actually point out where they go wrong. This discrepancy has led many to dismiss the ontological argument based on a gut response and lacking any coherent reasoning. However, if there is something wrong with the ontological arguments, we should be able to pin down what this is before we reject it if we wish to remain logically consistent.

Anselm’s First Argument
Anselm formulated his argument as follows:
P1 God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
P2 It is greater to exist in the understanding and reality than in the understanding alone
C1 Therefore God must exist in both the understanding and reality.

Immediately, it should be noted that this is a deductive argument since Anselm is trying to prove via the definition of God that God must exist. By saying that God is the greatest conceivable being, and that it is greater to exist than not exist, Anselm believes he has proved God’s existence. We cannot really reject P1 since it is simply assigning a definition to a word and so it is missing the point to counter with something like “what if God is not the greatest being that can be conceived?” What is important is that we are dealing with “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” and we have decided to call this thing “God” but it is irrelevant whether this name happens to coincide with any other preconceived definitions. Concentrate only on the definition given in P1.

Another way to understand what Anselm is getting at is to imagine your perfect dessert. Imagine all if its qualities from the way it looks, to its texture in your mouth. Would it be better for the dessert to only exist in your understanding or to exist both in your understanding and in reality? Most people would go with the latter option and find themselves having to agree with P2 as well.

Yet a deductive argument is one where if the premises are accepted, the conclusion must also be accepted. Already, it should be evident why this argument has been so popular at various times over the course of history.

Realism and Perfection
Before we continue with the argument, the very idea of perfection needs to be looked at. In the modern day, perfection means something along the lines of “the best possible”. Therefore, it becomes illogical to talk about one thing being more perfect than another since perfection cannot come in degrees. Either something is perfect or it is not.

However, the justification of Anselm’s first argument is that since God is perfect (as established in P1), and since existence is a property required for perfection (as established in P2), God must exist. If he did not exist, then another being would have the potential to be more perfect than him. The reason for this is because in Anselm’s time, perfection instead meant more complete. In this way, a being who was intelligent had the property of intelligence but a being who was all-knowing had the perfection of intelligence.

Whilst Anselm’s argument can be reworded to avoid this problem, the distinction also solves any issues and becomes important when looking at Gaunilo’s criticism.

Gaunilo’s Criticism
Gaunilo was a monk and contemporary of Anselm who countered the ontological argument in his book entitled “On Behalf Of The Fool”, so called because Anselm regarded atheists as fools. Gaunilo invites us to imagine a perfect island. Upon acknowledging and understanding what Gaunilo is talking about (meaning that the perfect island exists in our minds), he then goes to say that since “It is greater to exist in the understanding and reality than in the understanding alone” (P2), the perfect island must also exist.

The most important aspect of Gaunilo’s criticism is that it does not disprove Anselm’s ontological argument. However, it does mean that, if we accept Anselm’s argument, we also have to accept the existence of every single thing that it is possible to imagine as perfect. Additionally, the claim that a perfect island must exist seems absurd and therefore Anselm’s claim must be seen as equally absurd. Gaunilo has not shown that Anselm is incorrect, just that anybody who accepts Anselm’s argument must also accept many other things which they probably do not wish to accept. There is an infinite amount of ideas which we can tack “perfect” in front of and prove their existence via Anselm’s argument unless Anselm does something about it. This method is known as "reductio ad absurdum".

Anselm’s Second Argument
In response to Gaunilo, Anselm revised his argument by stating that “God cannot be conceived not to exist”. To overcome the criticism, Anselm has changed his definition of God. He reasons that either God can be conceived as not existing or God cannot be conceived as not existing. The latter case appears to be greater than the first and therefore must be included in our definition of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

Here philosophers make an important distinction between the terms “necessary” and “contingent”. That which is necessary is that which must be. For example, here we have God’s existence being necessary. That which is contingent is something that is possible but not necessary. For example, my own existence is contingent since whilst I exist at the moment, I will not exist in 200 years. It seems intuitive to say that something with a necessary existence is superior to something with a contingent existence.

This defeats Gaunilo because the implication of this is that something which can be conceived as not existing is not God and this creates a significant enough difference between the perfect island and the perfect being so that the former doesn’t have to exist whilst the latter does. Anselm is essentially suggesting that whilst an island has a contingent existence, God’s existence is necessary. Gaunilo relies on God having a contingent existence but this is contradictive to our definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

Aquinas’ Criticism
A couple of centuries later, St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also criticised ontological arguments since he favoured his own cosmological and teleological arguments in order to demonstrate God’s existence. He argued that in order for something to be self-evident, we would have to be able to comprehend that something. So for example, “all bachelors are unmarried men” is self-evident because we have a clear understanding of the meaning of the subject and the predicate. Aquinas felt that the same was not true of “God exists” since whilst we have a grasp of the meaning of existence, we cannot know the essence of God. If we cannot understand what God is then how can we say what follows from that idea logically?

However, this is an especially poor criticism since it targets the definition of God rather than the argument itself. It is irrelevant what Aquinas’ (or anybody’s) definition of God happens to be. These arguments pick a particular definition and apply the term “God” to them. Therefore, they hold regardless of whether somebody decides that such a definition should not apply to their God.

Descartes’ Argument
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) reconstructed the ontological argument as follows:
P1 God is defined to be the supremely perfect being that contains all perfections.
P2 Existence is a perfection.
P3 Therefore, God must contain the perfection of existence.

This argument is essentially the same as Anselm’s but its construction is much clearer. It also avoids Gaunilo’s criticism outright since only God can be the supremely perfect being. Two objects cannot both be supremely perfect since the idea of supremacy suggests that each object is the most perfect and so cannot possibly be equal. Therefore, a perfect island is not supremely perfect since its essence of being an island limits its perfection. A supremely perfect being is nothing but perfect and so there can only be one supremely perfect being.

Kant’s First Criticism
So far, both Anselm and Descartes believe they have shown that existence is part of the meaning of God. That is to say that “existence” and “God” are as inseparable as “3 sides” and “triangle”. Here, “existence” and “3 sides” are known as predicates and “God” and “triangle” are known as subjects. A predicate is something that describes its subject.

Initially, Kant allowed this assertion that “God necessarily exists”, however, he claimed that whilst the predicate could not be denied in isolation since it was inseparable from its subject, this did not mean that both the predicate and subject could not be denied together. For example, if we say that “A triangle necessarily has 3 sides” then we are saying that if a triangle is to exist, its 3 sides are necessary. However, if no triangles exist, the 3 sides cannot be termed necessary because they do not exist either. Similarly, if God exists, his existence is necessary. However, if God does not exist, then his existence is no longer necessary.

Kant’s Second Criticism
Kant then attacked ontological arguments by denying that existence was a true predicate. This is because “existence” does not actually describe a subject in the same way that “red” or “big” does. Kant illustrated this with his example of 100 Thalers (a currency) all of which can be imagined to have predicates such as “metal”, “heavy” and “gold”. However, if we attempt to imagine an identical set of 100 Thalers with the added predicate of “existence”, we find that the two images are still identical. In other words, the predicate of “existence” has not actually told us anything about the properties of the 100 Thalers.

If this is true then the ontological arguments fall apart because existence is no longer an inseparable predicate of God because it is not a predicate at all. However, many people have trouble understanding why existence is not a real predicate and Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) went some way to justify and explain Kant’s second criticism in more detail.

Frege argued that when we use the term “exist” in reference to an idea in our mind, we are really saying that there is something in reality that corresponds with that concept. Of course the idea would be the same regardless of whether there was actually something in reality which corresponds with it and therefore existence is not a predicate since it adds nothing to the idea.

Russell asks us to look at the supposed predicate of “existence” in different ways. For example, we can say “A triangle has 3 sides”, “All triangles have 3 sides” or “Some triangles have 3 sides”. In each of these incidences, “3 sides” is a predicate of the subject “triangle”. However, if we do the same with “triangle” and “existence” the results are very weird: “All triangles exist”, “Some triangles exist”.

The first appears to be a truism since we cannot talk about the “all” of something unless they exist. Similarly, the second appears ludicrous since if a triangle does not exist, we cannot possible refer to it and so how can be say that “Some triangles exist”? The reason for these discrepancies must be that whilst our language treats “exists” as a predicate, it obviously cannot be since it does not follow all of the linguistic patterns that all other predicates do.

My Thoughts
Anselm’s original argument certainly seems to now be invalid. As well as the criticisms by Gaunilo, Kant, Russell and Frege, there appear to be a number of other failures that totally undermine it. For example, Anselm requires his definition of God to exist in our minds. However, just because Anselm has shown us a definition using words that we can comprehend does not mean that it is therefore possible for our minds to produce such a image. Can we imagine that which is both soft and intangible? We understand the words but that doesn’t mean that an image must follow. Additionally, Anselm is using words which are much harder to comprehend. For example, whilst we might know what Anselm is talking about when he says “omnipotence”, can we really imagine unbounded power? It seems like Anselm’s God does not even exist in our minds let alone in reality.

Additionally, even if existence were a predicate, this does not make it a perfection. The rest of God’s perfections sit at the top end of scales of things like power, knowledge etc. whereas there are only two modes of existence: existence and non-existence. This seems to contradict the classical idea of perfection which was an attribute taken to its absolute limit (i.e. a completed attribute). What exactly is existence’s limitable attribute? Does it not seem strange to suggest that everything we see, smell, hear, feel and taste share in this perfection when only God contains these other perfections? If existence is a perfection, it seems of a very different sort and so perhaps further justification of why we have decided it should be ranked amongst the likes of omnipotence and immutability should be asked for.

Lastly, I wish to point out that there are quite a few modern revisions of the ontological arguments as I mentioned at the beginning of this article. However, those that are different enough to be worthy of mention are based on a standard and scale of logic that is beyond both the scope of such a short essay and my own understanding. Suffice to say that they are not still around for no reason and to dismiss the ontological arguments without studying them would be foolish. Perhaps it would be safer to say that the classical ontological arguments, at least, have failed to convince both the atheist and the theist in the existence of God.

fluffy654 @ 2006-06-21T00:02:00

2006-06-20T23:06:39Z

Arguments For The Existence Of God

This introduction will serve to ease somebody, who is not familiar to philosophy, into this subject. It will do this by explaining the more technical terms which define these arguments since without these, the arguments themselves become much harder to follow and analyse. If you are already familiar with vocabulary such as analytic, inductive reasoning etc then feel free to skip ahead.

Any philosophical argument takes the form of a list of premises and a list of conclusions although there may in rare cases only be one of each. I use P and C notation to identify each of these components in an argument. The philosopher uses one or more of these premises, in isolation or in combination, to demonstrate each of the conclusions. Therefore, there are 3 areas in which an argument can fall down and which must be considered in order to test an arguments validity.
1) The premises themselves must be agreed upon. If they are not accepted or proved to be false then the argument will immediately falter.
2) The premises might be completely correct but they might not actually support the conclusions.
3) The conclusions might appear to be proved but only because they are being supported by a hidden premise. Hidden premises are often things which are taken for common knowledge or are deeply ingrained in a person’s belief system. An argument cannot be considered valid until all the hidden premises are accepted to the same degree as those stated.

Furthermore, arguments can be split into two categories. These are known as deductive and inductive arguments. Whilst the first of these are generally considered to be more foolproof, they are also more limited in their use.

A deductive argument is where, if the premises are taken to be true, the conclusion must follow. In this way the conclusion may be said to have been proven. However, this is only because this type of argument does not go beyond the premises themselves and only reveals a fact that was already evident from the premises. It cannot introduce anything “new”. For example:
P1 All bachelors are men
P2 Bob is a bachelor
C1 Bob is a man.

As you can see, if P1 and P2 are correct, C1 must also be true. However, C1 does not say something new that was not already evident in P1 and P2.

Conversely, an inductive argument sacrifices the guaranteed nature of its conclusions by trying to show something which was not evident from its premises. A scientist who makes a general rule out of a set of data is using an inductive argument. For example:
P1 Every man I have ever met has been a bachelor
P2 Bob is a man
C1 Therefore, it is likely that Bob is a bachelor.

Note that it would be a fallacy to conclude “Therefore, Bob is a bachelor” since an inductive argument can not result in a certainty.

Additionally, there are two ways in which we can establish the truth of our initial premises. The first of these is known as a posteriori which means to know something through experience. P1 of the inductive argument example can be confirmed a posteriori since it is a statement of a person’s experience. Similarly, P2 can be confirmed a posteriori by checking whether Bob is a man or not using our senses (that sounded better in my head…).

The second is call a priori which simply means knowledge that is not based on experience. If something is not based on experience then it must be attained by reason alone. P1 of the deductive argument example is a piece of a priori knowledge since it can be confirmed without actually having to experience either a bachelor or a man. Its truth is evident from the meaning of its very words i.e. it is the same as saying all unmarried men are men. This is also known as an analytic statement.

More about me

2006-06-09T10:33:26Z

You Are 100% Open Minded

You are so open minded that your brain may have fallen out!
Well, not really. But you may be confused on where you stand.
You don't have a judgemental bone in your body, and you're very accepting.
You enjoy the best of every life philosophy, even if you sometimes contradict yourself.

How Open Minded Are You?

That was quite an interesting little quiz. The questions were a bit slanted towards an open mind, however. Like the one that asked whether you felt that the majority of illegal drugs should be made legal. Well that is true for me but of course it doesn't pick up on the fact that I am very anti-drugs when those drugs make somebody extremely violent (for example).

Existence

2006-06-08T14:49:26Z

Haven't updated in awhile and with exams keeping me busy I don't really have as much time to as I would like. Therefore, I want to pillage my reply to a post on RF since it gives a good overview to my ideas about existence. The original post was initially a religious joke that turned into a debate and my reply addresses the joke's content... I know I like sucking the fun out of things :).

The Original Post
TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.

The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the
boy:
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
TOMMY: No.
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!

My Reply
This is a problem that could perhaps be resolved by analysing our definition of existence.

A very strict definition of existence and one that therefore appears to be of limited use, would be that whose existence is indubitable. This would limit it to ideas along the lines of the cogito. Under this definition we would have to conclude that we cannot say anything about God's existence. He may exist to the same degree as my hand may exist since there is no extra data on which I could base an incorrigible statement such as "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist".

A more reasonable but less certain definition of existence would be that which appears to exist to a reasonably high degree of certainty. This is also the definition of existence that the teacher is using. Therefore, whilst I could doubt the existence of my hand, it would still exist because my senses are confirming its existence. It does not have certain existence but it does exist within a reasonable degree of doubt. Under this definition, those things which we decide are within a reasonable degree of doubt are said to exist. But what of those which are outside this degree?

We have defined existence to mean that something which is doubtable but is within a specific limit of doubt can be said to exist. That is to say, whilst we can doubt this thing's existence, it would be unreasonable to say that it does not exist despite the fact that this is a possibility. However, the problem comes when we ask about those things which we have decided lie outside this degree of doubt ie those things whose existence seems absurd. We cannot say they might exist since this would undermine our reasoning for saying that those things that do lie within this limit exist rather than might exist. Therefore we must conclude that they do not exist.

This means, if we wished to remain logically consistent, we would have to conclude that God does not exist until we find some way of proving his existence within a reasonable degree of doubt. If you have already found this method then this should not pose a problem for the theist but unfortunately, many believe that they have not.

Therefore, I would return to the first definition of existence whose use now becomes abundantly clear. By sacrificing our knowledge of the existence of things like the grass, the trees, the sky and the teacher, we can now say things like God may exist. It also opens up the possibility of the teacher's brain existing. In return, we are able to say that we believe in the existence of the grass, the trees, the sky and God. All these things might exist. We cannot make a conclusion either way until the belief becomes incorrigible because otherwise we will fall into the trap that the teacher does here "TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He just doesn't exist."

Note that the trap is avoided if we only make assumptions about something's existence and non-existence if we limit those assumptions to hypothetical scenarios, practical life (ie non spiritual, non philosophical matters) and arguments of induction.

Its 8:32

2006-05-08T17:58:13Z

The Bible Society is a group dedicated to making the Bible available throughout the world. Their most recent initiative, "Its 8:32" (www.its832.org) is a movement designed to be as vocal as possible about the numbers of people with no access to the Bible due to languages barriers, disability or culture. Their name is in reference to John 8:32, "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free". In order to do this, they ask for the sum of £8.32.

Whilst I can sympathise with their basic belief that those who cannot access the Word of God, cannot repent their sins/believe in him and therefore cannot gain access to heaven, I find myself seriously having to question the morality of such an organisation. This is due to 2 areas: their aim, itself, and their methodology.

The first is a fairly simple objection. People in general are pretty tight when it comes to giving to charity (I am most certainly amongst them). Therefore, I see every £8.32 that goes to ending what The Bible Society refers to as "Bible Poverty" as £8.32 that could have been spent on ending poverty. As I say, I can sympathise with those who feel differently about this since, to them, saving a person's soul and giving them a happy afterlife is obviously infinitely more important than trying to end suffering in this life. However, I must admit that I find myself amongst radical atheists, a rarity for me, when I say that this is a very negative impact of religion, especially from a secular point of view. If Christians have got it wrong, this is one hell of a gamble to take when the stakes of suffering are so high.

The second is more difficult but is certainly more damaging to the group. They seem to have gone down a route of extreme sensationalism. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against charities who try and sell themselves and their aims to people because, afterall, thats the only way to get anywhere in this world. But to the extent of being deliberately misleading or even dishonest? I think not.

For example, whilst their website proclaims, and one assumes accurately, that 4500 out of 6900 languages "still wait for one book of the Bible", they fail to mention that between 3000-3500 of these are expected to become extinct within the next 50-100 years. Additionally, they fail to mention that the vast majority of these languages have fewer than 100 speakers and that most of the speakers of these lesser known languages are multi-lingual and so can quite happily read the Bible in another more mainstream language anyway.

Apart from this, do we really expect them to translate the whole Bible into Osage for the benefit of 5 people? How about the 8 Curonian speakers? If only 10 people spoke each of these 3500 endangered languages, that is 35,000 people who not only will not get into heaven but who The Bible Society have no intention of helping get there. Fair enough, they don't have to but they make it seem like they fully intend to. No attempt will be made on their part to translate the Bible into 4500 different languages so they are deliberately making the problem look greater than it is by including those languages that will never ever see the Word of God.

Furthermore, they state that 1 billion people are unable to read and that this therefore demonstrates the great need for audio Bibles. Their statistic of "6700 languages still wait for the Bible in audio" falls to the same pitfalls as I discussed in the last paragraph, although to a greater extent. However, does it not seem perverse that rather than using this money to let the 1 billion people read, and therefore read a written copy of the Bible, they will instead use it to create audio Bibles? This smacks of creating a monopoly on information, to be quite honest. It is essentially built in censorship of most of the alternatives to the Bible that are out there.

The poor statistics continue with "More than 800 million people are either blind or so visually impaired that they are not able to read. With nine out of ten who are blind living in developing countries.

If they are to encounter the life-changing message of the Bible personally they must have it in Braille. But for those speaking any of 6,870 of the world's languages that can only be a dream."
Again the website fails to point out that the vast majority of these 800 million blind people will be quite able to use the audio Bibles that are already being produced.

On their front page, James Catford, Bible Society's chief executive, says "This stark reality of global Bible poverty is a scandal as great as global poverty." I would like to finish by putting this problem in a bit of perspective. At a very, very generous estimate, 2 billion people could be said to have no access to the Bible at this point in time. Contrast this with the fact that the poorest 50% of the world's population (3.25 billion) recieve just 8.5% of world income and how the former can be said to be "as great" as the latter is totally beyond me (http://www.networkideas.org/featart/apr2002/The_Global_Divide.pdf).

fluffy654 @ 2006-04-11T18:04:00

2006-04-11T17:04:39Z

Okay this is going to be a major rant so feel free to skip if you like. I haven't updated in an age either so I'll try and get something more interesting up later today but right now, this is what I gotta do.

I could bitch about the fact that I had to go to court today which was pretty damn stressful, but if I'm totally honest with myself, that was really something that was emotionally taxing at the time and I can get over that quickly. No what I'm going to bitch about are my so-called friends. Supposedly, you can find out who your real friends are when you are in a nasty situation and need them the most. The ones who aren't your friends will let you down, and the ones who are will stick with you no matter what. I guess today I lost a lot of friends because today was the one day when I needed some support in a long time. Well, I didn't so much lose them... they were never there to lose but it just took today for me to realise that. After all, why would I want to be friends with people who dump me in crap and then let me find my own way back out.

On top of that, I'm not in the least bit guilty that I stood up for what I believe in. If that impacted negatively onto any of your perfect little lives then thats just too fucking bad. Please feel free to continue getting walked all over but do it away from me because you have had plenty of due warning now that you might get caught up with me standing up for myself, as shocking a concept as that might be.

And that is all the conversation I'm prepared to have on this matter :).

The Conservative Party

2006-03-04T17:23:01Z

For those who aren't from the UK, the Conservative and Unionist Party (more commonly known as the Conservatives or Tories) are the second biggest, right-from-centre political party in the UK behind Labour. Since I first became politically aware, I have never been able to understand the mentality of those who have decided to vote Conservative especially of those of my generation since generally those who are younger tend to be more liberal.

So here I will take some time to outline the reasons why I could never, ever vote Conservative. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty Conservative views I agree with such as their more recent opposition to ID cards. However, for me, the bad outweighs the good to such an extent that sometimes I wonder how Conservative voters are able to sleep at night!

History of Racism
The best way to describe this laundry list has to be "extensive". What other party, even in 1964, would even begin to consider endorsing the slogan "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour"? A slogan that resulted in a Tory victory no less.

Today the picture is not a whole lot different. The language may be milder but the intentions and feelings of grassroots-conservatism is still going strong. For what other reason did John Taylor (a black Conservative) fail to keep the safe Cheltenham seat than racist Conservative voters switching parties in horror at having to vote for a black MP? Why else would Michael Ancram have to remind candidates to "avoid using language which is likely to generate racial or religious hatred"? Perhaps such a memo was wholly necessary for a party famous for members such as Alan Clark, David Davies, John Townend, Teresa Gorman, Ann Winterton and Norman Tebbit all of whom have been universally condemned, even by their Conservative peers and leadership, of racist comments.

Didn't anybody else ask, when "Conservative modernisers" used the election of Adam Afriyie in 2005 (the first black Conservative MP) as an indication of changing attitudes in the Conservative Party, why such an event was being lauded as a success? Surely if this is a success then the situation beforehand must have been truly dire indeed.

Defence of the Nuclear Family
I'm not opposed to this in some senses, however, I oppose it fully when it comes at the expense or demonisation of more "deviant" forms social interaction such as homosexuality or single parent families. Unfortunately, the Conservative party takes the latter stance.

It will be a long time before I let anybody forget that it was Thatcher's government who introduced the infamous Section 28 banning "the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" in 1988. Has the party modernised in this respect? Well clearly not after Shaun Woodward was sacked 11 years later after refusing to give his support for Section 28. Further evidence can be seen in their policy of opposition to gay adoption in 2002 (after quashing a significant revolt by Conservative modernisers).

Even David Cameron's recent appeal to openly gay Conservatives to volunteer to be placed on a "fast track" list, heightening their chances of becoming MPs smacks not only positive discrimination but also insincerity from a party that has consistently opposed every single bit of pro-gay legislation.

Euroscepticism
I am a member of this world first and a member of my country second. If there is one thing that history should teach us, it is that isolationist policies always, without fail, have led to stagnation in growth (both economically and socially) and, more occasionally, have let some of the biggest man-made tragedies to pass by under many a country's selfish eye. I refuse to ascribe to this philosophy whereby the suffering of another can be ignored based on the mere fact that they are not present in my country.

Therefore, it should not really come as a surprise that I disagree with the Conservative Party on a fundamental level here. Not only is it bad for our economy to isolate ourselves from Europe (as petty as that concern may seem in comparison) but we are effectively saying "we live in a privileged society but rather than sacrificing some of that privilege to help those people who come from parts of the world where they have none, we will strive to widen the gap between us and them". It should not be seen as a disadvantage if we become slightly worse off by strengthening our EU ties, it should be seen as a worthy sacrifice in aid of breaking down this wall we ourselves have built between the humans of the UK and the humans of Europe.

The Clutches of Geekery

2006-02-25T21:44:10Z

Woah I just realised I haven't updated in awhile so I better make this a fairly substantial post! My excuse can be that I am ill... which will also be handy in the likely event that this if this turns out to be of fairly poor quality :).

You know what the worst thing about having geeky habits is? The status of social outcast? The lovely stereotype that gets attached to you? No! Its just they cost an arm and both fucking legs!! For example, I am currently being encouraged to get back into Warhammer but unfortunately I have already sold my rather meague collection. However, its not like I needed much encouragement so after spending some quality time constructing a tiny army list (500 points for those in the know), I find that to actually buy all the gear I need for this army, its going to set me back by 60 smackers. And that isn't including the ridiculously expensive paint which will probably cost an extra £30. I hope I get a bout of laziness or a girlfriend or... anything to give me something better to do! At least I downloaded the rule book and codex (another £50 usually) for free so Games Workshop doesn't get their greedy mitts on anymore of my "hard earned" cash.

Luckily for me, there are some outlets for these tendancies that are free. One of them is text based, online strategy games. Most of which are shit largely because the most effective way to win is to play it constantly. And the way they work means coming back to it every hour or so and somehow that just doesn't quite fit into my idea of fun. However, my brother just introduced me to a new one which thankfully comes minus the near obligatory "click this link once a day to increase your troop count" system. www.ogames.org is essentially where you start off with a planet and you go and expand to other planets, make alliances and pick on people who are smaller than you. One of the most notable differences is that it actually looks fairly snazzy (For an example of a game of this type that does not look snazzy just go to www.kingsofchaos.com). The second biggest difference is that its noob protection actually seems to last forever; a long enough time, in fact, for me to mess around, get bored of the game and move on without having to face the annoyance of being farmed by someone who has even more time on their hands than me (quite amazing really). Oh if any of you suckers feel like joining, do it in "Universe 12" and look out for planet "Oblong".

Anyways that is about all I can be assed with today. I'll try and put up something a bit sooner next time.

Success

2006-02-02T18:53:25Z

Deloitte accepted my application meaning I am through the next stage! Ha in your face Goro :). They so like me more than you ;). So yes I am very very happy. Dave I know they accepted you after the first interview but did you go on and do the assessment days in the end? I'll be interrogating you about them tomorrow either way :).

Richard Dawkins

2006-01-30T21:21:26Z

I'd just like to take a moment and explain why this guy pisses me off.

Firstly I guess I better explain who he is for all of you slightly less enlightened ones out there :). Richard Dawkins is best known as Darwin's chief modern proponent. He is an atheist, a strong advocate of scientific method and is very anti-religious. Now so far I am in complete agreement in him apart from that very last point but hey... I'm open minded and willing to live and let live! So why exactly do I have a problem with him?

It all comes down to his manner. Lets take a recent controversy, that of Intelligent Design aka PC Creationism, to highlight what I mean specifically. Now Kenneth Miller is another biologist who has researched both the ideas of Creationism and the theory of evolution extensively. He was involved heavily in the Denvar case (the Christian right tried to push ID into the school curriculum as a science subject). He takes each nonsensical ID point and he provides clear, concise reasoning for why it is nonsensical and, perhaps more importantly, not science.

The result of Kenneth Miller's arguments (although he is in no way deserving of all the credit) was a crushing defeat for the Creationists. They lost the court case and are unable to teach ID as a science. Why did this happen? Because Miller realises something very fundamental about the nature of knowledge; that we cannot regard something as false unless we first test it and give some reason for categorising it as such. Now I'm sure Dawkins realises this too but he falls down totally in its application.

Dawkins approach to Creationists is to snub them. He feels that to even debate their points is giving them some sort of a victory because it forces him to acknowledge them. Maybe he is right. But lets just follow this logic through for a second. If I am a Creationist who, through a series of flawed but reasoned arguments have come to the conclusion that I have found a viable scientific alternative to evolution, what is likely to be my response to such arrogance? Firstly, it will provide me with even more assurance that I am right and Dawkins is wrong. Afterall, if he were right he would surely debate with me? Secondly, it will further bias me against evolution since I will connect the theory with the arrogance of its champion. Lastly, I will still be blind to the flaws in my arguments because they have not been pointed out to me.

Miller offers to increase the understanding of all people. Dawkins is seemingly too arrogant to realise that people can honestly believe something that seems absurd to him and that they are not doing so simply to irritate him. It is the difference between me respecting your point of view and disagreeing with it, whilst explaining myself and refusing to acknowledge your position, insult what you believe and then have the gall to proselytise your own belief.

What Dawkins in effect ends up doing is preaching to the choir. He is incredibly intelligent and incredibly wise but after all is said and done, the only people who are going to respond to "Creationists suck, theists suck even more" are those who already believe how he does and normally for far less legitimate reasons. Its just a total waste. More than that, it is a totally negative influence on modern scientific and philosophical thought because he drives those whom he is against because of their irrational arguments even further from reason.

Richard Dawkins, you suck :).

My Life :)

2006-01-25T22:55:10Z

Well as you may be able to tell from the oh so revealing title, I'm just going to babble on for awhile about me and what I like :). I hardly ever do that to anyone so you can all just like it or else!!

Everyone is going away this weekend :(. I'm going to be all on my lonesome... well okay that is far far far from true but a significant number of people who I like are going away and although I probably wouldn't have met up with them over the weekend anyway because they would be too busy screwing each other (I'm looking at you Ben and Dave... you too Parry) and I would be too busy being antisocial and moping about having a lack of girlfriend without actually going out and getting one. But its the fact that they will be far away!

So yes that sucks. I now have to think of something to do this weekend. I wonder if Emily would be free but she is probably too busy "screwing" her other half as well. God! All you people are so... couply!

Anyway I'm going to end this update right there because I haven't updated in awhile and I don't think I can write anything more whilst I'm on MSN :).

Fluffy

Omnipotence

2006-01-14T16:58:42Z

Here I'm going to outline why I reject the idea of an omnipotent god and how this is totally congruent with the Christian belief system. If that doesn't interest you then please skip :).

The Omnipotence paradoxes
I'm going to go right back to basics here and start with the collection of arguments that are mostly dismissed out of hand for no good reason or groaned at largely because, contrary to my previous belief, there are still people out there who believe in the omnipotence of their god having never heard of any of these. Collectively they are known as the omnipotence paradoxes and they all follow a similar theme of asking what would happen if an omnipotent being tried to limit his own omnipotence.

The most commonly cited example is "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that he could never lift it?"

This shows that either an omnipotent being can create the stone but can't lift it or that the being can't create it in the first place. Either way, there is something that the omnipotent being cannot do and therefore he cannot be all powerful. Please note that this paradox avoids the traditional response of "God could create a stone he couldn't lift but then at a later point, make himself stronger in order to lift it" because it does not follow the classical structure to which such an objection would certainly apply, but is now reworded to include the condition "never".

Resolving the omnipotence paradoxes
There are two ways of doing this and neither are satisfactory, in my humble opinion.

The first's original advocate was the Arab philosopher Averroès except he worded it in terms of creating a triangle with angles equaling more than 180 degrees. Yes, a flawed argument when looked at from outside of Euclidean geometry but rewording the argument so that this is resolved (or simply using the rock example) is trivial. Later the view was championed by Thomas Aquinas which allowed the idea to become more widespread since Averroès, because of his nationality, was distrusted by the Christian majority at that time. He basically argued that a being who was essentially omnipotent still had to obey the laws of logic. In other words, he accepted that, logically, there were some things that God could not do (ie all of the omnipotence paradoxes) but that God was basically still omnipotent since he could do everything else. He had redefined the term omnipotence to mean "the ability to do anything that is logically concievable and possible".

Fair enough, I say, but this does not make God omnipotent by a long shot! If I have 4 pet cats and I redefine the word cat to mean horse, I can totally truthfully and accurately say that I have 4 pet horses. But that doesn't make it so. The essential concept of what a cat and a horse is has not changed, just the word I have used to refer to them and the same goes for God and his precious omnipotence, or perhaps I should say our precious omnipotence. God is still very powerful but redefining the word omnipotence to mean something else does not mean that he can still do everything and overcome the omnipotence paradoxes. Besides if logic is a powerful enough force to limit God then from where did it come? It seems to challenge God's very title of creator of everything. Surely logic is now a more powerful god than God will ever be? Additionally, if logic can limit God, then perhaps other things can as well.

It is also totally counter-intuitive. With my example of cats and horses, one might ask the question, now that we refer to cats as horses, what shall we now call horses? Shall we call them cats instead? If we apply a similar line of reasoning to the scenario at hand we shall end up calling a being who is limited by logic as "omnipotent" and an omnipotent being as "limited by logic"; a complete joke in other words. The insistency with which believers in organised religions cling to this word is a product of their belief that their god is unchanging and an inability to accept that prior believers may have actually got it wrong.

The second way to resolve the paradoxes was forwarded by Rene Descartes (the first to come up with it, as far as I am able to find). He suggested that God could do even that which is logically impossible. God could create his too-heavy-to-lift rock and lift it as well. The same line of reasoning can be used to undo any paradox, in case you were wondering. But at what expense? Well logic immediatly becomes useless and so does language, as far as talking about God is concerned at any rate. For example it is both, simultaneously, a certainty and an impossibility to come up with a counter-argument to Descartes' theory. 2+2 now equals every number, whole or otherwise, that exists and a few that don't. Oh and simultaneously, it only equals 4 as well. It is impossible (and a certainty at the same time) to comprehend anything if we assume that logic is not consistent. All argument, all speech even, becomes infinitely meaningful and meaningless at the same time. Okay I think you might get where I am going with this :).

However, I will further one last thought on this. The argument itself is an argument and therefore requires the laws of logic in order to be stated (any coherent sentence does). Does that make it self-contradicting or self-proving :)?

Process Theology
Stepping hastily away from the brilliant yet boggling area of Cartesian theology, now I will forward a totally different way of of approaching the problem of omnipotence. This new approach has largely been taken up by Jewish philosophers in the reform movement and kudos to them I say! In actuality, process theology is a group of beliefs that deal with god in a slight but significantly different way to that of classical thought. Ironically, the part of it which rejects omnipotence actually has its roots in one of the most well known classical philosophers, Plato.

"I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, tho it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things: that they are nothing but power." (Plato, Sophist 247E).

Okay so whilst he may have been a great philosopher, his writing style could have used a little improvement so I will try and paraphrase this in a slightly more readable and understandable way because, if you are anything like me, you will look at that and instantly get bored.

Essentially Plato is suggesting and justifying the notion that existence itself bestows a form of power. It is easier to understand if we actually look at the term "power" in more detail rather than just throwing it about the place. Plato has decided, and reasonably in my opinion, that power is a word to describe the ability to exert an influence, no matter how immeasurably small, onto something else (or even oneself, arguably). However, since everything in existence has the potential for this ability (please note that realisation of that ability is not required for an object to be said to have power), everything must have some degree of power.

So now we have established that everything has some sort of power, how does this affect our belief that God has absolute power? Well the argument goes that if I have power simply by existing then I have some power, no matter how puny and pathetic by comparison, which I can use to resist God's will. Now please note that I don't have to be successful in my attempt, I just need to be able to make the attempt. But if I am able to resist God's will, even if I will inevitably fail (or not as the case may be) then surely God is unable to exert absolute influence upon me? Therefore God cannot be said to have absolute power since although it may overcome every other source of power, it may be resisted in some small way.

A very kind person, though anonymous, put this far more clearly than I ever could in the vast expanse of knowledge that is www.wikipedia.org and I shall shamelessly reproduce their words here so that this argument is not hindered by my own inability to express it.

"1) God exists
2) God is perfect
3) Existence is power,
4) Since existence is power, all beings in the universe must have power.
5) If all beings have some power, then they have some power to resist God.
6) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power."

Some people feel that the reason this contradicts the idea of God is because it shows him to be less than perfect but I disagree. Whilst that may or may not be the case, it is a bit of a convulusion since it is unnecessary to show that God is not perfect in order to show that he is not omnipotent. I simply ignore that step for the puposes of this article and skip to the important part.

Is the Christian god even omnipotent?
Well a lot of Christians assume it to be the case. Some have never really thought about it and accept it. Others have reached the omnipotence paradoxes and gone down one of the two roots of resolution, both of which I hope I have shown to be unsatisfactory to the point that a third solution will be preferable.

This third solution that I propose is that God is in fact not omnipotent and it was merely previous fallacies in human thought together with the unfortunate tendancy of the Christian Church of old to stifle new ideas and corrections before they had a chance to grow properly. But what about the Bible?

The Bible is quite clearly contradictory on this. For example, Revelation 19:6 calls God omnipotent whilst claims of God's limitations are far more widespread. That God cannot
lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18),
forsake you (Hebrews 13:5),
tire nor stop existing (Isiah 40:28),
be tempted (James 1:13),
nor tempt anyone else (Jas 1:13-14).

Furthermore, the Bible does not display God contradicting the laws of logic at any point. Nor does it technically display him contradicting the laws of physics, as we understand them.

It seems to me that the fault lies with those who wrote the Bible. I believe something like this happened. God told his people that he was very powerful, more powerful than any other god. Infact he was more powerful than anything else in existence. Now to a Biblical scholar, perhaps the difference between the most powerful being in the universe and the theoretical being with absolute power seemed very small, so small that the lines seemed fine enough to blur as much as they wanted to. Afterall, if there was no other entity that could challenge God's power, why not call him omnipotent despite his known limitations since he effectively was all powerful?

What they failed to count on, and what later philosophers have pointed out, is that abstract ideas can hold more power in some sense. God made it clear that no other being could challenge his power. He also made it very clear, implicitly, that there were some important concepts which in turn limit him. However, the opposite was assumed true of the latter and so the most powerful tool in existence, logic, became undermined, falsely. To me, this point has immense importance especially when the relationship between reason, emotion and faith is studied.

fluffy654 @ 2006-01-13T23:24:00

2006-01-14T02:02:28Z

I have met so many nice people recently. What I don't understand is how the world can be such a god awful place if every single person I know on a personal level is so fucking amazing. Okay so they aren't all truly "good" people. By that I mean that tiny little twinge you get when you recognise something so pure and untainted in another person that you know that no matter what they do, they will always remain on a pedestal to you. Although I am finding more and more of those people.

I'll try and prevent this from turning into another "oh why can't the world be like this! I know if I wish hard enough it will happen" type post. I know I tend to do that a lot and its silly. But so are all of the rest of you dammit! Just stop fucking with each for two secs and take a step back, feel the luuuurve, and then get the fuck along!

Oh yes! I have discovered my true passion for cacti! The little group collected on the freezer downstairs had better watch out because Fluffy is horny and on the prowl. Thank you Rosie for helping me realise this deep and needy emotion that until now I had repressed. And on that note I will have to go because that girl has managed to keep me from completing this entry till 2, not that I blame her :).

Religious Forums

2006-01-06T18:28:25Z

God I love this place so much. Never before have I found a community with such a sense of... well... community about it lol :). For a religious/philosophical nut like myself, it is a dream come true. But one of the best things is that recently I was made a moderator of the board along with 2 other excellent choices :). Its such a fulfilling experience to be able to contribute even more to something that you get such a lot out of. Plus I've wanted to be a mod there for such a long time so I was so happy to be asked.

I'm so relieved that their are people like this out there. Wherever I go religious intolerance, infact intolerance of all kinds, abounds. It feels like I am wading through on a day to day basis so being able to find a small haven to get away from all of that is a blessing. I suppose it is sad in a way that I feel so happy about something like being able to believe in what I want, unjudged by others when it should be one of those small but amazing things we take for granted in every day life. How do you all survive in your bog of ignorance and disregard for others? I know its all I can do to keep my head above the surface.

Anyway for anybody who is as sick as I am with the current state of affairs, it might be something worth checking out (www.religiousforums.com). I know I mention it enough but its such a contrast to what I encounter in real life that it always stands out for me.

My Gap Year

2006-01-03T17:24:01Z

Things are looking a darn sight more hopeful now. I'm back in with a chance of getting a scholarship scheme with Deloitte which will not only give me some work to do so I won't just waste my time but it also pays me thousands of pounds on top of what I get for the normal working hours. Lets see as long as I work for 30 weeks in my gap year, and then four weeks every uni year (fully paid) I get a total of £1500 plus £1000 per year I stay at uni. Not to shabby.

That is considering I actually manage to get through the interview process and assuming my pscyhometric tests, that I just completed (damn stressful fuckers), were okay. I think I might have got near full marks on the verbal but I ran out of time on the numerical and had to quickly guess the last 3 :(. Keeping my fingers crossed at any rate. Man if I get this, my life will just get dramatically easier all of a sudden lol.

Then all I need to do is get straight As... considering I'm on 2 Bs and a D that is gonna be uphill work. All going to depend on the next few weeks with my retests coming up. I might be able to blag it with an A and 2 Bs which is a lot more realistic but a lot more risky lol.

And my personality disorders :)

2006-01-03T00:25:44Z

Disorder	Rating
Paranoid Disorder:	Low
Schizoid Disorder:	Low
Schizotypal Disorder:	High
Antisocial Disorder:	Low
Borderline Disorder:	Very High
Histrionic Disorder:	High
Narcissistic Disorder:	Low
Avoidant Disorder:	High
Dependent Disorder:	Very High
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder:	Low
-- Personality Disorder Test - Take It! -- -- Personality Disorders --

and here is a personality disorder test given to me by someone very special. Gives you guys and gals a more balanced view lol! :) Also it is probably fairly accurate.

My personality according to the BBC

2006-01-03T00:09:27Z

Your answers suggest you are an Idealist
The four aspects that make up this personality type are: Spontaneous, Ideas, Hearts and Introvert

Summary of Idealists
Make sense of the world using inner values
Focus on personal growth and the growth of others
Think of themselves as bright, forgiving and curious
May sometimes appear stubborn
More about Idealists
Idealists put time and energy into developing personal values that they use as a guide through life. They may seek fulfilment by helping others improve themselves and often want to make the world a better place. Idealists only share their inner values with people they respect.

Idealists are the most likely group to say they are vegetarian, according to a UK survey.

Idealists enjoy discussions about a wide range of topics, particularly those that deal with the future. They are typically easy-going and flexible, but if their values are challenged they may refuse to compromise.

In situations where they can’t use their talents or are unappreciated, Idealists may have trouble expressing themselves and withdraw. Under extreme stress, Idealists may become very critical of others, or lose confidence in their own ability to cope.

Recognition for their work is important to Idealists; however, they are also good at spotting false praise.

Idealist Careers
Idealists are often drawn to jobs where they can help people reach their potential. They are also attracted to careers that allow artistic creativity.

It's important to remember that no survey can predict personality type with 100 percent accuracy. Experts say that we should use personality type to better understand ourselves and others, but shouldn't feel restricted by our results.

That was all taken from the BBC website and saves me the trouble of describing myself to you lot. It is probably more accurate as well, afterall, it guessed my vegetarianism which is pretty good.

New Year

2006-01-02T23:19:13Z

Wow! You know it is a good New Year's Eve party when it takes you the better part of 2 days to recover. Actually the one I went to was not so much a party as a small social gathering and not so much good as fucking weird. One thing it did remind me of was how horrible it feels to be awake on coffee and assorted soft drinks alone.

It started out okay, was just me, Tom, Laura and Lisha which was nice and cosy. Gave me a chance to get to know Lisha better because this was only the second time I got to meet the girl, well properly anyway. And like the last time, this was an all vegetarian event as well... how strange... Anyway so it got to about 10ish and everything was going just fine till me and Laura look around from our Bridget Jones induced trance and realise that Lisha is in total agony :(. Cue 5 hours of squeezing the hand of someone you barely know as they writh in pain, interupted occasionally by various concerned adults and phone calls to parents till a 3 'o' clock trip to casualty. Sitting in the waiting room for 2 hours went surprisingly fast considering how tired I was, I even managed to stay awake. Typical NHS though, after all that wait and the doc sent Lisha packing without even any pain medication.

So yeah it was the most eventful New Year, probably, although we nearly missed the countdown with everything else going on. One thing I did learn about Lisha is that after all that, she can still wake up in the morning with immaculate hair damn her *glares* ;).

Oh and I totally went and left the Xmas pressies that Laura gave me at Tom's house *bangs head*. Somebody please remind me to ask for those back or my weird bonsai potato utility set will get lost or broken or something *sobs*

Welcome

2005-12-30T01:31:30Z

What better time to write your first livejournal entry but in the small hours? A fuzzy head and an increasing feeling that I really should be getting to bed aside, I'll endeavour to write something mildly entertaining, and, hopefully, spelt correctly. For all you Yanks out there, that means British spelling so get used to it :).

I suppose an introduction of sorts is needed. My name is Fluffy (well not really but I dislike my real name to the extent that even Fluffy seems preferable. Besides this describes me better). Do I have to explain any better than that? I always get this problem when it comes to talking about myself, my mind always draws a blank and after stating my name to try and buy some time, it still fails me. It especially sucks when I am writing my UCAS form or a job application and they ask some obscure question like "What, in your opinion, has been the greatest achievement in your life?"... I DON'T FUCKING KNOW!?!?

Anyway vital statistics: 18, Male, Live in England. About as exciting as you could get really. I'm a very emotional person and tend to feel things in extremes. Fuck it, I'll just do one of those personality quizzes and post it up on here when I get the chance.

I love religion and am part of what is commonly known as Christian Wicca. If you don't know what that is then don't google it unless you want a screwed up definition. Wikipedia might have something good on it I don't know. Maybe I'll talk about it in a later post. If you do know what it is and want to bash it, feel free just do it in your mind and away from me :).

Anyway that is enough for now... the most important question of the moment now becomes, do I give my friends this link only to forget about it and let it die like my last few blogs or do I wait awhile... hmmmmm

Blessed Be