How all arguments for benevolent theism eventual break down to malevolent polytheism. Part one.
In this multiple part series I will be discussing in depth how all arguments for benevolent theisms (wether poly or not) are merely a moving of the goal posts by those who argue for it. I will show you that ALL of the arguments used for a benevolent, all good god, is merely a false stop in the arguments line of logical procession. A false conclusion with the hope that all questions and debate of said topic will end there, with the deity(s) coming out looking peachy. In reality all of these arguments of deistic benevolence can be carried even further, and within 2 or less further steps along the logical process can show said deity(s) to be horrific fiends, or malevolent prankster gods who enjoy "testing" humans by placing "evidence" in the universe that conflicts with said deities dogmatic preachings, or even worse. A so-called "benevolent" deity who creates demons and devils to infest a cosmos merely to test the "free will" of its creation.
I will be using a three part format during this discusion. When I approach an argument, I will first post the original argument that was meant to make a certain deity benevolent. Next I will post the continued logical procession that the original argument should have went. Finally, I will end said argument with a commentary, typically explaining the fallacy commited by the original argument, and how the original argument also PURPOSEFULLY tried to mislead by omitting major segments of evidence in order to bring about a fallacious outcome.
-Either Jesus exists or he doesnt exist
- If Jesus exists and I believe, then I win. If Jesus exists and I dont believe, then I will be punished.
- Therefore it is the best bet to believe in Jesus.
Pascal's Wager without the false stops
- Either Jesus exists or he doesnt exist
- ALSO, either Woden exists or he doesnt exist
- If Jesus exists and I believe, then I win. If Jesus exists and I dont believe, then I will be punished
- ALSO, if Woden exists and I believe, then I go to Valhalla. If Woden exists and I dont believe, then I will be banished to Helheim."
- Therefore if one of these gods actually exist, then said god has allowed confussion and uncertainty into its creation regarding the truth of said deities plan for salvation and belief in it. A deity that allows confussion and uncertainty about the truth of its existence should be approached with EXTREME caution as a possible liar. Therefore the best bet is to not believe, or to be agnostic.
Commentary on Pascals Wager
Simply put, Pascal has gone down in history not only as the WORST gambler EVER, but as the WORST tactician when it came to logical conclussions. If you HONESTLY consider Pascals wager to be "ground breaking" as some people on wikipedia proclaim, then you are nothing more than a tool waiting to be used. Pascal thinks such massively important decisions such as believing in a god ultimately breaks down to a coin toss. If Pascal was playing Russian roulette, all 6 of the chambers would be loaded and you must take it on faith to hit the empty chamber, and if you do so you will hit that empty chanber. If you were even playing regular roulette with Pascal, he would tell you "put your entire life savings and house title on red 12..thats the only number and color that exists on that wheel..its a sure win win situation! Its either Red 12 or nothing!!!" Yeah, im not convinced at all. Sounds like a MAJOR flim flam man to me. Sounds like someone who is purposefully ignoring other options.
"A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up." - Pascal, Pensées, part III, note 233
In fact Pascal argues AGAINST reason, that reason cannot be trusted, and that you must accept his argument on faith or risk eternal flames. How exactly is this ANY DIFFERENT from what the bible says anyways? How is this something new or groundbreaking? Needless to say, anyone that openly tries to reason to you that reason cannot be trusted is shooting himself in the foot. He is nothing more than a carpet bagger, a swindler. He is asking you to only believe in what he says on faith, and that all else cannot be rationally trusted. The first thing that should RIGHTFULLY come from your mouth after such a flagrant show of idiocy is "Then why should I trust anything Pascal says?" Exactly, why should you?
What about the other gods and goddesses? THIS is proof that Pascal was a bullshit artist. He CONVENIENTLY forgot to mention ANY of the other Gods and Goddesses throughout history, or even existing during his time period. A true mark of a flim flam man who wants you to come to a false conclusion is he who hides evidence of other equally valid choices. Though I must give Pascal his props, if you are going to bullshit the population, then bullshit them BIG!
Ultimately when it comes down to it, if even one god out of the MASSIVE list of available gods and goddesses actually exists, then said deity is OBVIOUSLY malevolent, as it allows the spreading of MASSIVE AMOUNTS of false beliefs, and even allows children to be born and die in lands making said false religions to be the "official" religion of the land. What a monster! And that said "real" deity obviously creates people merely to lie to them just so they will make the wrong decision just so he/she could punish said mortal for all eternity. What a disgusting malevolent designer!
Pascal's wager is a false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.
Red 12 anyone?
Argument from Intelligent design
- I look at a watch. It is complex, therefore it is designed.
- I look at life around me. It is complex, therefore it is designed.
Argument from Intelligent Design without the false stops
- I look at a watch. It is complex, therefore it is designed.
- I look at life around me. It is complex.
- I'm to stupid to understand what I am looking at, so I will just assume that a creator not only made me and the universe, but that said creator also made me stupid.
- therefore my stupidity is the creators proof of existence. Therefore the creator wants me to be stupid.
Comments on Intelligent Design Argument
Yes folks, this is actually the most popular argument when it comes to ALL of the gods and goddesses, possibly a close second right next to Pascal's fallacy. Complexity is relative to the persons intelligence level. The more intelligence and experience with said complexity, the less complex said complexity is. Ultimately the argument is broken down into one basic element; If it is too complex for you to understand, then it obviously was created. To break it down one step further, a step the ID'ers get offended at, the argument means literally: "I'm to stupid to understand what I am looking at, therefore something or someone designed it." Intelligent design is ultimately an argument that god believers are stupid, and that their stupidity is proof that their god exists. Lets not stop there, lets keep going: Intelligent design is an argument that the creator god makes people stupid as "proof" that said creator exists. In other words, if a creator exists, then he/she is the reason why stupidity is prevalent in humanity. In other words, if a creator exists, stupidity is what said deity wishes for humanity to be in order to prove said deities existence. Stupidity, to said deity, is the only way to come about to true knowledge of said deity. Yes, this doesnt make sense, but that is simple. Intelligent design is based on a fallacy: Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Oh, this sounds fun, my turn to play the game:
***Jeremy's playtime argument using the logic of Intelligent Design!!!***
- A German warplane is complex, therefore it is designed.
- Life is complex, so therefore it MUST be designed.
- Hitler ordered those German warplanes to be created.
- Therefore, Hitler is the creator !
Yeah, sorry about the Godwin. I couldnt help myself. The same argument from ignorance can be used to set up Hitler as a god in 3 steps. Hell, if you have enough people who think ignorance is proof of godhood then it will only take ONE step to prove Hitler is god to these buffoons. Hitler surely did convince many people under him that he was VERY special, if not angelic. So my little playtime argument wasnt all playtime, it actually had some history involved in it.
Ultimately if a god really does exist, then the argument from Intelligent Design means that said deity actively encourages stupidity. With that said, the current percentage of people in America who believe in god is at around 85% or so, meaning that this intelligent design PURPOSEFULLY not only created the mass majority of America to be ignorant on purpose, but also encourages ignorance and stupidity of those who call themselves followers of said creator. This also means the 15% of American citizens who are not believers are more intelligent than those who believe (as ignorance is proof of the creators presence), and that smarts = atheism...yes, it makes ZERO sense, but that is the direction this horrible argument can go if you remove the false stops.
Blogged by JEREMY
What the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mention is the Rationalist philosophy evident in “Till Eulenspiegels Merry Pranks.”