The Argument from Degrees of Evil
We notice that things around us vary. Some things are "more X" or "less X." And sometimes X has a source, and something closer to the source of X is thereby made "more X."
We see that instability, chaos, and suffering are all "more evil" than their alternatives.
But if these degrees of evil pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "worst," a source and real standard of all the evils that we recognize belong to us as beings.
This absolutely evil being—the "Being of all beings," "the Evil of all evils"—is Cthulhu.
(Ow, my brain hurts. Was that some rambling paraphrase of St. Anselm or something? I'm astounded even True Believers could find this logic convincing.)
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu III
The Argument from Time and Contingency
(The closest this comes to making me believe in a god is it makes me say, "Christ, this argument is a mess," but here's my attempt to disentangle the active premises in a coherent manner.)
*remember folks, we're not discussing the validity of the logic, or the accuracy of the premises, just seeing if the arguments as given can equally apply to Cthulhu as to Yahweh.
(The closest this comes to making me believe in a god is it makes me say, "Christ, this argument is a mess," but here's my attempt to disentangle the active premises in a coherent manner.)
- If an entity has the possibility of not existing, then in an infinite time, it must realize this state of non-being.
- There has been an infinite period of time,* and the universe still exists.
- Therefore there must be an entity that does not have the possibility of not existing, from which the universe derives its longevity.
- Such a being is called a necessary being.
- This necessary being is Cthulhu.
*remember folks, we're not discussing the validity of the logic, or the accuracy of the premises, just seeing if the arguments as given can equally apply to Cthulhu as to Yahweh.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu, Part Two
The Argument from Efficient Causality
Everything that exists does so due to some cause. The only thing that might conceivably exist without a cause is a supernatural being which is self-existent. Therefore, Cthulhu must exist: an uncaused being who could move to cause the universe.
(I apologize/say "you're welcome" for trimming these arguments of their excess curlicues of language and making them slightly more coherent. I suspect part of the apologist's tactic is to give people a headache, making them give up and assume he must know better than they do.)
Everything that exists does so due to some cause. The only thing that might conceivably exist without a cause is a supernatural being which is self-existent. Therefore, Cthulhu must exist: an uncaused being who could move to cause the universe.
(I apologize/say "you're welcome" for trimming these arguments of their excess curlicues of language and making them slightly more coherent. I suspect part of the apologist's tactic is to give people a headache, making them give up and assume he must know better than they do.)
Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu, Part One
The Friendly Atheist provides an apologetics link that would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Let's see if I can use all the arguments to "prove" the existence of Cthulhu.
The Argument from Change
We can see that things change. And in order to change, they must have some outside force act on them. A seed cannot grow into a plant without soil, water, and sun acting on it. A planet cannot move without the gravitational force of other objects affecting it. And each item that changes things is itself acted on, ad infinitum.
Since the universe is full of constant change, and is itself changing, it must therefore have something external acting on it. This being, outside space and time, is Cthulhu, who lies dreaming in the inky void.
The Argument from Change
We can see that things change. And in order to change, they must have some outside force act on them. A seed cannot grow into a plant without soil, water, and sun acting on it. A planet cannot move without the gravitational force of other objects affecting it. And each item that changes things is itself acted on, ad infinitum.
Since the universe is full of constant change, and is itself changing, it must therefore have something external acting on it. This being, outside space and time, is Cthulhu, who lies dreaming in the inky void.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Mere Christianity - Not Impressed So Far
I'm on Chapter 4. I'm continuing even though Lewis has instructed me to stop reading. (He says anyone who doesn't agree with his first argument should give it up.)
It boils down to this: because most people feel some sense of fairness and overarching morality (not only "I don't want you to do that" but "You shouldn't do that - it's wrong."), that means there must be an immaterial Lawgiver who put a sense of Moral Law in each of us. I think all of this is perfectly explicable by evolution and socialization. And supported by the indications we see that other animals have "moral codes," such as "Don't eat before the higher-ranked wolves" or "Don't have sex with anyone but the Alpha chimp, unless you can be really sneaky about it" (guilt!).
He also completely overlooks the selfish value of benefiting society. He starts well, saying, "[Human beings] see that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair," But three sentences later has completely forgotten this concept, and says it's silly to say it's good to benefit society, because wanting to benefit society is unselfish, so it's just begging the question. Except he started the conversation with an admission that helping society helps the individual!
He also misses the fact that human behavior all takes place in roughly the same environment, and this was probably even truer when evolutionary pressures were at their greatest, so it's not a supernatural-level surprise that we are hard-wired and socialized via long tradition to adopt similar cooperative behaviors. It becomes a (granted, complex) series of "if-then" statements: If no one in a clan can trust each other, they fail to cooperate and all die; If most people in a clan feel significant psychological pressure to be trustworthy, they can cooperate and survive.
If Lewis considered engineering, one wonders if he would find an extra-universal entity that bestows the Law of Design. "Look, all people throughout history have made boats that displace more water than that equal to their weight. Clearly this means there is a God of Boat Design!"
It boils down to this: because most people feel some sense of fairness and overarching morality (not only "I don't want you to do that" but "You shouldn't do that - it's wrong."), that means there must be an immaterial Lawgiver who put a sense of Moral Law in each of us. I think all of this is perfectly explicable by evolution and socialization. And supported by the indications we see that other animals have "moral codes," such as "Don't eat before the higher-ranked wolves" or "Don't have sex with anyone but the Alpha chimp, unless you can be really sneaky about it" (guilt!).
He also completely overlooks the selfish value of benefiting society. He starts well, saying, "[Human beings] see that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair," But three sentences later has completely forgotten this concept, and says it's silly to say it's good to benefit society, because wanting to benefit society is unselfish, so it's just begging the question. Except he started the conversation with an admission that helping society helps the individual!
He also misses the fact that human behavior all takes place in roughly the same environment, and this was probably even truer when evolutionary pressures were at their greatest, so it's not a supernatural-level surprise that we are hard-wired and socialized via long tradition to adopt similar cooperative behaviors. It becomes a (granted, complex) series of "if-then" statements: If no one in a clan can trust each other, they fail to cooperate and all die; If most people in a clan feel significant psychological pressure to be trustworthy, they can cooperate and survive.
If Lewis considered engineering, one wonders if he would find an extra-universal entity that bestows the Law of Design. "Look, all people throughout history have made boats that displace more water than that equal to their weight. Clearly this means there is a God of Boat Design!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
