Monday, July 28, 2008

The Power of Pasta - (Parody)

Let me bring light to one of the facts about noodles.  Pasta is a highly complex food source.  Indeed, pasta is composed in large part by complex carbohydrates – emphasis on complex.  From whence does the complexity of noodles arise from?  Can you really say that nature, or man, could possible have created such a complex system?  The truth can only be found by worshipping his Noodlieness in which you will find, as I and many others have, that his Noodlieness created all pasta in the beginning. 

All you pasta evolutionists will claim that pasta has evolved from ancient noodles such as those made by the Chinese.  Please, please tell me how the more advanced noodles like spiral rigatoni, or tubular penne, or Spaghetti-Ohs evolved from those flat egg noodles of the Chinese.  Moreover, how do you explain that both Chinese noodles and the noodles of today both still exist!  Explain me that one!  Besides, we all know that pasta was created in his Noodlieness’ image – that being of spaghetti – and thus the first pasta was spaghetti and thus being the superior one.  The fact that there is far more spaghetti in the world than any other pasta is proof that spaghetti is the superior to all other pasta, and also that it was the first.  If you try to show me evidence of Chinese noodles existing before spaghetti, it’s simply your inability to find examples of spaghetti before Chinese noodles or your reliance on your ‘science’ which supposedly can date food items. 

For all you unbelievers I ask where you get your morality.  I’m not talking about morality like the Ten Commandments, but morality concerning pasta.  How do you know which way is best (i.e. ethical) to scoop many of the various noodles into your oral cavity?  How do you know which wine to have with your pasta and which sauces go with which pastas?  Without his Noodlieness to guide us in our pasta morality, we’d all be eating lasagne with a spoon, or having white wine with red sauces, or putting alfredo sauce on Rigatoni.  We all see these combinations occurring in the world, and it is only caused by those who do no believe in his Noodlieness.  Indeed, show me a single person who truly follows his Noodlieness and who commits these atrocities to noodlekind.  Show me where I could find such a person.  You cannot. Moreover, most of the world follows the examples laid down by his Noodlieness, and thus it is proven that all people get their pasta morality from his Noodlieness. 

For any of you questioning the power of his Noodlieness, I ask you to create a figure eight out of a spaghetti noodles and then tip it over on its side.  Behold – an infinity symbol!  Even you cannot deny the fact that spaghetti can at any time be twisted into an infinity symbol thus proving his Noodlieness’ ultimate and infinite power.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Inferring Causes from Effects Concerning Complexity

The theist argument of ‘complexity of design implies a creator’ is well argued against in David Hume’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’. I plan on arguing against it in a similar manner (without thought to evolution, though it would suffice) while borrowing some of his analogies and words.

Concerning the scientific process of determining cause and effect, certain events are observed many times. Similarities of the observances allow us a level of certainty of like events. The less similar an event, the less certain we are, and the more evidence we need. Furthermore, one cannot explain particular effects by particular causes which don’t need explanation themselves.

For example, it can readily be observed how blood flows in humans, and this has been observed many times. Other humans whose blood has not been observed, we can infer with great certainty that blood flows in much the same way because of the likeness of the vessels. It can also be inferred, though weaker so, that blood flows somewhat similar in other animals like frogs and lions, because animals are in some respects similar. Note that this assumption is getting farther from certain. The further we get away from similarity, the weaker the assumption. So if we then go a bit further and assume blood (or sap) flows similarly in plants, it becomes absurd because plants show such little resemblance to humans.

From similar effects we infer similar causes. Each dissimilarity between any two events proportionally decreases the certainty of the causes being similar. What, then, is the similarity between all of existence and that of (allow me to use a common theist example without loss of generality) an eye? Many theists will readily claim that the complexity of the eye could only come about from a creator. Apart from evolution blowing that theory out of the water (see ‘Climbing Mt. Improbable’), from what similar effect can we infer that the eye must have been created?

From here the theist will argue whether I’ve ever seen a house be built without a creator. Certainly the house indeed has a creator (or creators). But how is a house in any way similar to an eye? Indeed, how is anything we’ve experienced or witnessed created in any way similar enough to an eye (or any other proclaimed complexity to bring it back to a general case) that we could say with certainty that by similarity it must have a creator? Much care is to be used to infer. Further, consider, if you will, that anything so complex probably has multiple ‘creators’ and would more likely show a similar cause of multiple creators leading to polytheism… at least it would be more probable to have multiple creators. And so the argument that the universe or existence must have been created cannot be inferred since we have nothing which closely resembles a universe that we have witnessed created.

Even further still, we’ve never witnessed anything being created by a god. Therefore, while you may erroneously claim (see previous paragraph) that a house is complex and has a creator and thus so must an eye, we would only infer that the eye has a creator of similar qualities of the creator of the house. Thus, by theist logic, I would assume that the universe was created by a man or something lesser, not greater.

To continue the argument, those things which are complex have been witnessed to have been created by causes other than a mindful being. A human embryo, being quite complex, is created through generation. A tree sapling, being quite complex, is created through vegetation. Thus, we can similarly infer that complexity to be derived from generation and vegetation along with intelligent creation. Therefore, it would be equally plausible to assume the universe sprung from planting a universal seed or through a cosmic reproductive process. All these suppositions all beg the question “From whence?”

Conclusion: There is nothing like, that humans have witnessed, the creation of the universe from which we can infer a similar cause from a similar effect. Moreover, the existence of a creator derived from complexity (if allowed) could only give the creator those qualities which we have witnessed in creators – namely human or other animal species. This could only undermine the ‘supremeness’ of a deity. Further, we have witnessed other causes of complexity and would need to give equal weight to each in kind. And then comes the ad infinitum argument of from whence?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Importance of Habit

I’ve had numerous people ask me why I’m so adamant about deists/theists to give up their ‘benign’ beliefs. Usually I go along the lines of arguing against the assumption that they’re benign. However, as of late, I’ve been arguing in the case of habit.

Habit, ideally, need not be of much importance. In practicality, however, it is almost essential. For example, using turn signals and mirrors aids in the reduction of car accidents. Now, if there’s no one in proximity, there’s really no reason to use a turn signal and mirror, as there’s nothing to cause an accident that would be directly related to not using a turn signal and/or mirror. However, using turn signals and mirrors becomes a slightly subconscious event and whichever way your habit leans will probably affect your decision in using one where it may need to be used. Especially in cases where you think there’s no one around, but there actually is in your blind spot… or just a spot you haven’t checked. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve come close (and in some instances have collided) with a car collision on my bicycle because the car in front of me or at my side didn’t use its turn signal or mirror thinking that he wasn’t going to turn into anyone. The point is is that it’s important to keep the habit of using turn signals and checking mirrors before you turn to prevent yourself from subconsciously not using them and run the risk of running into someone.

The same can be said about the habit of using irrational arguments. A child mimics the behaviour patterns of adults. If a child sees their parents using circular logic, or any other logical fallacy, the child will attempt to adopt that pattern, thinking that this is correct. In much the same way as Pavlov’s dogs, the child will grow up to believe that this is sound reasoning and it will become a habit of theirs to use irrational argumentation. It will become characteristic of the person to habitually use irrational logic to explain many things in his/her life and it is not reasonable to be irrational.

The danger of irrational behaviour is that it can pretty much affect any aspect of life. Just take the circular arguing theists use such as ‘It’s right because God said so’. Why would a child, growing up in an environment that preaches this circular logic, think otherwise when it comes to other authority figures such as government and their own parents – oppression and abuse, respectively. Another example would be the argument that “Christianity has increased in the world. The world is a better place than it was before. Ergo, Christianity makes the world a better place.” This style of arguing tells someone that it’s rational to go from loose correlation to cause and effect – a jump to a conclusion which could also readily be used to argue such things as “Pirates have decreased over time, and global warming has increased. Ergo, if we bring back pirating, global warming will go down.”

Irrational arguments should never be supported, much less made a habit. It’s important to remove the habit of irrational argumentation of which theists have devoted their lives to of which, out of habit, will spill out into other areas of their lives.