A simple question that can have a very complicated answer depending on the depth and philosophical route you wish to take. This is not some kind of mid-life crisis or existential crisis video, its an explanation of how you cannot fully answer who you are no matter how deep your answers may be, how you cannot fully know another and my advice for dealing with it.
There are many people in the world who claim to have proof of god’s existence, the proof comes in many forms and is usually quite different from evidence and is usually in the form of a random occurrence or a personal experience or personal interpretation of an event. Opposed to all those kinds of proofs Descartes’ proofs are much better and more well thought out than most. Some people claim that if something is complex and that person is unable to see a way that it could have evolved they automatically claim that it is irreducibly complex (and therefore god exists) unfortunately for them this is usually an argument from either personal incredulity or ignorance. There are people who claim that there are proofs of other worlds in the electromagnetic spectrum and since there are anomalies in random places it is proof of spiritual influence of some kind, but this is unfounded and only plausible to people who are not acquainted with how electromagnetic fields can be produced. Some say that they have had personal revelation, but I fear that most of them are liars, opportunists or people who have a certain form of epilepsy that causes experiences similar to out of body experiences or near death experiences. In none of these does Descartes make his case and his proofs are harder to disprove than the others though he falls very short of finding evidence for God.
The cause of the dilemma – does god exist or not? The dilemma is caused by many issues of the human condition that have been proven and evidenced in history, anthropology, psychology, and other sciences. It is as simple as asking the question “why do people believe in god?”. People are probably inclined to believe in god or at least were inclined as such because of the lack of knowledge of natural phenomena and it’s causes. The original belief of early humans was likely that of animism. Animism is a belief that everything has a spirit and a consciousness. Because in early humans it was probably easier to get along with this belief and had some advantages because things were understood to be another being, perhaps even on an equal footing with ones-self. After this it became something a little less animistic and it is the belief that all things have a god behind them that is the cause of them. Perhaps all things is a bit of an overstatement but not by much, many times in ancient history there are gods for almost everything. This polytheism was the common belief for a long time after the neolithic revolution in which men began to live not as wandering vagabonds but as food growers and animal raisers. It was only but recently – about 2000 years ago – that monotheism became popular and with it came large organized religions, the majority that we have today are monotheistic and this is the god that Descartes is trying to prove in both “meditations on first philosophy” and in his “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences” though the former will be the focus of this text.
Almost in the beginning of the fourth meditation Descartes states “That it is impossible that god should ever deceive me.” (Meditations on First Philosophy 510) This belief perhaps was not proven wrong then and some would say even now it is still true. Though the proof for god is non existent at least in the form of tangible evidence. Every piece of evidence that is found supports a universe where not random chance nor a designing god is the reigning power but something even simpler and more majestic in every way I can imagine. When he states that “it is impossible that God should ever deceive me.” (Meditations on First Philosophy 510) it seems that in order for a god that cannot lie, in order for him to exist in a world where evidence for him to exist he would have to have planted evidence contrary to his existence for all of the things that we now find. Such as the tree ring dating system which is accurate to the year proves that the world is at least 13,000 years old so young earth creation would be impossible. The fact that the only evidence for the beginning of the universe points to a big bang and not to a designer.
Descartes also tries to give God all the credit for the judgment that is inherently in him. Judgment in itself is in no way proof of a God or a designer. The faculty to judge things is not inherently human nor is it in any way perfect in any thing that we now know to exist. The ability to judge is something that would have been weighted high on the scale of values of things that were naturally selected for. Things without the ability to judge or without the power to use it would die off quickly for either being too ineffective in hunting for food because they couldn’t judge many things such as distance, speed, direction or intent. All of these things are part of the ability to judge.
There was not a valid alternative to belief in a god or gods. So his understanding of how natural things are can probably be understood, and it is because of the fact that he was probably raised in religion his whole life so as to make his belief in god a part of his subconscious and as such probably superseded all his other preconceptions. This is probably why when, try as he might, he attempts to remove all of his preconceptions but fails in this one because it is so inherent in his nature because of it being a part of his life from during his primary enculturation in which most of a person’s understanding of the culture in which they live is learned. For him it included the belief in god and in such a way as to be imperceptible to him. He then tries to assert that “he surely did not give me the kind of faculty which would ever enable me to go wrong[...]” (Meditations on First Philosophy 510.2) And in this he does a fairly good job in proving that if one removes all assumptions and attempts to try to find only those things which can be known without doubt. Though in this he is mistaken in the fact that he can imagine himself without his body and that there must surely be a self separate from the body. There is indeed the mental perception of having an consciousness outside that of the body and is perhaps hard to overcome even with the evidence to the contrary. If the body was separate from the intelligence behind it it would certainly not be damaged along with the body though this is inevitably the case that when the brain is damaged it can limit speech, mobility, understanding, and many other things which would be considered part of the soul and yet the ability to use them are damaged when certain parts of the brain are impaired.
In his third meditation he says “The mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness.” (Meditations on First Philosophy 509.2) But how can this be? He claims that he is made in Gods image simply because God made him. The idea sounds poetic and pleasing yet there is something very wrong with it. God also made the hideous angler fish and every disease and every planet and moon by his thinking and they cannot all be in Gods image for the simple fact that they do not all look alike, nor do they even have the same scale. If he were a dog would he think that he was made in God’s image even though religious men claim that right for their own? Yet he made the dog as well as man by his thinking and they do not share in likeness.
Descartes also states “that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.” (Meditations on First Philosophy 509.2) This is total fallacy! I cannot imagine how one could think that just because they have an idea of something perfect that it is proof of the existence of the thing. Perhaps my imagined perfect thing is not the same, could it be that it exists because I can have a clear idea of it?
Perhaps this was taken a little out of context, perhaps he means that he can imagine only two constants so far, his mind and God. Though his mind he would consider his spirit because his body may not even exist and God he believes to be the body of perfection that every thing that is good is embodied in is this one being called God. But even that must not be so, if everything that was good was placed in a being, as well as unlimited power, knowledge and intelligence could that being possibly be in existence because with benevolence comes the necessity to do good and not just know good. If there was one who was in existence who knew the best thing for the human race, or the entire world for that matter would not such a being be pressed to help out? In all that we have here, in all that we have done to one another and to the other creatures and even to the earth, could he not be good enough to help? We are fighting wars against people who think killing infidels is how you get straight to heaven, men and women are dying fighting a group of people who would use handicapped people to blow innocent people up. The most atrocious wars ever fought were fought in the name of God and in his name millions have died. No Rene Descartes does not prove God, he only proves that he can only imagine a world where God exists also known as the argument from ignorance.
There are a lot of people that can be right all the time despite having no idea about what they are talking about and pulling “facts” out of their asses. You see, being right is more about attitude and speaking the right way than it is about the truth. After reading this series you will be able to be right all the time just like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Sean Hannity, Ray Comfort, Ann Coulter and other assholes.
Valid Fallacies
Most people know fallacies are illogical, but hardly anyone knows why they are illogical. So if someone calls you on a fallacy, you ask them why the fallacy is illogical. Argue them on every point. Take up as much time as possible so the other person is forced to move on. If they explain the fallacy then claim they need to explain why your statement is wrong, if they explain why your statement is wrong then claim their need to explain why the logic is wrong. Repeat this until they give up, which they will, because they are probably more reasonable than you are. If you have no opponent, then don’t even worry about it and do as many fallacies as you want as long as they sound pretty true. The best fallacies are hasty generalizations (he’s a democrat so he likes to kill babies), false dilemma (your either a Christian or you worship Satan), negative proof (there is no proof that unicorns don’t exist, so they do) and many, many more.
Foundation in the Sky
Ever heard that “truth is stranger than fiction?” Well this tactic uses that principle to make fiction stranger than truth, and therefore truer for being stranger. Make the “fact” so grand, that to make it up without evidence would be way too crazy. Once you have made the decision on what the”truth” will be, now start taking and warping any bit of information (no matter how unreliable), from any source you can, that supports your “truth” in any way. Most of Ann Coulter’s arguments use this tactic. How does one come to the conclusion that, “before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers’ house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event” without some kind of evidence? Well surely the LA Times has the proof right? Well if you said “yes” you are wrong, if you said “no” then you are right but not getting any of this, but if you said “it doesn’t matter what proof there is,” then you are getting the idea.
Redirecting the Direct
Every once in a while, some asshole will ask you a direct question that is meant to get you to make a direct answer. This is a trick used to make you solidify your views instead of having your views in a super hazy cloud that allows you to do anything with. Don’t let them make you form an actually firm and refutable ideal, you need to keep all your ideas and vague and versatile as possible.
So when some jerk comes along and tries to pin you down, you pretend to start answering the question, while slowly turning it around to demand that they answer a question first. This is best used when you have asked a question previously that they haven’t answered or if you haven’t yet accused them of redirecting or deflecting the question. Sometimes you divert it quickly and start on some other random rant to make the other guy refute the new claim and ignore your diversion. The goal for this tactic is to avoid any direct questions.
Straw to Stone
No one respects a person that always takes the easy fight, but they also don’t respect a person that loses. Well fortunately you don’t have to lose and you don’t have to take the hard fight. Take an easy to knock down argument from the other side (doesn’t even have to be true if enough people think it might be true), then spend most of you time building it up into how it is a staple in their belief or one of the basis of their arguments, then quickly knock it down. Any objections or being called out on your bullshit is easily thwarted by calling them sore losers, poopy pants, stupid or illogical.
Practice these techniques and watch all the people at the top for these and other tactics to always be right without having to research, think, listen or work for it in any way.
How to Always be Right: Knowing Stuff
There are a lot of people that can be right all the time despite having no idea about what they are talking about and pulling “facts” out of their asses. You see, being right is more about attitude and speaking the right way than it is about the truth. After reading this you will be able to be right all the time just like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Sean Hannity, Ray Comfort, Ann Coulter and other assholes.
Being Wrong
This article is about being right and not being wrong? Relax jerk, this is just a tactic. The more you focus on how right you are and less you focus on being wrong; the righter you will seem. But if you never say that you are wrong then how can anyone trust you? A person has to be able to admit when they are wrong, but you also have be right all the time. This is very tricky, so whenever people bring up how wrong you are, always act like you are right now matter how many silly “true facts” they present. The only time you admit to being wrong is in the past… well kind of. You pick some silly unimportant “fact” or “prediction” that you were wrong about (you should have lots to work with after following this guide), and you quickly apologize (spend no more than 27 seconds talking about it), not for being wrong, but for being presented faulty information and not knowing immediately it was false. This keeps you from ever admitting you are wrong while being able to say that you can admit when you are wrong.
Statistics and Facts
Reading statistics and facts and learning stuff is hard and time consuming. Trust me the time is better spent shaking your man stick or rubbing your woman hole. In reality, its not the truth that is important here, its how well you can make shit up. If you are talking about how farms are bad for the people and only serve to decrease the food supply, then say some crap like, “73% of all farms take more food to make the crops than they produce.” BAM! Statistic nailed. It is important to note that the number “73%” was used. The tens is not very important but refrain from it proving your point too well and never use 0 or 5 as the ones digit because then it just sounds made up (which is good for you if you’re arguing and the real statistic is 25%). The main point here is just to make shit up, while making it sound reasonable but undeniably proving your point.
Rapid-Fire
Knowing lots of stuff, being able to remember it all and being able to release lots of good facts in a row is very effective. But you don’t need to know the stuff: work from hearsay, crackpots, crazy ideas, whatever you thought of last time you passed out from intoxication and most importantly; throw in some facts that are actually true every once in a while. The true ones people will believe and if you have some true facts in a bunch of bullshit, then people will believe all the bullshit too. Then you can use any of those “facts” for anything since you stated them already and no one objected (use ‘em even if they did). For practice and learning watch a Kent Hovind Creationist video, he loves this tactic. The longer the string of “facts,” the smarter and righter you sound and as a bonus; the more “facts” you can use to prove your other points.
Predictions
Now a lot of people think they have to think, study and work at making predictions… bah! That is a huge waste of time you could spend thinking about how amazing you are. Did Nostradamus have to sit there study, think and learn about what he was predicting? No, because he knew all he had to do was make a ton of predictions and retards would focus on the ones that kind of match something that happened. Now unless you want to wait until you are dead and have some crazy people prove how right you were, you are gonna have to toot your own horn… if you can bend that far. Its more important to get a lot of predictions out there than to get accurate predictions out there. Whatever comes to your mind as something that could happen, you just spit it out. What about accuracy? Have you even been listening? We are gonna use the shotgun effect: One you have shot a huge load of “predictions” all over your audiences faces, you never bring them up again whatsoever… unless one of them happens to be close to something that happened, then you shout out how awesome you are for seeing this X amount of time ago. Don’t forget the “I told you so’s”. Remember all the wrong ones? I told you to forget them until they somewhat come true!
Who’s the Master?
Remember to listen to the professional bullshit artists listed at the top to learn from them. They have been doing this for a long time and have a lot of professional experience… and if you lack the experience don’t worry about it, just say that you do have the experience. People don’t do research until after and by then no one cares anymore.
That’s it for now, remember: Its more important for it to sound true, than it is to be true. Next time I will show you how to make a fallacy look like a valid argument, the foundation in the sky, how to avoid direct questions by redirecting them and turning a straw-man argument into an epic David and Goliath battle for truth (where you are David).
When I was watching the news one day, I saw what was happening to Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, I heard the funniest… and saddest thing about free speech I ever heard. Some stupid pundit said that she was practicing her freedom of speech and was getting attacked for it.
This is stupid for a few reasons: she was not being attacked for practicing free speech and other people also get to practice free speech. She was being attacked for her views on gay marriage, not because she was practicing her right to say it. Free speech is (as I plagiarize Thunderf00t from youtube.com) “free speech is a no-holds-barred arena.” Which means if you are going to say something in this arena, you should expect other people to also say something about what you said. Now if she has the right to publicly express her views, then other people have the right to publicly counter those views. There is no way to maintain freedom of speech while “protecting” people from being humiliated because they expressed their views.
The only way for someone to keep their right to free speech is to allow people that have other views to express themselves. There is no other way. Freedom of speech is not just a cliche term, its something that no one should take for granted. Yes, people will say something that you disagree with, someone will call you names, some one will attack your beliefs, someone will attack what you said. If you cannot see the importance of free speech then consider this on selfish terms: If you want to regulate what someone else can say, you are destroying your own right to say what you want to say.
So enjoy people that disagree with you, enjoy people calling you names, enjoy defending yourself, enjoy learning and most of all: enjoy freedom of speech.