A temporary diversion. The reduction of belief into impossibility.

Introduction

I'd like to divert a moment to highlight the flaw in the belief in god. I'll get back to my Australian revolution idea in the next blog. So, while reading a few anti-theist books I encounter many religious arguments that many aren't seeing for what they are. The argument from complexity. the argument from beauty, the argument from design to me all seem to be the same argument. The argument from improbability. In this blog, I'm going to take the first 10 arguments from this site referenced in Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'.

So lets get started!

Ding Ding (that's me hitting the boxing match starting bell thing you hear i boxing matches) so first off we have

1 - TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT

If reason exists then God exists. Reason exists. Therefore, God exists.

So lets look at this. The argument can be viewed as "it is extremely improbable (to make it impossible) that reason could have happened to exist in the universe without god making it exist. Therefore god exists. This is the argument from improbability.

2 - COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. I say the universe must have a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Therefore, God exists.

So lets look at this one. this is Thomas Aquina's argument, the everything has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. God terminates the regress. But this can be viewed as "based on observation things I see have a cause, not having seen everything and associated its cause, I can say that it is highly improbable that everything else I have seen has a cause, but the universe does not. Its improbable that the universe is the only thing without a cause, therefore it must have a cause". This is the argument from improbability.

3 - ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I define God to be X. Since I can conceive of X, X must exist. Therefore, God exists.

So this says, My mind is so complex that mere chance can not have created it. If it is so complex as to be able to conceive of a god, then it is far far to improbable to have been created by anything other than god. The formation of my mind is to improbably complex to have not been deliberately created. This defaults to the argument from improbability in the way i have just discussed and it falls to the argument from improbability from the argument from complexity. This ones a freebe and is not counted in the 10.

ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY

That which is complex has a creator. The universe is complex. Only God is complex enough to create the universe. Therefore, God exists.

The argument made here (falling into the argument from improbability being that this is the Cosmological argument (2)) is that the universe is to complex to have been created by something other than something more complex than itself. The argument in this case is that its improbable for the universe to have formed without superior design. This is the argument from improbability. Any argument depending on the argument from complexity defaults to the argument from improbability

4 - ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I can conceive of a perfect God. One of the qualities of perfection is existence. Therefore, God exists.

This is a rewording of number 3. as such this argument defaults to 3 and then defaults to the argument from improbability. You notice that these arguments get easier to debunk as you progress as they tend to be essentially reworded forms of the same argument.

5 - MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

God is either necessary or unnecessary. God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary. Therefore, God exists.

This argument says that god is necessary presumably in the cosmological argument sense to start the process of the universe. The argument being that it is highly unlikely that the universe started by itself than was created by a god. This is the argument from improbability in the way I just mentioned and on its dependence on the Thomas Aquina prime mover argument I discussed in number 2. Lets not forget for a moment that this argument does not identify why god is not unnecessary. It just claims it to be so.

6 - TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex? Only God could have made them so complex. Therefore, God exists.

Again this is the argument from complexity. which is relegated to the argument from improbability in number 3. Things are to complex to have come about by chance. It is improbable that things could arrive at their current complex state of being without having a designer. This is the argument from improbability.

7 - DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful? Only God could have made them so beautiful. Therefore, God exists.

The argument here is that a baby, sunset, flower or tree is too complex, to intricate, to aesthetically pleasing to have been created by chance. It is improbable that beauty can exist without god making them beautiful. This the argument from improbability. It is also the argument from complexity, which defaults to the argument form improbability. Lets think for a second. I can create a beautiful thing and I am not a god. Why is creating beautiful things only in gods hands? No-one answers this question. If I can create beauty then maybe I'm god...

8 - ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES

My aunt had cancer. The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments. My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer. Therefore, God exists.

The argument here is that it is improbable that the near certainty of death caused by cancer could repair itself without god. (even though spontaneous remission is a legitimate medical phenomenon). The argument in this example describes a miracle by beating the odds. It is too improbable to beat cancer so god must have done it. This is the argument from improbability.

9 - MORAL ARGUMENT

Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us. Therefore, God exists.

A rather biased question which needs to be rephrased. We are moral in the face of the chance to be immoral. God claimed to set morals, therefore god makes us moral. This argument supposes that morals are so complex that they can not be created by chance. This is the argument from improbability (and the argument from complexity, which is the argument from improbability)

10 - MORAL ARGUMENT

In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard. That all changed once I became religious. Therefore, God exists.

This is just another form of the number 9. While it seems like it can't be answered by improbability, the argument is "it is improbable that I could have acted morally without religion". As stated in number 9, it presupposes that morals are to complex to arrive out of mere interaction with good people. Lets take a moment to recognise that religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Far more immoral accusations have been made against the Australian religious community (religious leaders) than the Australian political community (politicians). The argument here is that its improbable to get morals anywhere else other than religion.



As Number 10 was essentially a rewording of number 9, i'll throw in number 11

11 - ARGUMENT FROM CREATION

If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable. Therefore, God exists.

This is yet another bias worded argument. But its meaning is essentially the cosmological argument. the universe is to improbable for even evolution to create. The universe thus must have been created by a some being capable of managing that complexity. It is the argument from complexity and the cosmological argument. Both these default to the argument from improbability.

Conclusion

I could go on and on all day citing the 666 arguments for god. You see how as they progress they become more and more dependant on other arguments of faith. Each stem from a perceived level of complexity that is improbable to reconcile without god. I am not going to provide the solution to the argument from improbability, as that is not my intention with this post. I am indicating that while faith seem to have many argument for the existence of god, they really only have one. The argument from improbability. Religions many differently worded forms of the argument from improbability prompt me to ask a question. What is the probability that god could exist? The argument from improbability seems to rule out god as a solution.

Robotic Democrat idea #101 - Revolution Part 2 - Abolishment of the States

I have noticed that many grammatical errors have crept into my last blog. Its concerning and undermines the point i am trying to make. I'll make a concerted effort to minimise such errors in future blogs. Anyway;

Introduction
We discussed the elimination of self segregation in the last blog. You may have noticed that part of the idea hinges on the ability to control housing and education across state boarders. Housing and Education are state concerns, and this presents us with an issue in many areas. Lets ignore performance for the moment and look at principals. Our Department of Human services arm of the government is a non centralised. The goals and rules of each department are separate and do not align with each other. Do we as a country want the role of the community services protecting children and families to be different depending on which state you currently happen to be residing in? Should a child in the Northern Territory and a child in New South Wales be entitled to the same protections? The answer has to be yes. How about Education. Should a child educated in the ACT be entitled to the same quality of education as a child educated in Tasmania? The answer has to be yes.

What about Hospitals? Should a patient that is treated in a South Australian hospital be entitled to the same level of care as a patient in a Victorian hospital. The examples go on an on. Why are we permitting the states to run services that have a national priority. This undermines our concept of a fair go. To extend this concept from a principled stance to a practical one, what the hell is going on with our transport system. A person travelling on public transport with a student card in Victoria is not entitled to use their ticket or concessions on any public transport system in New South Wales. Why? the ticket is paid for. The concession legitimately approved.

Why does a young driver in Western Australia who is bared from driving at night (therefore has no night experience), who is only required to attain 25 hours of driving experience, permitted to drive in victoria where not only would that person have to be 18, but attain 120 hours of driving experience. The 17 year old unskilled driver can drive on complicated Melbourne CBD streets, streets that phase even established drivers.

The question is, why do we have so many of these universal services being managed by states? There is no good reason. We are limited by the text of the Australian constitution which was designed for a time where a federal government would not have the technical capacity or knowledge to manage such things.

Abolishment of the states
So we have indicated that the states require abolishment. So what do we put in its place. Do we have a simple national government leading the charge in every area, imposing generalist rules onto every region. Well that's obviously not better than the system we have now. The function of the states should be fractured into regions. collections of local government control centralised into larger and more powerful regional government. The magnate of these types of regional governments should be to fulfil the strategic goals of the nation, to maintain infrastructure to the required national level, and to push proposals for enhanced services to the federal government for approval, and then be responsible to the implementation of successful proposals.

Many city planning and other duties of the regions should remain the same, with a distinct federal uniform focus. If one region is getting new services, then those services should be permitted to everyone. If one region uses a certain pedestrian walkway size, then that metric should be used by everyone. Building codes, local rules should not be permitted to regionally specific. There are some areas in need of certain local rules. For instance, there are communities of 'victorian homes' that the heritage trust has a vested interest in keeping 'victorian' (their facades are distinctly 19th century and the heritage trust and the community want to keep it that way). In such cases, rules should be determined by the heritage trust and not the regional governments. While that is a positive example of catering for local needs, a local council adjacent to me has implemented a rule that fences should be higher than generally accepted in other council areas. Bins are not permitted to be seen from the street etc. These are examples of useless aesthetic policies based on the personal opinion of some ambitious local zealot. Such policies should not be imposed on communities simply because a local councilman thinks that it should happen (law should have legitimate reason, not be imposed based on personal desire). Pushing all such laws to the federal government (a special division of it may need to be established to service this role) would ensure that only policies that have a legitimate benefit be adopted, and adopted Australia wide.

Integration of laws
Due to the fact that we have permitted the states to self govern for so long, it will take a lot of effort to push their duties to the federal government. While adoption of policies Australia wide or pushing the duties of the state to a federal level are largely semantic,  the trouble we face is in legal integration. At what age can a person get their P plate license? 17 or 18? At what speeds can a p plater travel on 110km/h highways, 80, 90, 100? Each state has various semantic rules. A temporary office of legal integration would need to be established to evaluate competing legislation enacted by various state governments. In the case where the law is not as effective as those established by other states, the most useful law would be adopted. If it turns out the denying p platers to drive at night makes no difference to road tolls (as i have no doubt a proper study would show), then it should be dropped in favour of the other states absence of a curfew. While this seems like a hairy task, an adequate analysis of the justification of competing laws and allowing the adequate analysis to make integration decisions should make the whole process work effectively.
The end result of the integration would be the establishment of national serving laws, uniform across the states.

Result
As you may very well imagine there are many many other factors to consider when changing to this new system. An adequate and lengthy review and planning process would need to be undertaken. The underlying principal remains that all departments with a national interest should be run nationally. In an Australia with no state governments, the divisions (state boundaries) would still exist, but in name only. Any Australian driving from one side of the country to the other would be subject to the same driving laws, same police, same rights and responsibilities for their actions. A child need not enter into a lengthy legal battle when custody of parents are contested across state lines, a child in Alice Springs would have the same rights and privileges as a child in Adelaide or Broome. People fishing on the murry river need not worry about how to alter their fishing behavior, based on which side of the river they are currently standing on.

Australia needs a uniform legislative framework to ensure that we conform to quintessential Australian concept of a "fair go", rather than a go in one state and another on another state.

This is a massive abstraction of a very complex process. I am interested in hearing your comments and criticisms. Post them in the comments section of you have any such comments.