Arguments and empirical evidence that no god exists

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Arguments and empirical evidence that no god exists

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

This thread is for members to post clear, direct arguments and credible empirical evidence that no gods exist.

People may use the word 'god' to refer to different things. To avoid equivocation, these are the only definitions to be used in this thread:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition wrote:1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
So this thread is only for posting arguments and empirical evidence that nothing exists that meets those any of those definitions, and direct critiques or attempted rebuttals of those arguments and evidence. If you wish to post an argument or evidence that a god who does not meet one of those definitions does not exist, create a new thread; don't post it in this one.

Please do not post an argument that a very specific version of god does not exist. For instance, an argument that the ancient Greek god Zeus specifically does not exist would likely not be acceptable assuming it doesn't apply to any of the many, many other gods who would meet the definitions above. Please provide arguments or evidence that no gods that meet one or both of the definitions above exist.

This thread is not for posting empirical evidence or arguments that a god or gods do exist. Of course, direct rebuttals or criticisms of the evidence presented in this thread is encouraged. There is a different thread for posting arguments that a god or gods do exist.

This is not for discussing why or why not to have faith in the existence or non-existence of gods without evidence. This is not for discussing the value of empirical evidence or the usefulness of logic. This is not an epistemological discussion or a philosophy of logic discussion. It's only for presentations of and attempted rebuttals of the arguments and evidence that at least one god exists.

This is not for discussing the advantages or disadvantages of belief in god. This is not about the merits of atheism or theism. This is not about anything but the direct arguments and empirical evidence that at least one god exist.

This thread is not to discuss why one may or may not be a weak atheist in the absence of evidence.

If you want to discuss any of that other stuff, make a different thread.

Most importantly, do not post anything close to an ad hominem remark about theists or atheists in general, or about any members on this forum. In a similar vain, make sure to use the principle of charity when interpreting and attempting to rebut any evidence.

Keep all posts completely on-topic. Off-topic posts will be deleted.

If you understand all that, then let's get to it: What arguments or credible empirical evidence is there that a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions, does not exist? Or what arguments or credible empirical evidence is there that no beings of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality, actually exist?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Post by Persecrates »

Scott, you didn't read my threads?

Here the first part of my text proving the impossibility of existence of a religious monotheistic God (One define and claimed to exist by "The Big 3" monotheistic religions)

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... php?t=4002
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Persecrates, thanks for your link to your other interesting thread about your argument specifically about the god of the Abrahamic religions. Does your alleged proof apply to all gods as defined in the OP? Does it disprove the existence of all the individual Hindu gods, for example?

***

Here are my arguments that a god, as defined in the OP, does not exist with premises in blue and conclusions in green.


Unintelligent Design Argument (an undeniably valid modus tollens)

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent creator god, we would be very intelligent designed.
Premise 2: We are not very intelligently designed.

(Examples of premise 2 include the way women give birth that would work well if we were 4-legged non-erect creatures, tonsils, tailbone, appendix, wisdom teeth, erector Pili, male nipples, and the way the older emotional part of our brain has more physical ability in terms of brain mechanics to control the newer deep thinking, frontal lobe.)
Conclusion: There is not an omnipotent creator god.


What I like to call the Nobody's Home argument.

If we ring a door bell and nobody answers, we can take that as evidence that nobody is home. (Note the difference between proof and mere evidence.) Similarly, scientific studies of the effectiveness of prayer can help us figure out whether or not a god exists (premise 1). Scientific studies have repeatedly found that prayer is utterly ineffective regardless of who prays, of which god they pray to and of what they pray about (premise 2). For example, The Boston Globe reports in the article A Prayer for Health by Alice Dembner (2005): "One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments." [...] "A review of 17 past studies of 'distant healing,' published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods." In another example, the Associated Press reported in their article, Power of prayer flunks an unusual test, "In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications." Here are a couple other articles from the Baltimore Sun reporting essentially the same type of findings: Prayer's effect on health called nil by Duke study and Distant prayer doesn't help heal. Metaphorically speaking, we're ringing the door bell, carefully waiting for someone to answer and nobody is. Non-metaphorically speaking, (conclusion) this is evidence god does not exist.


One of various arguments expressing the so-called problem of evil (as a modus tollens)

Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent or otherwise supernaturally powerful god, he would not cause or let utterly, unproductively awful things such as the holocaust which entailed the mass-murder of children to occur.
(Elaboration on premise 1: An omnipotent god causes and has determined everything and is thus ultimately responsible for everything. An other supernaturally powerful god would still, even if not directly involved, would be at fault for not interfering--which he can since he is so powerful to be supernatural.)
Premise 2: Utterly, unproductively awful things like the holocaust have happened.
Conclusion: Neither an omnipotent nor otherwise supernaturally powerful god exists.


The Only Possible God would be a Sadist argument

Premise 1: If there is a god meeting one of the definitions from the OP, he has the power to stop or at least extremely reduce the amount of unproductive suffering* caused to humans.
Premise 2: Lots of unproductive suffering occurs.

(Elaboration of premise 2: Consider all of the murders, all of the rapes, all of the starvation, all of the torture, all of the miscarriages and stillbirths, all of the most awful spontaneous birth defects, all of the young children who slowly, painfully die with great suffering of natural causes thanks in part to a lack of supernatural intervention.)
Premise 3: If a being has the capability to stop unproductive suffering, and doesn't, that god is a sadist.
(Elaboration of premise 3: Even if the god didn't want all happy humans, the god could at least have interfered enough to stop many of natures mistakes from occurring even if that meant a sort of supernatural euthanasia. For instance, consider a birth defect that causes a baby to necessarily die before its first birthday after great, great suffering; the god could have stopped this baby from being conceived in the first place. But instead the god's supernatural powers cause us to be here but, at least for many of us, under great pointless suffering.)
Premise 4: If there is a god, he is not a sadist.
Conclusion: There are no gods.

Epicurus came up with a similar argument in 300 BCE in which he proved with logic that there cannot be a benevolent, all-powerful god:
Epicurus wrote:The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"

Teleological Argument

Premise 1: If there are any supernaturally powerful gods influencing and determining material events, then all of these events would have evidence of purpose and intentional, supernaturally intelligent design.
Premise 2: Many things do not have any purpose.

(Elaboration of premise 2: Science shows us dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago; what was their purpose? What was the purpose of the 65 million years and all its various moot details between the extinction of the dinosaur and the start of the human species? What is the purpose of Pluto? What is the purpose of stars billions of light years away? What is the purpose of planets that can only be seen with a telescope? What is the purpose of an insect terd made millions of years ago that has long since been destroyed and gone? Consider all the billions of species who have gone extinct on Earth throughout its entire history. The fact that 99.9% of species that ever existed on Earth have gone extinct [source] is evidence that there is no purposeful design.)
Conclusion: There are no supernatural intelligences influencing and determining material events.


If you think any of these arguments are unsound, please specify for each argument you think is unsound whether or not you at least agree that argument is valid. If you agree it is valid, then please specify exactly which premises you agree are true and exactly which premises you think are false. (There's little point to debate the truth of and evidence for any premise in depth unless we agree the syllogism of which the premise is a part is valid.)
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun »

Hi Scott, although you didn't specifically say this thread was both for posting the arguments and rebutting them, I'm assuming you wanted discussion of the arguments in question. Since I'm bored, and I'm an agnostic who thinks there cannot be any argument which gives evidence for or against any all-powerful being's existence, I'm going to try and poke some holes in your arguments.
Scott wrote:Premise 1: If there was an omnipotent creator god, we would be very intelligent designed.
Premise 2: We are not very intelligently designed.

(Examples of premise 2 include the way women give birth that would work well if we were 4-legged non-erect creatures, tonsils, tailbone, appendix, wisdom teeth, erector Pili, male nipples, and the way the older emotional part of our brain has more physical ability in terms of brain mechanics to control the newer deep thinking, frontal lobe.)
Conclusion: There is not an omnipotent creator god.
I agree that the argument is valid as I read it, but I disagree with the proposed truth of one or both premises, depending on exactly what you mean by each. For the sake of clarity, I'm assuming that when you say, "we would be very intelligently designed" in Premise 1, you mean, "we would not have any functions which provided no benefit to us or to the universe in general, e.g. male nipples, wisdom teeth, etc." (If you didn't mean this, then your argument wouldn't be valid as far as I can tell, so I'm assuming you did.) If this is what you mean, then I disagree with the proposed truth of premise 1.

It's certainly a feature of your definition of "god" that, if god existed, everything would be intelligently designed. But who is to say that this god's intelligent design would really have the implications you take it to have? What if god wanted childbirth to be more painful for bipedals?

Perhaps god thinks walking on two legs is ugly, so he wants us to hate it as well. Perhaps god doesn't care about pain or the risk of death. Perhaps anything. A god of your definition could have any sort of perceptions or purposes, imaginable and unimaginable. How could we even begin to consider what might or might not suite the purposes of such a possible god?

As you might already guess, this sort of challenge (if valid) undercuts most of your arguments already. What about the infinite number of possible gods who might not want to, "Answer the door bell?" What if god thinks evil serves his purposes? What if god wants the world to look natural, rather than intelligently designed, to us? Etc.

In anticipation of one sort of rebuttal, I also say this: In a discussion about what is true of existence--such as whether it was made by a god--you must rethink your considerations about what would be reasonable, logical, and present in the world around you. You are trying to amount evidence about the very basis of everything you do know, and everything you could ever possibly know. As such, I honestly think I am being too considerate to even accept your use of logic as a proposed method of gathering evidence which counts for or against the existence of god. What if existence is not really logical? What if a god makes you think according to logical rules?

Of course these questions do not matter in our every-day life, but you aren't gathering evidence about your every-day life, you're gathering evidence about what really is: absent time, existence, and most importantly yourself. What justificatory foundation do you have to gather evidence from in a context which precedes all other contexts? It is the ultimate, and in the context of ultimate claims, there is infinite potential, so partial proof is not proof at all.
____________________

There's more to be said, of course. Inquiries about god may certainly have this unknowability, but that doesn't license belief. What reasons or rationalizations could I have to believe, despite all of your intuitive arguments against belief? If you accept that your arguments are not really objective evidence, but rather subjective considerations of yours that lead you to prefer disbelief in the existence of gods, then I can try to explain to you how my belief in god is not brought down by arguments like yours, if you're interested.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Pathfinder
Posts: 198
Joined: February 7th, 2009, 8:59 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The One

Post by Pathfinder »

First of all, I presume that, if we are talking about a being that is responsible for existence, that should rule out any other beings for consideration as gods.

Secondly this being would have to have been able to somehow overcome the chicken before the egg dilemma of being in existence in the first place to create existence.

That suggests that, at the exact point of origin, there would only be one event taking place, and it would have to be a combination of both a creator and a place of creation interacting. As this is incomprehensible to us, and only logical, than anything else would be illogical to suppose, and impossible to comprehend.

Therefore the consideration of a god of the definition laid out in the OP is virtually impossible.
An open mind means a willingness to reject what you previously thought may have been the truth.
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

Premise 1 and 2-Here we see an attempt to argue "vestigial-ism of the gaps" wherein the argument is supposed that there is a full, complete, understanding of biological science when, in fact, there are new, and improved, discoveries in biological science made all the time, many even consistent with the evolutionary process if one is so inclined to import. New studies have proven that many organs, once thought vestigial, do have very significant uses to biological advantages. For example; the appendix, once thought vestigial, is now believed to play a very important role in the human immune system, as are tonsils which play an important role in the process of human respiration evidenced by morbidity reports which show an increase in respiratory problems in those who have their tonsils removed. Doctors are increasingly less in favor of this surgical procedure in lieu of antibiotic therapies. The coccyx once thought to be the remnants of a tail is now known to be vital for the protection of the spine from injury where in the coccyx is a structure which acts as a shock absorber.

Just because we don't have a clue what a particular organ or structure does now doesn't mean there isn't a discoverable function for it. Isn't this the same argument evolutionist use when they can't explain inconsistencies in those theories?

Another assumption of this premise neglects to emphasize the advantages, from which only humans benefit, of bipedalism and that human females have variant biological structures and processes which assist in facilitating human bipedal childbirth. Besides as an advantage of human superior intelligence human mothers have a wide variety of choice in the delivery process not only including the surgical procedures developed which have decreased childbirth mortality in many cases without which once resulted in the death of the infant and/or mother. A human mother now has choice where as she can choose to give birth lying on her back, in a sitting position, on all fours and even under water. Let's see a cow do that.

As an aside, my nipples are sensitive and make intimacy interesting and enjoyable. Would I miss them if I didn't have them? Probably not, but I am sure glad I do, thank God. Just think of the jealously which may ensue if just women had them. Some guys out there would have nipples surgically added just for the experience. The inference is that God, in His creation of humans did not have in mind the enjoyment of intimacy and human bonding so that sex should not be an enjoyable experience making, "be fruitful and multiply", a chore outside the experience of our own will and choosing. I am not saying that some animals are incapable of using intimacy as a bonding process but given the numerous fetishes humans develop associated with intimacy and bonding, for better or worse, humans are the only biological entities capable of creating various stimulus for sexual pleasure, bonding and intimacy in association with the reproductive process. Lets see a monkey do that.

The other fallacy presented here neglects to mention only those male entities classified as primates have nipples which would infer that there was some "evolutionary" advantage to thier development at some point in the transition from fish to mammals. The truth is that nipples develop during a physically androgynous stage of fetal development when many don't even consider that formation human. (just saying) Makes me wonder why male fish don't have nipples?

In these premises Scott commits the fallacies of "Alleged Certainty", "Exception Fallacy" and "False Effect". In his argument he himself commits "modus tollens"

Unintelligent Design Argument (an undeniably valid modus tollens)-Each premise is a gross mis-characterization of "Intelligent Design Theory". The premise presented is more of a "complexity" issue which Darwin presenting as a refutation of his theory. So in effect Scott has helped to refute Darwin's argument for evolution by admitting that organs and structures are more complex than currently understood.

Interesting how Scott can find all these flaws in Man when animals cannot even think, perform, function or create a micro-fraction as much, in thier entire existence as a species, as a single human being can in the course of one day.

"Nobodies Home"- Here the argument commits the "fallacy of competence" argument wherein Scott admits that God is a testable phenomenon and that God is capable of failing a human test. Sickness and death are an inescapable process of biological systems, and various degrees of this process cannot be controlled given the processes which attribute to sickness and death are already a natural causal consequence of life. People are often cured of illness and disease and many often escape certain death for numerous and various reasons, which of these fall into a category of God's intercession whether prayers are involved or not? Who decides. Would Scott believe me if I told him that my personal prayers are continuously being answered? I injured my wrist and could not even hold a cup or glass. When I prayed and asked God to intercede the pain in my wrist immediately disappeared and full mobility returned. Likewise, my mother, a diabetic, has been recently informed that she may not have diabetes and is being weened from those medications. My mother is a life long Christian and an extremely active, productive senior who attributes this current miracle of health to the will of God and her prayers. Would that suffice as "proof" of God given Scott's standard?

Rather than calling this the "Nobody's Home" argument I would change it to the "I am screening my calls" argument which is just as inconsequential to evidence or non-evidence of God as is Scott's argument.

One of various arguments expressing the so-called problem of evil (as a modus tollens) -Here again Scott makes a fallacy of competence argument in that he feels that he is competent to make decisions for God and how God should act according to his standard thereby admitting, in so doing, that a god can be just as capable of making decisions and acting according to his own standards, definitions, purpose and will as Scott believes he is.

Teleological Argument-Here again Scott commits the fallacy of competence argument wherein he has defined and decided the reasons and completely reasoned attributes of purpose and/or non-purpose, even though cosmological studies and discoveries are constantly being made, progressed and changed as new insight developes.

The fact is that planets and stars have assisted mans progress throughout the course of his history whether used to mark planting and fishing seasons to the creation of calendars. What is the purpose of Pluto, given the inconsistency and curiosity of man in his re-designation of Pluto from planet to planetoid to maybe even asteroid we may as well ask the significance and purpose of the sun for which its purpose went from god status to heavenly body perfectly suited to promote and support life here on this planet.

The fact that we can discover and reconstruct a prehistoric existence from this planets history actually assists mans abilities in numerous ways. One is defining the structures of heavenly bodies in comparison to our own. More practical is that the great abundance of prehistoric plant life has made so much of our current lives comfortable and more advanced compared to early human societies in that those prehistoric plants have converted to "oil" stimulated by the activities of prehistoric animals and insects. How perfect a defined and understood a developmental process is that?

Scott's premises and arguments have actually proven the existence of a god in that one can become a devotee of Kali, the Hindu goddess of time, change and death.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Alun wrote:Hi Scott, although you didn't specifically say this thread was both for posting the arguments and rebutting them
Actually, I did. ;)

Alun, I think you did correctly interpret what I mean by my unintelligent design argument.

You say, "perhaps anything." Well, sure, perhaps there is a moronic and/or sadistic god who created us. Perhaps pigs can fly. Perhaps McVeigh was innocent despite the court declaring it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. And I don't intend to suggest that the evidence and arguments I have posted prove god does not exist beyond an unreasonable doubt. In fact, I don't even say they are proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not proof but they are evidence. For example, if a suspect's alibi doesn't hold up, that doesn't prove he's guilty, but it is evidence as it narrows down the alternative possibilities. My arguments even if you don't believe the premise narrow down the possibilities. For god to exist, then in addition to possessing the qualities in the definition in the OP, the god logically must also not have any of the qualities mentioned in the premises of my arguments. This narrows down the possibilities just like eliminating that alibi for that criminal suspect. Proof proves there is no other possibilities. Evidence that isn't proof simply narrows down the other possibilities. If one wishes to believe god is a sadist who either chose to design humans unintelligently or can't design them intelligently, then my argument about unintelligent design doesn't apply. And when you tell the murder suspect you found his DNA at the scene, he may come up with a reasonable or unreasonable possible alternative explanation for why it is there, but it's still evidence because it narrows down the possible scenarios in which he didn't murder her. As for your points on logic, if one has to be illogical to believe in god, then I have no rebuttal for that. An illogical person can believe whatever they want and logical, sound arguments to the contrary will fall on deaf ears.

***

Juice, I am confident in saying none of my arguments in my previous post contain a fallacy. I have used basic, undeniable logic. They all use valid logic. Please keep in mind the difference between a fallacy, which is marked by a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises, and a falsehood, a proposition such as a premise that happens to not be true. Consider the following argument:

Premise: All dogs weigh more than 3,000 pounds.
Premise: All cats are dogs.
Conclusion: Therefore, all cats weigh more than 3,000 pounds.

Like my arguments in my previous post, that argument clearly contains no fallacy even though all three propositions happen to be false. Now consider the following argument:

Premise: The sky is blue.
Premise: Ice is frozen water.
Conclusion: A cat is a type of animal.

That argument commits a fallacy even though all three statements are true. Whether or not an argument is valid or fallacious refers to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, not to the truth of any one premise.

It's not a logical inference that leads me to conclude humans are unintelligently designed or that a random 65-billion-year-old insect poop is without some grand purpose. It's my own observation, one that is quite obvious IMO.

One could come up with some theory about how there me be a god who would design humans that mimics the unintelligent aspects of natural selection (i.e. the difference between intelligently creating something from scratch as opposed to naturally developing as modified version of something else). And someone could come up with a theory how McVeigh was convicted even if he was really innocent. In that way, my arguments aren't proof, but they are evidence. Any logical theory to the contrary has to workaround that evidence. In other words, the evidence doesn't disprove all the possible theories to the contrary, but it does disprove some and thus makes the contrary position less believable.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

Scott,

Premise A: "If" all dogs weigh 3,000 pds.
Premise B: "If" all dogs are cats.
Conclusion: All cats weigh 3,000 pds.

The totality of your premises, as presented make the conclusions offered fallacious, more correctly, "grammatical fallacy". Grammar or language is no substitute and/or cannot be manipulated for known, or real, or true facts as a basis for debate or argument.

In post #3 you make assertions by using a well defined biological term and proceed to give examples which are presumed to comport within the meaning of that term. Each example that you give is easily repudiated by well documented evidence. I have rebutted a few but here the rest: Erectores pilorum are muscles at the ends of hair follicles which contract causing hair to stand erect and draw closer to provide heat. This is commonly referred to as "goose bumps". As for the brain example I feel confident in asserting that we are both deep thinkers regardless of which part of the brain supposedly controls that particular "desire". I present that even though the more complicated and specified aspects that aid and contribute to the functioning of thinking are continuously being revised as new science is deeply thought out. Please see arguments defined by quantum consciousness.

Given that Darwin's original postulation of "bad design" was a lack of function not a change of function or size of an organ or structure the fact that all of the organs and structures in the human body contribute to and perform some function does not mean they are vestigial, like the Erectores pilorum which function according to its design whether by evolution or by design.

Let me revise the type of fallacy you presented as a "strawman" fallacy. You may also be guilty of the fallacy of amphiboly Scott. Making representations by omitting any relevant information is fallacious, therefor your "unintelligent design" premises fail as empirical evidence that no god(s) exist, especially since according to #2 of the definitions you specified, 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality does not portend to extrapolate that our interpretation of any deities design should and/or can be specified in accordance to our interpretations if purpose is presented as a factor. Otherwise we would be worshiping ourselves.

Accordingly Scott, you are also making a teleological assumption about the nature of god(s) or God which cannot be defended empirically or scientifically, just as much as you cannot empirically or scientifically define my nature without knowing or seeing me, and does not comport to the parameters of argument and discussion you imposed.

Granted, I agree that there is no way to argue for the existence of god(s) or God without teleological inferences, which you did by bringing up prayer and which I rebutted by personal empirical observation and repeated experience, proposing any science which has proven itself flawed and incomplete on numerous if not all instances at some point in history makes proving god(s) or God's non-existence just as difficult and inferable as empirically proving god(s) or God's existence.

Scott said;
It's not a logical inference that leads me to conclude humans are unintelligently designed or that a random 65-billion-year-old insect poop is without some grand purpose. It's my own observation, one that is quite obvious IMO.
It is well known that "poop", excrement, is a byproduct of digestion the same as oxygen is for plants, and we all know that oxygen has purpose, just as excrement can be used as fertilizer and a source of energy resulting from the nitrogen it may contain, as well as a breeding ground for many other organisms which may be designed to assist in decomposing dead organic material, which results in more biological purpose, whether by design or evolution our world works remarkably well and organised when properly understood, defined and presented using historicity and science, which is not non-evidence of god(s) or God but of purpose and function in accordance with nature.

Presenting the type of arguments submitted in post #3 does nothing to empirically prove the non-existence of god(s) or God. According to the premises and conclusions presented I can just as well submit that human life and death are unintelligently designed since, in my perfect supposition of my conclusions defining the nature of god(s) and/or God since he could just forgo the entire process and just ask me if I believe in him or not, and just take it from there.

Once again Scott's premises and conclusion can lead one to believe in the Hindu goddess Kali, rebutting his presentation of empirical evidence of that goddesses non-existence if the defined and understood "nature" of the goddess is a factor, as Scott has introduced.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Juice wrote:Scott,

Premise A: "If" all dogs weigh 3,000 pds.
Premise B: "If" all dogs are cats.
Conclusion: All cats weigh 3,000 pds.
I don't get what you are getting at here. That is an improperly formatted syllogism. Neither of your premises in that example are a proposition. :?

Again, I still think you are mixing up invalidity of an argument with falsehood of a proposition.

Perhaps I confused you with my use of conditional phrasing. But that doesn't matter. Look I can rephrase my previous example of a valid syllogism with all false statements as a modus tollens, and it is still valid because a modus tollens is a valid inference:

Premise: If any cats do not weigh more than 3,000 pounds, then some cats are not dogs. (If a, then b.)
Premise: All cats are dogs. (Not b.)
Conclusion: Therefore, all cats weigh more than 3,000 pounds. (Therefore, not a.)

Please note that almost all if if not all propositions that are not worded as a conditional statement can be rephrased as a conditional statement. The Aristotelian-like proposition, 'all bachelors are unmarried,' can be rephrased, 'if a person is a bachelor, that person is unmarried.' It's two ways of saying the same thing.

***
Juice wrote:Erectores pilorum are muscles at the ends of hair follicles which contract causing hair to stand erect and draw closer to provide heat.
For hairier creatures or creatures with fur that is correct. The little hairs would lift up the big hairs. It was a way for them to seem bigger and scarier. For humans they are useless genetic remnants from ancestor species for whom it was useful, a symptom of the difference between gradual natural selection and instant supernatural creationism from scratch.

The scientific evidence clearly shows we weren't designed from scratch by a magical creature, but we are a natural modification of a very slightly different species which was a natural modification of a very slightly different species and so forth according to what happen as a result of physical laws without supernatural interference. Indeed, most of our useless organs use to have a point millions of years ago. The problem of childbirth stems from the fact that we evolved from quadrupedal ancestors for whom the birth mechanics were created via natural natural selection. But the overall evolutionary beneficial translation from that to bipedalism had the unintelligent side-effect of mis-designed birth mechanics. We have a quadrupedal's birthing structure--which, my premise is, not a mistake an omniscient, omnipotent god would make. These things weren't always useless or problematic, that's why they happened as a result of natural selection. They were useful for our non-human ancestors millions of years ago. But natural selection does not give the same results as intelligent design by gods. It leaves behind certain types unintelligent results such as the childbirth thing.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Alun
Posts: 1118
Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm

Post by Alun »

Scott wrote:My arguments even if you don't believe the premise narrow down the possibilities.
I don't think they can be narrowed down objectively. But I mean 'objective' in a very strong sense here. As you say:
Scott wrote:As for your points on logic, if one has to be illogical to believe in god, then I have no rebuttal for that. An illogical person can believe whatever they want and logical, sound arguments to the contrary will fall on deaf ears.
Your evidence is perspectival. In most cases, there is no need to make the distinction. Whether someone denies logic or not usually means that person is decides only whether they are going to make mistaken predictions. But in this case it implies nothing, not unless they are willing to care about logic being metaphysically valid.

Note that this doesn't contradict thinking logic will happen to work in all empirical and cognitive cases. Again, the infinite of possibilities means you cannot rule anything out. We could be living in a perfectly logical world which is contained within an illogical existence created by an irrational god. There is absolutely no metaphysical reason which counts against this possibility.

What your evidence really points to is not why it is more likely to be true that gods do not exist. Your evidence is really aimed at saying we very likely should not care whether god exists. As before, I can go into this if you want, but only if the previous arguments make sense to you.
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Regardless of whether they are an atheist or not, one could doubt the validity of logic. Lest we forget that there are people who are nihilists and epistemological skeptics. The mistake they make, IMO, is using words like knowledge, possibility, certainty in unusual and unrealistic ways. Before we ever talk about god and even if they never heard such an idea (i.e. where implicit atheists), these nihilists and epistemological skeptics may say things like, 'anything is possible,' 'we can't know anything,' 'nothing is certain.' They don't even think we can know that logical laws are true. That's absurd to me. It's absurd to say it is equally possible we all live in The Matrix as that McVeigh was innocent as that 2 apples cut in half will equal 1 apple as that there is milk in my refrigerator. No, if we are to not be absurd or use terms in an absurd way, the possibility that touching my stove won't burn me is much, much less than the possibility that there is milk in my refrigerator so much that the former is impossible. I can't prove this to people who throw out logic. I can't prove anything to them. If someone truly believes, 'anything is possible,' then they are unreasonable. Some things are impossible; some things are known--under the usual meaning of these terms. If the validity of logic is not already taken for granted, then I can see how one would say, 'anything is possible.' But then they are unreasonable, and I have no interest in attempting to explain evidence to such unreasonable--'anything's possible'--people for anything let alone a confusing things like religious claims. It's one thing to be pragmatic, and realize that our axioms are assumptions we need to make to function as reasonable people. But this can't be rationally done by cherry-picking when one wants to be a pragmatist and when one wants to be a nihilist. It's irrationally inconsistent to forget logic when talking about one topic like god, so that you can say in regards to that topic 'anything is possible' but then not do the same elsewhere. If anything is possible, then anything is possible. There's nothing specific about the god topic that makes an 'anything is possible' outlook more workable than anywhere else. You may say that it doesn't affect you so you can put aside whatever form of pragmatism or other philosophy stops you from being thinking 'anything is possible' in all contexts. But that's not fair. The exact number of the population of Russia doesn't effect me, but either I'm logical about it and say it cannot both be 141,950,000 and not be 141,950,000, or I say, 'anything is possible; it's possible the law of excluded middle does not apply and X and -X can be true and logic is invalid.' My arguments about anything won't convince a nihilist or an illogical person, no, nor will they convince someone who cherry-picks when to be a nihilist or illogical and when to reject the 'anything is possible' mantra.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Persecrates
Posts: 220
Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm

Post by Persecrates »

Scott wrote:Persecrates, thanks for your link to your other interesting thread about your argument specifically about the god of the Abrahamic religions. Does your alleged proof apply to all gods as defined in the OP? Does it disprove the existence of all the individual Hindu gods, for example?
Your "evidences" don't either.
I was only interested in the Abrahamic God.

The epistemologic and cognitive problems of your thread are:

1- You don't limit your claim about your "arguments" and "evidences" to a "religion-defined-God".
As the nature of God (not its existence) is unknown and unknowable, you are bound to fail.
You cannot use counter-arguments to religious (theists) ones to prove ANY God cannot exist.

For examples:

- What you define as "very unintelligent design", may still be intelligent, as if God is omniscient he may know better than you what is intelligent design.

And you focus your criticism on human's design when there is nothing in your definition stating that God created directly human-beings. Maybe evolution is part of His "design"...
Also, you don't take time (and evolution) into account. What may SEEM unitelligent today may allow future evolutions you're not aware about.

- For prayers, again, it's not stated in your definition that God must answer prayers.
And would that mean He is the one submitted to the will of humans??

- For purpose, an omnipotent can do everything, not necessarily do (causes) everything (to happen).
And what about purposes you can't identify because we, humans, are to limited?
...

You would, in the best case scenario (which is not the case here), prove that specifics religious Gods don't exist.
That religious people define it falsely. That they worship a false image of what could be God, not God per se (if He exists).

2- Your OP is over mis-titled. The title is wrong.
You propose NO arguments nor empirical evidence to the claim: "there is no God".

You simply (try to) give counter-arguments to the claim: "There is one God."

This has not the same epistmic significance.
You can't take down all arguments promoted by religions it will never be a positive proof that God doesn't exist.
You can dismantle all of them logically (I provided a list of 36 arguments and their counter arguments in an other thread), it won't be enough, as you don't propose an evidence (empirical or not) of Its NON-existence.
User avatar
Juice
Posts: 1996
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm

Post by Juice »

One cannot base a premise on false facts and make a conclusion based on false facts in a syllogism. When this is done it is a "FALSE SYLLOGISM", and has no basis to presenting a logical argument.

How does inference equate to empirical evidence? When the inference is logical.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a man.

Things that are not understood are supernatural.
God is supernatural.
God is not understood.

Modus Tollens

God is unseen.
Anything unseen cannot exist.
I do not see God.
God does not exist.

Unseen things exist.
God is unseen.
I do not see God.
God exists.

I will just call this the "fallacy of the rope a dope".

In post #3 clear defined terms are used and those terms are applied to the imposed rules for this argument to submit empirical evidence then "clausily" argue for a claim by invoking modus tollens logic through which as I show in the provided examples that any claim can be made valid by just rewording and invoking its opposite by, even, using the same grammar and words.

Vestigial structures have no purpose.
Vestigial structures are smaller than their evolutionary
antecedents.
The human skull is smaller than its evolutionary antecedent.
The human skull is vestigial and has no purpose.

Premise one is part consideration in the definition of vestigial-ism.
So is premise two.
Premise three is also true.
But does the human skull serve no purpose? Is the conclusion true? Hence the fallacy of the rope a dope, or causal fallacies.

Is the purpose of this thread to produce logical fallacies or is it to produce empirical evidence for the non-existence of god(s) or God?

Scott said;
For hairier creatures or creatures with fur that is correct. The little hairs would lift up the big hairs. It was a way for them to seem bigger and scarier. For humans they are useless genetic remnants from ancestor species for whom it was useful, a symptom of the difference between gradual natural selection and instant supernatural creationism from scratch.
What actually happens is the skin constricts bringing capillaries closer to the surface. In cold conditions the skin is colder than the warm blood pumping through the body. Erectores pilorum is a useful function designed by either evolution or design to warm the skin.

As I have stated in other threads, evolution looses validity when the physiological co-evolving of gender dichotomies cannot be explained by any part of that theory.

Scott, I have no idea whether or not offspring bearing is in any way more beneficial for four legged creatures, or if they know a difference. From what I have seen, mothers of all stripes seem to have the same success when they do it. Interesting that no vestigial organs for animals have been submitted, and I wonder if two of the four legs of animals can be considered vestigial given the great success bipedalism has produced with humans going to the moon and all with just two legs and bipedal birthing structures such as an expanding pelvis and hormones produced to help ease the infant through the bipedal birth canal whether created by evolution or design.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!
User avatar
Rajaroux
Posts: 107
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 5:06 am
Location: UK

Post by Rajaroux »

While this may not be empirical evidence that the monotheistic religions' god does not exist, it is empirical evidence (or at least inferred evidence which is all we can have anyway) and relevant to why you could want to argue the case.
In 2003, Researchers at University of California San Francisco Medical Centre found the practise of Buddhist meditation can tame the amygdala, an area of the brain which is the hub of fear memory. They found that experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people. Paul Ekman, who carried out the study, said: "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek."

Also

A 2005 Australian (Victoria) University study of the effects on students of Buddhist education, which was introduced to select Melbourne primary schools revealed that students from Years 3 to 6 consistently rated themselves happier after their weekly meditation session, improved their concentration, coped with anxieties, regulated their emotions and felt greater kindness towards themselves and others.

I am not a Buddhist in the sense that I do not consider myself part of the club, but I draw from the teachings of Yoga, Buddhism, Sufism, Kabbalah and Christian Mysticism (in that order). I was brought up on Christianity, baptised, confirmed, went to Sunday school and studied the bible at school. Then I discovered the non-dualistic religion and philosophies said I could actually be happy by truly being myself rather than being someone else's idea of what I should be or believe or relying on the dictates or interpretation of any dogma rooted in the ignorant and fearful past. I had been duped into holding up other's beliefs. This was no mere teenage rebellion (at 30) but a chance to engage in something present, way more honest and genuine and continuously open to revision based on experiential learning.

I 'm lost on the merits of the 5000 year old arguments of semantics, fallacy, syllogism and modus tollens except as exercise for the grey matter, which can be a demerit if you miss the bus while thinking. These arguments have been circular for as long as we've used them. The question is do you want to be a useful, even helpful human in the body you have, or remain fearful? Do you want to wait for interpretation of dogma or can you simply do what needs to be done? We can be a happy(er), more responsible and have more cohesive communities without the monotheistic religions' god. Why do we even need the notion? Is it not significant that Buddhists come to no god from experiential learning and Christians come to god from somebody elses idea?
Enjoy what is before it isn't.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Juice, please note the difference between invalidity and unsoundness in a logical syllogism. All statements in a syllogism or other logical argument could be false and the syllogism or argument could still be valid, i.e. contain no logical fallacies. This is basic logic (source. Modus Tollens is a valid logical inference source, and none of your examples in your last post were an example of a Modus Tollens. I'm not going to argue about this any further in this thread. [I would be willing to discuss basic logic in the off-topic section of the forums, but I don't see what help I can give that 20 minutes of research on any encyclopedia or university website couldn't do.]

***

Juice,
Juice wrote:Erectores pilorum is a useful function designed by either evolution or design to warm the skin.
It doesn't warm our skin. It was useful for our non-human ancestors.
Juice wrote:I have no idea whether or not offspring bearing is in any way more beneficial for four legged creatures, or if they know a difference[...]
I don't understand. It's not about the bearing of offspring in general being helpful or not. (Of course it has evolutionary use.) The point is that pregnancy and birth is more painful for human women than four-legged creatures because the way it happens seems to be designed for four-legged creatures not for fully erect, two-legged creatures. One could easily increase the intelligence of the design of a human by having them give birth through the belly, for example. When our ancestors evolved from four-legs to be erect the way they gave birth unintelligently remained the same in many ways. It's like tailoring a shirt for a skinny guy and then giving it to a fat guy; it's unintelligent in the way that natural selection is often unintelligent. The mechanics of human childbirth was 'designed' for non-erect, four-legged creatures and then given to us because our ancestors evolved bipedalism long after evolving mammal-like childbirth. Large brains that must be less developed at birth (to fit) complicate the old quadrupedal's way of giving birth too.
Juice wrote:From what I have seen, mothers of all stripes seem to have the same success when they do it.
Really? It's obviously not the case in terms of pain and ability to safely give birth to a litter or safely give birth at all. Natural human childbirth is much more dangerous than natural animal childbirth (source). For almost all of our history, childbirth was the leading cause of death in women. (Of course, implementation of medical advancements in the last century have provided a great relief for human women.)

***

Alun, I don't see how your points are more useful in terms of believing or disbelieving god's existence than some epistemological skeptic or nihilist claiming in any other discussion that anything is possible, even that which violates logic rules, with some explanation why we supposedly can't know anything. Maybe we are all just stuck in The Matrix. Maybe in the real world Zeus exists and his existence has been proven. Maybe we are just a brain in a vat and everything we observe is imagined and in the real world rational rules like the law of non-contradiction don't apply and that's just an imagined quality of our world. This type of argument is a dime a dozen in epistemological discussions. I have no way to prove anything to a nihilist or anyone else claiming to be that epistemologically skeptical. Naturally, an argument about anything will fall on deaf ears when put to someone who hasn't already accepted logic as an axiom. IMO, being a selective epistemological skeptical, or choosing to bring up the anything's possible line of discussion only at certain non-epistemological topics, is simply a red herring. In any case, you might be interested in threads like: Can we 'know' anything?, Why should logic be persuasive?, Is a priori knowledge possible?, Skeptic crisis, Dusk of Reason. Your ideas about a hypothetical god controlling the universe, or some computer programmer in control a hypothetical Matrix we could hypothetically be stuck in, making it seem like logical rules apply that don't, or any other Truman-Show-like thought experiment can be made in those threads. And without agreed epistemological footing (i.e. an agreement to accept the usefulness of logic and empirical evidence), I think there is no point in discussing anything. In other words, coming to agreement on those discussions to which I linked precedes arguing about anything else. You can't convict a guy in court if you allow unreasonable or illogical doubt to play a role; the usefulness of empirical evidence and the absolute, unquestionable accuracy of logical laws are implicitly accepted as premises in any other discussion.

To avoid further confusion, I agree my arguments do not apply to an illogical concept of god. My arguments do not apply to a god who can violate logical laws such as the law of non-contradiction. My arguments do not apply in a reality where A = A can be false and where A ≠ A can be true and where propositions can be both true and false and where any other logical rules are thrown out the window. Whenever I make any argument about anything, take it for granted I have assumed the logical rules. Whenever I say 'god,' I actually only mean a god who is not illogical or capable of such illogicality as such.

***

Persecrates, you put a of words and phrases in your post in quotation marks. Who are you quoting?
Persecrates wrote:As the nature of God (not its existence) is unknown and unknowable
The definitive nature of the type of being I am talking about is defined in the OP.
What you define as "very unintelligent design", may still be intelligent[...]
Sure, when I look at the sky and observe that it is blue, I could be mistaken. When I study the mechanics of things and observe that something about it is utterly unintelligent I could be mistaken. When I observe a cat in front of me I could be hallucinating and not know it. By definition, an omniscient being wouldn't make much mistakes. So yes, my argument can at best make me as confident that no creator god exists as that the sky is blue and that there is a cat in my house. It depends on the accuracy of the observations used as empirical evidence in any of my premises.

I have never said I can prove god does not exist. Note the difference between proof and mere evidence.
Persecrates wrote:Maybe evolution is part of His "design"
Maybe the supposedly amazingly talented Chef cooked the bad food with a microwave. But the fact that food was microwaved and is thus not that good is evidence that the food was not made by an amazingly talented Chef.
Persecrates wrote:For prayers, again, it's not stated in your definition that God must answer prayers.
Indeed. If it was in the definition, I would consider the scientific evidence I presented to be proof rather than just evidence. If someone doesn't answer the door when you ring the bell, then that doesn't prove they aren't home as there is nothing in the definition of 'person in a house' that says the person must answer the door. But I believe it is evidence in both cases.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021