Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Refuting Monotheism

Refuting Monotheism: There is no God

If god created all...(which he didnt)

If god created all then why are there some species of Great Apes (specifically chimpanzees)that carry 98.6% of human genes.

It doesnt make sence that a god who wanted so bad for you to believe in him would create an animal almost EXACTLY like us. If anyhting it would cause others to doubt and therefore give god the exact opposite reaction he is looking for, which to christians is to believe in him.

Face it, the christian god isnt real.

Re: If god created all...(which he didnt)

This argument makes no sense whatsoever. Who cares if an animal is similar to human beings; who cares even if evolution exists; neither one of these positions negates the possibility of God, especially when you consider God may have had a hand in the evolution process.

(Deleted comment)

Re: whoa Vexen ... you've got buddies out there!

Hi there Alynna,

[[... Dr. Persinger honestly has an experiment set up to test what people experience as either as a presence of god or of demons and bad feelings.

The experiment is set up to stimulate certain parts of the test subject's brain, and the subject either experiences nothing, or a presence of god (angelic goodwill), or a demonic threat.]]

The headgear stimulates with impulses (and thus “confuses) the superior anterior parental lobe if memory serves.

[[The experiment is only a hypothesis and does not conclude ...]]

It does what all scientific tests do. It establishes possibility and thus puts the consideration into the realm of probability instead of a consideration of mere possibility.

A theory or hypothesis that has not established possibility should be assigned zero merit. However, if one has proved that ‘A CAN cause B’, then in the future, when one is examining what might have caused ‘B’ to occur, we know that it being caused by ‘A’ is a distinct possibility.

This is the problem that theists face. It seems that they can’t show me a ‘god’ and thus their claims can’t “gradate” from the zero-merit class. They’re sharing the bed with Pascal.

The Vampire

The entire idea of arguing about the existence and nature of God

You start your arguement by putting God in your boxes. By so doing, you have turned Him into a straw dog - a nice turn, but totally without merit. To say that God is this or that, or that He is limited to this or that human assumption is ludicrous. You have proven nothing but that you are (like the rest of mankind) yourself limited in your ability to comprehend God as He is. If he was just like us, He would not be God at all!
Sorry - but you only human after all.

Re: The entire idea of arguing about the existence and nature of God

Him? Refering to god as a male seems to contradict your whole response

What ever

Have you noticed that nobody argues about the existence of the sun or moon. Why is that?
Does 1 + 1 = 2 or not ? Lets have your arguments both ways. It seems to me that we only argue when we are not sure. We would like to be sure, but we're not, so we argue, hoping that by convincing someone else that a particular point of view is correct that we will be sure ourselves. Well now that's cleared up, perhaps we can get on with something more useful...hmmm?

Re: What ever

If you don't have anything inciteful to tell us then don't bother and worry about your belief not others.

In my religion, we worship the SUN. Everyone knows the SUN exists, so there are never any arguments about the existence of God as he is clearly visible (well, during the day anyway, provided there is not too much cloud cover). God (the SUN) sustains all life on earth, so the question "what does God do all day?" never arises (although He arises !). To worship God, we lie prostrate when he is visible, as long as possible and enjoy his warm gaze. Sometimes we have to wear special glasses to protect our eyes because no man should look at God directly. Without him we would not exist so we have to make a special sacrifice every Winter in case he doesn't come back in the Spring. He especially likes us to cut out the heart of a young virgin and offer it up to him. We only have one rule. No beans, baked or otherwise.

God didn't create thought and the ability to create

God cannot have created thought, being able to think, the act of thinking, conceptualizing, mentally conceiving, imagining, dreaming, whatever you want to call it, because...

In order to create this ability, firstly for his own use, he would have initially had to go through a some sort of a thinking/reasoning (guessing?) process in order to arrive any conclusion at all, possibly along the lines of "What do I need to do first in order to create everything" and without having first created the process/ability of thought for himself, he can't think what needs to be done.

It may be that thoughts/concepts, and hence the ability to produce thoughts/concepts, already existed within God in "non-time" prior to him creating everything, including "all that is seen and unseen", as a sort of inbuilt, fitted-as-standard feature of God's nature, it begs the question, what else is excluded from "everything"? (Apart from God, as a courtesy, otherwise he'd responsible for creating himself)

Therefore wholly abstract thoughts, concepts, or "ideas" must exist beyond God, or "before" God, or not be dependent on God, otherwise thoughts would not exist.

If God's ability to create, or by any other means otherwise be the source of all things is included in "Everything" (otherwise, it's not in everything and by definition everything includes all things) then how did God create, or become the source of, within himself, the ability to create?

Either this ability is inbuilt in his nature, and did not specifically need creating by God - it's there already - in which case God didn't create everything - or he needed to specifically create it and/or cause himself to become the source of this ability - but without the preexisting ability to create and/or cause himself to become a source of anything, how did he create it?

conclusion - God isn't the source of the ability to create, or cannot create.

Vexen Crabtree's website is full of fallacious statements

People, do NOT take this Vexen Crabtree fellow seriously.

His website is riddled with philosophical statements that a first year university student would find laughable.

Let me cite two such statements (found on his page)...

1. "No knowledge is absolute." (Vexen Crabtree)

No knowledge is absolute? Then how did you acquire the knowledge that no knowledge is absolute?

2. "Logic and consensus are the only ways of ascertaining what is real and what isn't..." (Vexen Crabtree)

Logic and consensus are the only ways of determining what's real? So, if I were to make the claim, "I am hungry!" that would not ascertain the real because it isn't based on logic or consensus?


If you investigate Vexen's biography page ( you will discover he has no academic background in philosophy. This might account for the many fallacious statements he makes which would never pass in a university philosophy course.

I suggest people with a serious interest in epistemology and metaphysics dip into the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ at their local library.

Re: Vexen Crabtree's website is full of fallacious statements

1. The statement means that there are no thinking agents (i.e., the beings who can "know" things) that do not acquire ALL their knowledge subjectively. The statement "there is no absolute truth" is not a statement about facts, but a statement about epistemology.

2. Your claim could be a lie, and logic would be required to figure out if you are really hunry. (Including the logical processes of science & biology).

I am an experienced computer programmer (amongst other things). I have wrote a number of invaluable, profitable, computer programs. But I had no qualifications in computers (when I wrote them). Does that mean their contribution or methods can be arbitrarily ignored? No. Qualifications are irrelevent, you're better off sticking to the actual debates rather than worrying over the source of the logic involved.

This is the truth

Everybody dont haf to go trough school to be wise and smart. A human with strong will and faith really means what he says and it is his opinion!


[[[Everybody dont haf to go trough school to be wise and smart. A human with strong will and faith really means what he says and it is his opinion!


Hello Mr. or Ms. anonomous.

My perspective is controversial, but personally, I don’t consider faith to be belief.

If I state that “I believe in ‘x’”, then ‘x’ would necessarily need to be intelligible to me.

For instance, how would one believe in Jabberwocky or flubnubs?

However, this is not true for faith. I define faith as a stifling of doubt that ‘x’ is not wrong. If one has “perfect faith” then one has “perfectly” suppressed all doubt that ‘x’ could not be wrong and this would necessarily make ‘x’ seem that it MUST be true, even if it is unintelligible, based on fallacious reasoning, contradictory, ridiculous or blatantly and provably false, etc.

I think faith destroys one’s ability for critical analysis and short-circuits one’s ability to discard untruths. If one’s definition of an untruth is ‘something that doesn’t match what I have faith in’, then one does not have any legitimate means of discarding untruths at all.

I consider it a neurotic pathology.

My opinion: Faith eats the mind.

The Vampire

What do you hope for?

You are empty.

Re: What do you hope for?

you are a silly man. you need Jesus... really. I pray you open your heart to Him.

Re: What do you hope for? (Anonymous) Expand
Re: What do you hope for? (Anonymous) Expand
Re: What do you hope for? (Anonymous) Expand

Much of your logic is ill, but your web site is interesting and has merit


You need to review your conclusions, as several (but not all) are illogical. It seems that some of your website was done without editing. For example, you speak of an "imminent" god. I believe that you really meant "eminent."

I did like several of your questions and points. Why does evil exist is a great question, especially if one presupposes that God is all good. Why would an all-good god create or even allow evil? If all knowing and he creates a being who he knows will eventually rebel against him (i.e., Lucifer) what does that say about god?

I think that the terror, pain, and suffering being levied upon the world by those who identify themselves as Muslims is making many nonreligious people hate religion even more. It will only be a matter of time before the rest of the world runs out of patience for this so-called "peaceful" religion and drops a big, fat, and dirty nuke (read: thousands of years of residual radiation) on Mecca (which should pretty much undermine their belief in Islamic supremacy). Then the preponderance of people will be nonreligious and there will, in my opinion, be a momentum toward this view. Sound preposterous? Time will tell...

Re: Much of your logic is ill, but your web site is interesting and has merit

You people are making something very simple very complicated. God reveals himself to us in nature and miracles.If you cant see that you need to get out from in front of your computer more often. God loves you more than you or I can even imagine and he wants you to accept that you are a sinner and that Jesus died for your sins so that you can live eternally in heaven with him. You are going to die one day no matter how much your science figures out so why not accept Jesus now before its too late?

A topic for you Vexen.

Perhaps you would like a change in pace, I see your logic ties in with a lot of philosophy background and other areas of knowledge. (In this way I get a better view of your thoughts and thought process) Try refuting my argument.

Here it is:
Moral Monotheism (MM) holds 3 main principles to be true.
A. Which actions are right is not arbitrary, but objectively valid.
B. There is exactly one God, who is the ultimate moral authority.
C. An action is right if, and only if, God commands us to perform it.
(I understand that this principle seem a bit harsh, but the way in which God commands is too wide of a topic, just say for now that he does in mysterious ways.)

My argument against it is:
1. Either (i) an action is right because God commands it, or (ii) God commands an action because it is right.
2. If (i), then what is right is arbitrary.
3. But if what is right is arbitrary, then MM must be rejected.
4. If (ii), then there is a higher authority than God.
5. But if there is a higher authority than God, then MM must be rejected.

Conclusion: MM must be rejected because it is false.

Please try refuting this as it will definitely get you thinking harder than before. (Note that I only read the articles that you wrote about religion and sub-subjects, and please excuse the lack of siting for my documentation as this is just to see how you think, I may have to recruit you for a bigger purpose yet.)

Thanks in advance,
Intermittent reader.

Your site is linked

Greetings ! I could not find your email. I wanted to tell you that I have linked to your article "There is no God" from the references page at You can see it here :

Linkback is not needed but would be nice.


I consider myself a Christian, but I do like your website. I used to belong to some fundamentalist types of Christian groups, and I must say if you disagree with them about anything they certainly don't treat you with any respect. However, I've also known alot of irreligious or atheistic people who are also assholes. Anyways, I think that God is neutral because 1. If he was all evil why would he make the most necessary things of our existence pleasurable. For instance, we all must eat and drink and reproduce. Each of these things causes pleasure (we don't generally just do them because we have to). If God was truly evil, wouldn't he make the most necessary and repetitive processes the most painful ones? What I think, therefore, is that God cannot be all evil. He has created Pain, yes, but he has also created PLEASURE. He would only allow Pain if he was completely evil. Furthermore, there may be a greater reality that exists after our death where there is no pain.
One could argue that you could really not fully appreciate pleasure without pain. For instance, if you work outside all day, it hurts, but when you drink that cold beverage when you come inside it causes pleasure 10 times greater than if you had just sat on your ass all day. I think you neglect to mention the PLEASUREFUL aspects of our world when you suggest God must be EVIL.


You have a good thinking mind, I don't disagree with the direction of your thoughts at all.

Re: GOD IS NEUTRAL (Anonymous) Expand


You made some argument about how God and the universe had to come into existence at the same time or that God couldn't come before the universe. I think this is wrong. Before the universe was created there was no space or time. However, we know that the universe had to come from something, so it seems that the only alternative is that there must be a being that existed before time and space that is not confined by those aspects of our reality that brought what currently exists into being. Also, the universe is not infinite. I believe it is something like 56 trillion, trillion, trillion light years, but it is not infinite. Also, the universe will not last forever. The prevailing view now is called the "BIG CHILL" which says that in about 15 trillion years there will be no stars left only cold isolated debris and it will just sit there dead forever. Also, the big bang theory is the predominant view on how the universe came to exist, and it does require a creational type of event. So I think there must have been something beyond space and time that existed that caused this universe to exist. Perhaps that being or thing is God and lives in another universe that does not have the properties that this one has - perhaps there is no death there. Perhaps we have a soul and go to this place.


The most advanced scientists do not believe that a singularity is required for the big bang. For an easy read (which I recomment to *everyone* including others who also study quantum physics, astronomy, science, philosophy etc), try "A brief history of time" by Hawkings.

The "Big Chill" theory, I wrote about in 1998 and called in "Death by Cold", this is not an "end of the universe" event, but a time when particles and objects are so far removed, and entropy so advanced, that everything slows down and very little actually happens. This isn't the end, just a perpetual state of heavy silence, punctured by occasional events.

This is only the case if the expansion of the universe is not halted by the average mass of the universe; i.e., if there is not enough mass in the universe, Death by Cold will occur. If there is too much, a Big Crunch will occur as the universe collapses in on itself in a way similar to big bang (but fundamentally still different to it). Hawking talks about the Big Crunch in the book I mentioned; but he doesn't mention death by cold much.

where is the proof.?

If you do not believe God exists. How do you argue he has no free will.? God is omnipotent in that his power is endless and he is in all places at all times.So a God with free will but who has also very special qualities about his person. Righteous,truthful, loving and forgiving. And he shows Justice. If you look at the person God as portrayed in the faith of Abraham right to those with faith in Christ. You will see that Gods person means that he is a god who does what is right.A god who does not need a man to believe that he exists, but the evidence of him is all around us.
Since neither man or science has been able to refute that God created the world with any positive proof.

How can evil or suffering contradict a loving and righteous gods existence? Surely the fact the serpent deliberately showed lack of care for Adam and Eve by lying about God to them, shows that such evil exists. And that to lie about God proves the serpent(satan) is as ever present today. That man always has a choice. As this web site proves. If you put your hand in a fire you get it burnt. God has warned us about Satan but do we listen? So why be surprised if bad things continue to happen. God did not excuse the wrong Adam and Eve did. He knew the PRICE of sin was death. Satan caused man to fall so instead of letting all men die. The Lord sent his son to pay the penalty, justifying the law and setting men free. The pardon was brought with a high price. It was not given away.So it shows God is not just a righteous God but he is a god who does what is right.And one day everything evil and harmful will be removed forever.

There is a lot of suppositions. Ghosts and the like are called supernatural. Supernatural means something which cannot be proved by normal scientific laws. Therefore what you say is a theory based on a mans idea of what causes these beings. Even when tribes undiscovered in previous history are found in the jungles and rain forests. They believe in God though they have had not touch with the outside world. They also know about the flood of the whole earth.
The reason being men have never forgot the time when god walked in the midst of us. And it has been passed down just as the flood was.

Whilst you essays attack God, they do not prove he does not exist.
What was happening to Moses when he spoke to God? The faith of the Jew does not rely alone on the power of the brain or need to exist.
What about these men who spoke to God in person? Did Abraham imagine it. If no two people can perceive or experience the same event how do you account for contradictory or evidential accounts of the same thing in the bible written by different people?

Surely Lot and his whole family saw the angels that led them out.
What about the angels and the shepherds. Did they not all tell the same version of events. Did the three synoptic gospels not relate the same event by three different eye-witnesses. All basically say the same yet written at different times by different people who were there.

The serpent like in the times of Adam and Eve, has one purpose left. To deceive people into believing the worst of a very loving true God. A love shown clearly in the actions of those who believe in him and know him. A God who,s only wish is to give us the best and provide as he did at the beginning. What will you achieve if you could stop people believing? What kind of anarchy and destruction would be brought on the earth and among people.
Mans own history when left to his own devices proves him capable of being power mad and blood thirsty. Satan would love this.
Bad things happen on earth because men refused as Adam and Eve did to listen to God. If we all believed and trusted in God. Besides natural disasters there would be no evil or wrong doing. Plus because we were living gods way the natural disasters would not occur for we would be treating the earth properly. Food for thought. What hope does you belief bring you?


Re: where is the proof.?

[[“If you do not believe God exists. How do you argue he has no free will.?”]]

You almost have the idea of the “If-Then” conditional down with that...uh...statement(s).

“IF this condition exists and we use valid inference, THEN this will be the conclusion”.

If you are standing on the Golden Gate Bridge and drop a rock over the side, it will fall.

The truth or falsity of that statement has nothing to do with whether you are actually going to drop a rock over the side of the Golden Gate Bridge.

[[God is omnipotent in that his power is endless and he is in all places at all times.So a God with free will but who has also very special qualities about his person. Righteous,truthful, loving and forgiving. And he shows Justice. If you look at the person God as portrayed in the faith of Abraham right to those with faith in Christ. You will see that Gods person means that he is a god who does what is right.]]

No offence, but this is more rhetoric than reasoning.

[[A god who does not need a man to believe that he exists, but the evidence of him is all around us.]]

No, sorry. Only existing things can produce evidence of its existence. The nonexistent do not produce evidence of its existence. So, before you can call a tree “evidence”, you must first prove true your premise (because anything derived from a false premise must be irrelevant).

Since logical entailment “flows” from known true premise to previously unknown conclusion, then your premise must be a “creator ‘god’”.

In other words, it is invalid for you to call a tree “evidence of ‘god’” until you first prove that there is a creator ‘god’.

In short, show me ‘god’ or all bets are off. That doesn’t mean show me “scripture” i.e. written oral tradition testimony from other people (testament) and it doesn’t mean to ask me how I manage to explain single cell organisms without the goblin king producing it for me. It means for YOU to show ME ‘god’. If you can put your hands together and wish really hard for something to happen and it can divinely intervene in our physical universe and make changes to it, then this should be detectable via the physical sciences, either directly or statistically. Therefore the personal ‘god’ of the bible is scientifically provable.

Show me ‘god’.

[[How can evil or suffering contradict a loving and righteous gods existence?]]

As a corollary example.
A ‘god’ who tells Moses to give a terrorists ultimatum to the Pharaoh
AND THEN this ‘god’ hardens the heart of this Pharaoh so that he will not comply with this ultimatum, AND THEN as “punishment” for not meeting this ultimatum this ‘god’ proceeds to kill all the first born of the Egyptians, including the new born babies and cattle, then this definitively CANNOT be a “loving and benevolent” ‘god’. This story describes an evil ‘god’.

[[Surely the fact the serpent deliberately showed lack of care for Adam and Eve by lying about God to them, shows that such evil exists.]]

In the story you refer to, ‘god’ lied and the serpent told the truth.

Here’s a step by step breakdown along with Hebrew transcription at my website.

In that story, “the woman” (that no one had bothered to give a name to) had to decide who was lying to her, the serpent or ‘god’. She exercised freewill, which with the context of Pauline Christianity was the “original sin” of not being a “slave to ‘god’” ala Romans 6:19-23

In a nutshell, according to Pauline Christianity, freewill is an evil deviation from ‘god’s’ will; “wisdom” is foolish and Christianity is foolish and therefore wise (1 Cor 1:21); and believers profit from worshiping the torture and human sacrifice of Jesus.

Would you describe this as good or evil?

[[And that to lie about God proves the serpent(satan) is as ever present today.]]

The “lie” is to suggest that the ‘god’ described in the Jewish bible (OT) is not evil and designed to create fear, hence ‘fear of ‘god’’ and thus capitulation. Remember, you are supposed to “Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11).


The Vampire

Re: where is the proof.? (Anonymous) Expand

Log in

No account? Create an account