Where is God?
Offline There is no such thing as an invisible magical super brain with magical super powers, by any name. Call this being "Allah/God/Yahweh/Vishnu/Thor/Posiden blah blah blah.........It is all made up garbage. (the big bang is evidence for the supernatural, post 5)
This seems to be a common argument that atheists give, the where is God argument. I believe Sapient has used a 'where is God's universe factory' form of this argument in the ray comfort debate. Atheists are generally materialists and claim that only the material or physical world exists. We can't perceive any so called spiritual dimension so why should we believe one exists?
I've given this some thought and two analogies, which make it easily conceivable that a spiritual dimension exists, have come to mind. I'm not arguing for the actual existence or truthfulness of either of these two scenarios (and i don't necessarily believe either exist), only that our lack of ability to perceive a spiritual dimension doesn't preclude its existence.
1. This is an argument of scale. The invisible super brain may just be too large for us to notice. This draws upon a deterministic worldview. From a deterministic perspective, even our brain is just composed of individual molecules that acting solely under the influence of the natural laws of physics have self organized to give us a cognitive self aware brain. Analogously, is it unreasonable to imagine a giant brain that instead of being influenced by individual molecules, is composed of entire planets or galaxies as its basic component? Instead of having electromagnetic forces carry messages, gravitational forces could etc. Of course such a cosmic brain would only come into existence after the universe so this model would not describe a creator god, but that's besides the point. (think of the god of avatar)
2. Another, i think more reasonable analogy, would be a computer programmer or matrix analogy. Futurists project that the current progress of computing will eventually allow us, at technological maturity, to create powerful simulations that could easily recreate the world in a computer program or matrix. If we imagine what it would be like to be a person in a simulated world, it is easily conceivable that said person would have absolutely no knowledge of an alternate reality. A god living simply in another reality also conveniently fits all of the general theistic conceptions of God e.g. that he is outside of space of and time (he may have his own conception of space and time outside and separate from our reality), can have knowledge about what occurs at any point in his simulation, and can directly intervene (install patches or change conditions).
The obvious flaw with these scenarios is that they are unfalsifiable. I don't necessarily believe they are true, but because they are easily conceivable and easily fit in with a given theists conception of God, the "where is the invisible brain or universe factory" argument is not motivating and therefore irrelevant.
- Login to post comments
The issue is that if we can't perceive them in any way, then we can't say they exist. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that we ARE in a matrix, but how are we to know it exists? We aren't, because we can't. It is a limitation we live with, not being able to know about things we can't perceive without anatomy or technology. (Technically, we don't perceive electromagnetic radiation outside of the visible spectrum, we use technology to convert it into the visible spectrum).
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Okay. Then, I think you're arguing about things that we already agree with. We accept that supernatural entities can exist; that is not what is being contended. The point has always been that you cannot discuss supernatural entities. It is possible that they exist, but demonstrating possible existence is not synonymous with demonstrating actual existence. You need evidence. Since you cannot provide evidence for any supernatural claim, by definition, you cannot demonstrate the existence of any God that is defined to be supernatural.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Who is "we"? Not me. The concept of the "super natural" is nothing but a placecard for "I don't know" and is gap filing based on willful ignorance.
Strictly from a semantic sense no one knows what future evidences will uncover the unknown. But time after time after time after time, what humans once thought was the product of the "super natural" science has ended up taking that placecard away and finding a natural answer.
I warn against our admission that even atheists don't know. I warn against allowing the Dumb and Dumber crowed in saying that allowing them to say, "So you're saying there's a chance".
There is no such thing as the "super natural". That is an excuse for people, when they hit a ceiling in knowledge to stop investigating. "Super natural" is an argument from ignorance and willful credulity.
Super natural entities exist purely for the same reason humans can dream up Super man and Bat Man and Harry Potter.
An atheist admitting they don't know does not constitute defaulting to the absurd claim of a brain with no brain being a reality merely because humans like the idea of an invisible super hero.
I do not accept that super natural entities can exist. I do not think they ever existed or ever will exist. I think the concept of super natural is nothing but wishful thinking on manifesting itself in human claims based on human imagination.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Logically though you can't deny they exist because they are outside anything we can even discuss. The problem is if you say the supernatural doesn't exist then the theist just says, 'you can't prove a negative, hah!'.
Granted, the participants of this discussion have to both be sophisticated enough to even make that distinction...I wouldn't use the arguments above unless the theist knows enough about logic to understand them without a long explanation.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
That is enabling the theist to use proxy of utterance as defaulting to being true, rather than providing credible evidence that it is true.
I don't think farting a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass would be natural. I think that would be beyond nature. I think that is a super natural claim.
Now, why in reading this example do you automatically dismiss it?
Certainly if a god is super natural then such a claim is not impossible?
It makes much more sense to me that god, and the concept of the super natural are made up. Otherwise farting a Lamborghini out of my ass has to be a possibility because if it were possible, it would have to be beyond nature.
There are lots of things we can utter in life, but we also dismiss a lot of things because they are too absurd to put any weight to. I include even the generic "super natural" as absurd as any specific myth and superstition.
Even Jefferson said, "To talk of the immaterial is to talk of nothingness". Mind you, he did believe in a generic god, but I find it funny that he believed while saying that.
Again, superstition, super natural, and god/s are all placebos people invent because they sound good for filling in the gaps.
All you have to do to invent something "super natural" is make shit up.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes, I am fully aware of that. So is everyone else here. However, a theist who will bring up the argument will usually know full well what they are saying, and they are technically right, you simply can't disprove that the supernatural might exist. There really isn't much to debate. If the person is not familiar with philosophy then you can slap them around with pink unicorns and absurdities...but if they are then you have to take butter's tact or they'll just call you dumb and walk away (You aren't dumb, I agree with you). Like I said above, you have to tailor your arguments to your audience.
Your argument is based on reason and reality, but a theist arguing from this standpoint, like most philosophers(hah!) doesn't care much for reason or reality.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
If you want to treat them as children who cant handle big concepts, you can.
Don't get me wrong, Hitchens makes my head swim with his 50 dollar words sometimes.
I just don't think we need to assume because we present things believers aren't used to that they will always run screaming.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't think you understood what I'm trying to say, but that's fine. I never disagreed with your main point, and I'm not as contrary as you are so I'll let it drop
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I got it.
You "They don't understand what you are saying. It requires more than that to get to them"
Me, "I don' think it does"
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Let me add to that.
I don't think it always takes a walk down the yellow brick road, especially on their terms. I agree it is important to understand where they are coming from, and their level of education. But it is not a blanket solution.
Slow deconstruction is valid, but so is a splash of cold water in the face.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm too dumb to stop.
That wasn't my point at all. I'm saying that an intelligent theist will say your response isn't valid because it doesn't address their philisophical point. It doesn't have anything to with them understanding it or not.
So my point was the opposite, in the case of the original crap that started this, a sophisticated theist will just shrug off your point as being inapplicable to the issue at hand, which is whether or not an atheist can prove the supernatural does not exist.
I'm not trying to get into a debate about the general methods by which we debate, we both understand where the other comes from and, I think, we both understand and respect why. I'm only speaking to the specific scenario in this thread.
Simply put, if a theist says you can't prove the supernatural does not exist, I think the only honest answer is to agree, *then* point out that they are making a positive claim that must have proof to be considered above any other silly claim. Then you can talk about pooping cars from your butt and point out the flaws in the basic defining something as supernatural. If you skip that first part it just gives the theist an opportunity to sneer and ignore your argument while they bask in the warm glow of elitist superiority.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
OK, Brian37 has a very valid position here. Rather than just blithely say supernatural things can exist, one should consider what that means. According to dictionary.com:
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena
Going by that, then sure, that which is not part of nature is, well I don't know what it is but it certainly cannot be causally connected to anything natural. It cannot perceive our existence nor can it interact with us in any meaningful way. Seriously, to say that it may have some existence and that existence may have some meaning is fine if you want to work from the department of making shit up.
However, the OP provides specific examples to work with. In each case, the supposed god may be something that has thus far escaped our notice. However, they are gods which are made of real tangible matter and forces. They can in principle perceive our world and to some degree interact with it. As such, the provided example are, at least in principal, something that we could notice. After that, we could observe, analyze and attempt to have causal effects on them.
These are not supernatural gods. These are god which are in fact lesser beings than the god of Spinoza. By the norms that most theists go, these gods are so small that they are likely incapable of meeting the claimed abilities of the gods which most theists seek to advance.
=