Give Me 5 Proofs That God Doesn't Exist

The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Give Me 5 Proofs That God Doesn't Exist

I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god." It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all. You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism. Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely.

So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I would say that I am a

I would say that I am a strong atheist towards the christian god, thor zeus et al.

I cannot realistically hold a position of strong atheism over *a* god (creative intelligence) because I don't have the requisite information to make that judgement, and if I did, I would be a god myself.

 I do find the likelyhood of a creative intelligence which is a personal god to the human species vanishingly small.

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Give my 5 proofs right now that I am not the true Almighty Snarfwidget and that the Flying Spagetti Monster is fake. And while you are at it I dare you to prove that pink unicorns dont exist!

My snarfwidget can beat up your snarfwidget.

Come on, brian37. I'm trying to start a snarfwidget holy war here.  It can't be all that difficult. What do I have to do?  Draw a picture of your snarfwidget with a bomb in his...uh...widget...?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Give my 5 proofs right now that I am not the true Almighty Snarfwidget and that the Flying Spagetti Monster is fake. And while you are at it I dare you to prove that pink unicorns dont exist!

My snarfwidget can beat up your snarfwidget.

Come on, brian37. I'm trying to start a snarfwidget holy war here. It can't be all that difficult. What do I have to do? Draw a picture of your snarfwidget with a bomb in his...uh...widget...?

Are you talking about the blue snarfwidget or the purple snarfwidget?

-Triften 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: The issue

kellym78 wrote:
The issue is that he didn't address most of the valid points that were presented without attacks and instead has chosen to focus on the perceived "meanness" as an attempt to detract from the arguments that he can't counter.

Maybe I'm mis-reading things but I didn't see it that way.
Where a point was posted he'd say something along the lines of "Nice point. I'll need to read and think on that and then get back to you." and then complained about people being rude where they were being rude.
The only reason why he didn't address the points was because he didn't have an instant answer, and he was happy to admit that.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Are you

triften wrote:
Are you talking about the blue snarfwidget or the purple snarfwidget?

-Triften

The green snarfwidget. He doesn't take kindly to drawings of him, but he doesn't mind bombs. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Where a point was

Quote:
Where a point was posted he'd say something along the lines of "Nice point. I'll need to read and think on that and then get back to you." and then complained about people being rude where they were being rude.

I don't disagree with you here. That's how I see it.

My suggestion still stands. Ignore the people who aren't being particularly constructive and either admit that his question is not valid, or study the logic textbooks for a while and win his Nobel Prize by establishing the Burden of Disproof.

Not admitting when you're proven wrong is a worse sin in my book than being a little condescending in telling someone that they're wrong, but I'm not condoning either behavior, and I do think that a couple of posters have been a little over zealous in responding to the OP.

(Those of you who feel like I might be talking about you... you're exactly who I'm talking about. Be nice.)

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: kellym78

Strafio wrote:
kellym78 wrote:
The issue is that he didn't address most of the valid points that were presented without attacks and instead has chosen to focus on the perceived "meanness" as an attempt to detract from the arguments that he can't counter.
Maybe I'm mis-reading things but I didn't see it that way. Where a point was posted he'd say something along the lines of "Nice point. I'll need to read and think on that and then get back to you." and then complained about people being rude where they were being rude. The only reason why he didn't address the points was because he didn't have an instant answer, and he was happy to admit that.

I think the original post was rude. In it, he:

1. Declared strong atheism impossible (later retracted).

2. Declared atheism and agnosticism incompatible (wrong again). 

3. Demanded proof that excludes the possibility of an undefined concept.

4. Declared that failure in 3. results in agnosticism (presumably with 50/50 probability, but that's a guess).

That set the tone. If there can be a reasonable discussion now, free from naked assertions, so be it.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Here is how future newbies

Here is how future newbies can avoid the backlash that the o.p. received.

 1. Stick to asking questions.

2. Don't assert that which you aren't sure of, as fact. 

3. Don't pretend to know it all, as you illustrate extreme ignorance.

 

Doing 2 and 3 on our board can appear rude because most of us are smart enough to see through the holes in that argumentation rather quickly.  Because of this, often we find ourselves being insulted that someone would think we are stupid enough to buy the shit they're selling.  I find myself insulted by theists often who equate their poor unfounded logic to anything I would accept in any capacity.

 Furthermore, instead of adding to the shit storm, don't comment on perceived meanies without addressing the crux of their arguments.  In this thread he equated my "calling a spade a spade" as ad hom.  Doing so was ironically and hypocritcally an actual ad hominem attack in which he never addressed my arguments, but indirectly called me mean and rude.  

So far the op has illustrated arrogance, ignorance, and being a push over.  Let's not give him/her too much credit for one statement in which he agreed to learn more.   

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Here is how

Sapient wrote:

Here is how future newbies can avoid the backlash that the o.p. received.

1. Stick to asking questions.

2. Don't assert that which you aren't sure of, as fact.

3. Don't pretend to know it all, as you illustrate extreme ignorance.

 

Doing 2 and 3 on our board can appear rude because most of us are smart enough to see through the holes in that argumentation rather quickly. Because of this, often we find ourselves being insulted that someone would think we are stupid enough to buy the shit they're selling. I find myself insulted by theists often who equate their poor unfounded logic to anything I would accept in any capacity.

Furthermore, instead of adding to the shit storm, don't comment on perceived meanies without addressing the crux of their arguments. In this thread he equated my "calling a spade a spade" as ad hom. Doing so was ironically and hypocritcally an actual ad hominem attack in which he never addressed my arguments, but indirectly called me mean and rude.

So far the op has illustrated arrogance, ignorance, and being a push over. Let's not give him/her too much credit for one statement in which he agreed to learn more.

 

 

Is there a way to have this kind of advice forcefully presented to newbies before they make a post? Or at least posted in a very hard-to-miss location?

Not that it would necessarily help in every case, but it's a thought. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: The

stuntgibbon wrote:
The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

 Ultimately I find people of just about every faith to be more humble and respectful when it comes to religious debate.

Really...

Let's find some random samplings of respectful people of faith engaged in debate.

From NormalBobSmith.com's mailbag

Quote:

dude ur a jerk!!
how dare u make sucha site!!
u should shove it up ur but! its a disgrace ur a disgrace
u must be a lonely loser thats got nothing to do so he makes gay sites like urs!!
i hope u get many emails like this so u flippin know that ur a unbelievable jerk and deserve a kick in the ass!!

Natasha Conner
[email protected]

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail340.html

Quote:

Subject: Fuck you

We will kill you you motherfucker, we will cut your head you crazy monkey. down with amerika, down with all amerikans.

we hunt you and we will find you. be sure you animal, that we have the power to find you. my brothers in islam are ready to cut your head. i hope we can kill a lot of amerikans around the world, for your homepage must be pay al lot of amerikans and you are guilty mothertfucker.

Klaus Grantig
[email protected]

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail339.html

 

From here and there: 

Quote:
I will be filled with rejoicing when God makes His power known by pouring out His wrath upon the disobedient who are unfaithful and unrepentant. God is so awesome to have mercy on us when wrath is what we deserve. I am rejoicing just at the thought of it.

 http://www.christianlinks.com/showpost.php?p=17036&postcount=75 

 

Quote:
Do I think that Capital Punishment should still be in effect?

Yes I do, like Haman in the old testament and Judas in the new that hung  by the neck. I still believe in hanging or old sparky that way you can have them regular or extra crispy for the families that have suffered at their murdering hands.

Since Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stick their nose in everybody's business to incite riots and always trying to run for some kind of office even president of the United States, people ask me where I think they SHOULD run? I say they need to run in front of my truck!!

They say there is no cure for pedophilia and sodomy in the prison system. But there has never been one that was hung or electrocuted that  has ever bothered a child again. AMEN

 http://www.johnnythebaptist.org/

 

Quote:
I hope you die slowly and you fucking burn in hell! You dammed blasfemy!!! Right now you are rotting on the inside... But you must now (sic) that there is indeed a God! A great god! And he will forgive you if you regret from your fucking behavior. And you should realise thatyour entire life has been a delusion...and that right now your destiny is all fucked up! Fucking atheist!!!!!!!!!!!

 http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly (lots more here too!) 

 

Can't you just feel the love?  I know I can... 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I gotta admit I find that hilarious. But let's be fair here, atheists and religious people are both known to lose it from time to time. And by the way, I should have explained a little more. I was not refering to people who simply call themselves a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever. We all known that there are an abundance of people who "adhere" to a faith without even reading its holy text or applying its moral code in their lives. I feel bad for you guys that you haven't had the opportunity to meet people that sincerely and earnestly practice their faith by trying to put others before themselves, conducting their lives with integrity, being humble, and refraining from anger or impatience with others. Sure, there are jackasses from every type of belief, but the point I was trying to make is that these people shouldn't be representative of all people of that faith (like it is wrong to call all Muslims terrorists or all Christians fundies). 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

I feel bad for you guys that you haven't had the opportunity to meet people that sincerely and earnestly practice their faith by trying to put others before themselves, conducting their lives with integrity, being humble, and refraining from anger or impatience with others.

I feel bad for you that you haven't had the opportunity to meet people who don't need faith in order to  put others before themselves, and conduct their lives with integrity, be humble, and refrain from anger or impatience with others.

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

Sure, there are jackasses from every type of belief, but the point I was trying to make is that these people shouldn't be representative of all people of that faith (like it is wrong to call all Muslims terrorists or all Christians fundies).

Of course they shouldn't be representative of all people of faith.  But if faith is not a guaranteed safeguard against being a jackass, one has to wonder what the point of having faith is.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Firestorm123
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-10-30
User is offlineOffline
Atheism and what it entails

Actually Aethists do have a burden of proof inherent to their position. Aethists believe that no god exists so they have to prove this. Theists also have to prove that a god exists although perhaps this burden is somewhat annuled by the fact that many theists believe what they do because they do. The central premise is that you start with a foundation and build outwards. Either way to say no god exists is at least currently impossible and proably always will be impossible. This flows from our inherent lack of knoledge of the universe. Since we do not know all we can not diffinitivly rule out all options. On that level we should proably all either become agnostics or theists as the neither profess to know all. The former are awaiting the verdict and the latter hope for the verdict. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Firestorm123

Firestorm123 wrote:

Actually Aethists do have a burden of proof inherent to their position. Aethists believe that no god exists so they have to prove this. Theists also have to prove that a god exists although perhaps this burden is somewhat annuled by the fact that many theists believe what they do because they do. The central premise is that you start with a foundation and build outwards. Either way to say no god exists is at least currently impossible and proably always will be impossible. This flows from our inherent lack of knoledge of the universe. Since we do not know all we can not diffinitivly rule out all options. On that level we should proably all either become agnostics or theists as the neither profess to know all. The former are awaiting the verdict and the latter hope for the verdict. 

Why did you decide to restate the premise of the thread after it's already been addressed? You've added nothing to it that would merit a different response from what's been given already. I'll respond once on the assumption that you don't know any better.

1. Atheism in modern use doesn't affirm a committed disbelief, it is a lack of belief. In other words, what has been offered in support of a proposition has been unconvincing to the atheist. We all make similar judgments on a daily basis.

2. Agnosticism posits one can't understand a deity. Its use to mean neither active believer nor disbeliever is functionally identical and often used in conjunction with atheism (i.e. agnostic-atheist and weak-atheist mean the same thing).

3. That something should be considered plausible because it hasn't been excluded from all possibility is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

4. Not having excluded something from existence doesn't raise it to a 50/50 proposition. The deity of biblical texts, for instance, is characterized by improbable and undemonstrated suspensions of physical principles as we have thus far known them, making the entity implied less probable than something more mundane.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: for

magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

I think that's only four responses Magilum.  0,1,2,3<4

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: magilum

Eloise wrote:
magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

I think that's only four responses Magilum.  0,1,2,3<4

It's true I fucked up, and I didn't write the variable to anything. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Firestorm123

Firestorm123 wrote:

Actually Aethists do have a burden of proof inherent to their position.
No I don't
Quote:
Aethists believe that no god exists so they have to prove this.
I personally do not believe there is any god, but that's not what the word 'atheist' means. An atheist has no belief of a god. Some people who call themselves atheists claim there is no god; however most people who call themselves an atheist simply have no belief of a god and are not making the claim that there is no god.
Quote:
Theists also have to prove that a god exists although perhaps this burden is somewhat annuled by the fact that many theists believe what they do because they do.
Those who call themselves theists are, by the very definition of the word, claiming there is a god. Attaching the prefix 'a' (which means 'not' ) to the front of the word 'theist' to produce 'atheist' simply changes the meaning to 'not theist'. I am simply saying I'm not a theist - atheist.
Quote:
The central premise is that you start with a foundation and build outwards. Either way to say no god exists is at least currently impossible and proably always will be impossible. This flows from our inherent lack of knoledge of the universe. Since we do not know all we can not diffinitivly rule out all options. On that level we should proably all either become agnostics or theists as the neither profess to know all. The former are awaiting the verdict and the latter hope for the verdict.
As for foundation, the theists claim of god is a naked assertion without evidence and the word 'god' has no coherent meaning.

 Having no belief is the default position.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Firestorm123
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-10-30
User is offlineOffline
Atheism

Sorry about somewhat restating the point I just thought to look at the argument holistically. Anyway I thought I might answer a few of your responses Magilum.

This first claim you make is that aethism is not a commited disbelief. Proably the easiset way to refute this is to quote the definition of Atheism from the American Heritage Dictionary which is "the doctrime that there is no god or gods." It is on Dictionary.com if you care to check. This goes back to the origional posit of the thread that a strong atheist can not exist. But in a more fundamental sense to even call oneself an atheist requires that on some level one must belive that god does not exist this is a definitional prequisite. Then we come back to the idea that an atheist still has the burden of proving no god exists. For example to say that a car is black requires that you prove it is black. To say a car is not black still requires you to prove that it is for example red. This is the claim which atheism definitionally is bound.

The second response is that agnosticism is functionally identical to atheism. Now I will agree that they may have been used in conjuncture but just because one person says uses a word does not add it to the dictionary once again we must return to definitions to aquire a better understanding of the word itself. Agnosticism is "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." Although it may have been used sometimes with atheism there is a great difference. You may notice two things agnostics first require proof that god does not exist which answers the origional question of the thread that strong atheism is impossible and that it requires proof. But secondly to say that one is an agnostic atheist is definitionally difficult because they are different definitions atheism supports a truth and agnosticism says that to prove that truth is impossible. Perhaps there can be middle ground but that may require different definitions. Perhaps it would be good to post different definitions for the sake of argument because at the moment I am using these and I am afraid based on the vaguness of the arguments in general that definitions of the words would help to avoid these misunderstandings.

But on to point three I am afraid to some extent you misunderstand my advocacy. I am not arguing that god is necessarily plausible an argument for a different thread but rather I am saying that the existence of god is possible to be possible is to be "capable of existing." American Heritage Dictionary. The argument at the top as far as I can see still justifies that since it says that because not all is known anything may be possible.

Now for the fourth point once again I think you misunderstand my advocacy you say that because I present 2 options that I imply a 50/50 chance of either occuring. That was not my intent at all. What I was intending to do was to simply say that as of right now we can not disprove the existence of god. Now I will conceed that the odds may be something like 99% agnostic and 1% theist but the argument still stands that a god may exist. That was the central point of the argument not as a theistic justification but as a atheist critique.

I do hope that this in some way answered your objections.


BizarroAzrael
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-08-01
User is offlineOffline
Firestorm123 wrote: Then

Firestorm123 wrote:

Then we come back to the idea that an atheist still has the burden of proving no god exists. For example to say that a car is black requires that you prove it is black. To say a car is not black still requires you to prove that it is for example red. This is the claim which atheism definitionally is bound.

Except for the analogy to work, neither party has ever seen the car or any kind of tangable evidence of it.

 

A better example might be the legal system and the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty".  You can't just accuse someone of a crime and have the law assume that they did, the possitive assertion, that they commited the crime, must be proven, rather than expecting the accused prove that they did not beyond question. 

 


Firestorm123
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-10-30
User is offlineOffline
examples

Sorry about the example I tend to give bad examples but thanks for the alternative.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This thread has now abused

This thread has now abused the argumentum ad ignorantium more times than I care to name:

The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses

On the other hand, the idea of "God" can be rejected out of hand, a priori since it has no linguistic meaning:

On Negative Theology and its Linguistic Implications For the Coherency of Certain Theological Concepts

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Firestorm123 wrote: Sorry

Firestorm123 wrote:
Sorry about somewhat restating the point I just thought to look at the argument holistically. Anyway I thought I might answer a few of your responses Magilum.

This first claim you make is that aethism is not a commited disbelief. Proably the easiset way to refute this is to quote the definition of Atheism from the American Heritage Dictionary which is "the doctrime that there is no god or gods." It is on Dictionary.com if you care to check.

If you looked up "homosexuality" in a dictionary some decades ago, you'd probably find it categorized as a mental illness. Dictionaries aren't immutable, they change to reflect the common vernacular. The term, "atheism," which was originally coined, IIRC, as a slur against non-believers in Zeus, has since been applied to non-believers in Yahweh. We're faced with the choice of accepting a label applied to us as a slur as a model for our beliefs, or adapting the word to a more accurate description of the position. This doesn't contradict the literal meaning of the word, which is "without gods." This shift began, IIRC, decades ago in atheist groups; but we are a minority trying to change the stigma of a word for a majority that stills views it as a slur.

Firestorm123 wrote:
This goes back to the origional posit of the thread that a strong atheist can not exist. But in a more fundamental sense to even call oneself an atheist requires that on some level one must belive that god does not exist this is a definitional prequisite. Then we come back to the idea that an atheist still has the burden of proving no god exists. For example to say that a car is black requires that you prove it is black. To say a car is not black still requires you to prove that it is for example red. This is the claim which atheism definitionally is bound.

You'd first have to demonstrate the concept of a car is a meaningful one, which in the case of gods has not been done.

Firestorm123 wrote:
The second response is that agnosticism is functionally identical to atheism. Now I will agree that they may have been used in conjuncture but just because one person says uses a word does not add it to the dictionary once again we must return to definitions to aquire a better understanding of the word itself. Agnosticism is "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." Although it may have been used sometimes with atheism there is a great difference.

Did you know "ginormous" and "irregardless" are considered words in some mainstream dictionaries now?

[I snipped the rest because it's redundant and defers repeatedly to dictionary over practical use. Just google for "weak atheism, or "agnostic atheism" and just do your own research, please.]

Firestorm123 wrote:
But on to point three I am afraid to some extent you misunderstand my advocacy. I am not arguing that god is necessarily plausible an argument for a different thread but rather I am saying that the existence of god is possible to be possible is to be "capable of existing." American Heritage Dictionary. The argument at the top as far as I can see still justifies that since it says that because not all is known anything may be possible.

Emphasis mine: "because not all is known anything may be possible."

Which is why, given an equal amount of evidence -- in this case, none -- probabilities must fall to precedent. The more unprecedented something is, the more easily it can be dismissed as a possibility. If I said I saw a Volkswagen the other day, and I lacked an apparent impetus to lie about it, there's a decent probability to my statement because it's precedented, even common. This is not so if I say aliens destroyed the moon and replaced it with a new one exactly one minute ago.

Firestorm123 wrote:
Now for the fourth point once again I think you misunderstand my advocacy you say that because I present 2 options that I imply a 50/50 chance of either occuring. That was not my intent at all. What I was intending to do was to simply say that as of right now we can not disprove the existence of god. Now I will conceed that the odds may be something like 99% agnostic and 1% theist but the argument still stands that a god may exist. That was the central point of the argument not as a theistic justification but as a atheist critique.

I do hope that this in some way answered your objections.

I understood your point perfectly, but it's pure special pleading to believe that the lack of exclusionary evidence (if such a thing could even apply to something with no properties) applies to a god moreso than an infinite number of other improbable ideas. Many of them are even better supported than the idea of a god, because they're defined and have evidence (fake evidence, but still), such as bigfoot or the chupacabra. As I see it, it's tradition and fear alone that place this concept on a pedastal: that people have believed for a long time, and that people want to feel better about mortality.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This first claim

Quote:

This first claim you make is that aethism is not a commited disbelief. Proably the easiset way to refute this is to quote the definition of Atheism from the American Heritage Dictionary which is "the doctrime that there is no god or gods." It is on Dictionary.com if you care to check.

The thing about dictionaries is that you can't appeal to them as an authority. The dictionaries don't give the definitions for people to accept; people use words however they like and the "dictionarians" just attribute the most commonly used definitions to the words.

So the dictionary definition is just the common/popular usage. It's there for your reference so that you don't get lost in a society of people who use words differently. But that doesn't mean that the common usage can't be a misunderstood usage.

I'm not rejecting your position on this based on that point alone, but it's something you should maybe consider.

Quote:
 

This goes back to the origional posit of the thread that a strong atheist can not exist.

Sure they can. It's not a very rational or easily defensible position, but it is a position that someone---if special enough---could hold.

Quote:
 

But in a more fundamental sense to even call oneself an atheist requires that on some level one must belive that god does not exist this is a definitional prequisite.

No, to be an atheist, you only have to hold that stance that there is no reason to believe that god exists.

Similarly, if you told me that there was a vampire lurking in my apartment right now, waiting for me to return, I could reject that claim because there is no rational reason for me to believe it. It doesn't mean that I am 100% certainly correct, it just means that I'm taking the position that makes the most sense.

Atheism does not have to be the strong kind. It can also be the agnostic kind, which is what most atheists are.

Quote:
 

Then we come back to the idea that an atheist still has the burden of proving no god exists. For example to say that a car is black requires that you prove it is black. To say a car is not black still requires you to prove that it is for example red. This is the claim which atheism definitionally is bound.

Atheists don't have a burden of proof and you've made a faulty comparison here. To say that the car is red instead of black is to make one positive claim in place of the other, which is not what the atheist does. See my previously given vampire scenario for a better analogy, or use the courtroom analogy given earlier by another poster.

But here's another: Santa Claus. I don't believe he exists because I don't believe there are any rational grounds for believing that he does. That doesn't require me to substitute something in Santa's place, does it? I merely doubt the claim that Santa is a real person.

But, even so, I do think that many atheists make a sort of substitution anyway. We substitute reason for faith, we substitute natural explanations for supernatural ones, and we substitute the natural world, sans any god, in place of whatever god. So in a sense there is a substitution, but it's not necessarily a "god replacement".

 And let me once again point out that most atheists are the agnostic kind, so whatever their reason tells them, they are perfectly willing to change their position if new information arises that causes their reason to tell them otherwise.

Quote:
 

The second response is that agnosticism is functionally identical to atheism.

WRONG! That needed capital letters.

"Agnosticism", contrary to popular belief, is not a middle-ground stance. It's not even a stance at all. It is simply a modifier of another stance.

Something either exists or it doesn't. Cars exist or they don't. Gnomes exist or they don't. Cheese exists or it doesn't. Fairy dust exists or it doesn't. You couldn't say "Well.. cheese/fairy dust MIGHT exist, but I just don't know." Even if you're uncertain, it still either does or it doesn't!

You can't be an "agnostic" alone.

You can be an agnostic atheist instead of a strong atheist.

You can be an agnostic theist instead of a strong theist.

Yet "strong atheism" and "agnostic theism" are both rather difficult positions to defend, so most are one of the others.

You can check me on this (preferably from a philosophy-related source, not the dictionary): "agnostic" is a modifier; it's not a stance on its own. 

 

Quote:

Now I will agree that they may have been used in conjuncture but just because one person says uses a word does not add it to the dictionary

Actually, as mentioned before, yes it does. But to be more accurate, if one person just says a word, it doesn't get added. But if one person just says a word and then enough people pick it up, it wil get added.

You could, believe it or not, cross out the word "Dictionary" on any one of the books and replace it with the words "what everyone seems to think that word you heard means" and it would be exactly the same. Language is arbitrary. Fact.

Quote:
 

once again we must return to definitions to aquire a better understanding of the word itself. Agnosticism is "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."

No absolute proof, but very few things in the natural world are absolute certainties. Most things we know about the world are just really strong confidences, which are nearly just as good, save for a few decimal points of doubt.

I'm 99.99% sure that I'm going to a Halloween party tomorrow night, and I am 0.01% in doubt. I'm not absolutely certain that I'll be at the Halloween party tomorrow night. It's a crazy world and anything could happen. But I have every reason to believe that I will be at said party and very little reason to NOT believe. It would also be silly to say, "Well, I don't know for absolute certain, so I just won't plan on either case being true."

 Strong confidence, especially when it's very, very, very strong confidence, is good enough to accept a stance---so long as the stance is rational.

Quote:
 

Although it may have been used sometimes with atheism there is a great difference. You may notice two things agnostics first require proof that god does not exist which answers the origional question of the thread that strong atheism is impossible and that it requires proof.

It doesn't require proof, necessarily, but it does indirectly claim a sort of omniscience, which everyone in their right mind would agree is absurd.

Quote:
 

But secondly to say that one is an agnostic atheist is definitionally difficult because they are different definitions atheism supports a truth and agnosticism says that to prove that truth is impossible.

Agnostic atheism means that you don't believe that there is a god because there is no rational reason for believing there is a god. From everything we know about the rational world and from everything we know about logic and how knowledge is acquired, we can say that there is no rational basis for a belief in god. The "agnostic" modification simply means that we don't claim absolutely certainty since we are clearly not omniscient and have not observed the entire universe. An agnostic atheist believes that, if there were a god, it could be somehow proven, and he is welcome to proof if it exists. He just hasn't seen it and may even doubt (key word "doubt&quotEye-wink that it does. The only gods that an agnostic atheist would tend to claim certainty about are the gods of "revealed" religions, which have documents and dogmas supporting them. But when you start getting into things like pantheism and deism and all of that, that will be the point where the agnostic aspects of the stance will be more obvious.

A strong atheist believes that there is no god of any kind whatsoever and believes that there is no way that it can ever be proven otherwise, revealed religion or not.

Quote:
 

Perhaps there can be middle ground but that may require different definitions. Perhaps it would be good to post different definitions for the sake of argument because at the moment I am using these and I am afraid based on the vaguness of the arguments in general that definitions of the words would help to avoid these misunderstandings.

But on to point three I am afraid to some extent you misunderstand my advocacy. I am not arguing that god is necessarily plausible an argument for a different thread but rather I am saying that the existence of god is possible to be possible is to be "capable of existing." American Heritage Dictionary. The argument at the top as far as I can see still justifies that since it says that because not all is known anything may be possible.

Notice the emphasis I added.

The emphasized text is a point that agnostic atheists will concede and they will say that, since no man (or woman) is omniscient, then we can't say "X" doesn't exist with absolute certainy. For example, I could say that I'm highly confident that gnomes do not exist, but lightyears away from earth, in some dark and distant galaxy, there be something that we would recognize as "gnomes". But that doesn't mean that my doubting of gnomes is irrational. I have very good reasons to doubt. But I have no good reasons to accept. Therefore, I doubt.

A strong atheist would claim that they simply know that there is no god, which would be equivalent, more or less, to claiming that they know that gnomes don't exist at all anywhere.

Strong atheism (or agnomism) is an absolute stance and becomes absurd when the holder of the position is asked to defend their extreme view.

There is a difference though.

Quote:
 

Now for the fourth point once again I think you misunderstand my advocacy you say that because I present 2 options that I imply a 50/50 chance of either occuring. That was not my intent at all. What I was intending to do was to simply say that as of right now we can not disprove the existence of god.

But we can doubt with enough confidence that we may as well be certain.

Quote:
 

Now I will conceed that the odds may be something like 99% agnostic and 1% theist but the argument still stands that a god may exist.

Oooh... you were so close to applying the percentages in a useful way! Think about like this:

99.99% chance that he doesn't exist; 0.01% that he does. 

 

Quote:

That was the central point of the argument not as a theistic justification but as a atheist critique.

I do hope that this in some way answered your objections.

I do hope that in some way I've answered yours. 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Firestorm123
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-10-30
User is offlineOffline
So before I begin I will

So before I begin I will say that I might not address every point specifically. I will try and group similar arguments and look at the general theory but also because of the sheer volume of argumentation it is quite possible that I might miss a point. If I do overlook something critical please bring it to my attention and I will attempt to address it. And finally read all of the objections and then read this post I try and clarify where I am going but there is a chance I might lose someone so it will make more sense if you understand the arguments up to that point before reading this. Either way thanks for the responses.

     So let us start at the first 2 counter arguments presented by deludedgod. Look at the first argument. He references an article written previously. The article talks about how the fact that god cannot be disproved does not mean that god exists. It is a good argument but my advocacy is not that god definitively exists but rather the absence of evidence against god means that he can exist. (As an aside I am a Christian just to give you a reference for my view point.) There is a distinct difference between a saying it does and it can. For example a car can exist because there is nothing which makes it’s existence necessarily impossible but this does not mean that the car does exist.(this is probably a bad example but look at it in terms of the advocacy itself and it might make some sense.) So I simply seek to prove that god can exist not that he does thus the first reference does not respond to my advocacy it refers to a similar fallacy but not to my position itself.

Now we need to look to the supernatural critique (the second reference). Before I start let me give an overview of a preori arguments deludedgod gives an explanation in the paper but I have a feeling most people will not read it or they may not understand everything my analysis may fall in a similar category but for the sake of completeness I will simply attempt to define it quickly. First an a preori argument proves a concept false independent of observation. Some philosophers such as Willard Quine contend that purely logical reasoning is impossible and that all a preori arguments reference some type of physical observation but for the moment that is beside the point. Most arguments are reasoned arguments which rely on some sort of value judgment. One example would be saying that genocide is immoral this argument relies of the value judgment that killing is immoral. However a second argument could say that morality is not definable therefore genocide can never be moral. This second argument does not rely on any value judgment to determine the morality of an action but rather it says that because we do not know what morality is we cannot say anything is moral. This is a simple example for an a preori argument. Literally the argument comes before a value judgment hence the direct Latin translation “Before the first.”


     So let us move on to the actual critique of the word supernatural. As a short footnote it is entirely possible that I misunderstood the critique and if I did please inform me of where I misinterpreted it.

So in a basic sense the critique begins by saying that in order to discuss god we must first define god. It then proceeds to explain that because any definition of supernatural relied on simply defining what the word is not then the word itself can never be completely defined for example saying “the Bismark was not a car.” Does convey some useful information but it does not define the Bismark itself. Thus to say that god is supernatural  and supernatural is not natural might be helpful in defining what god is not but it does not define god. The argument then runs that because we cannot define god in rational terms means that he does not exist.

     There are a few conceptual problems with the argument on a basic level. First the argument itself does not prove that god cannot exist but rather that we cannot define god at least in positive terms. However this still allows for the existence of god. For example to say that morality cannot be defined is not to say that it does not exist rather it still exists and the fact that it is not defined simply precludes us from talking about it. Another example would be attempting to define space not in the astrological sense but as in the term “empty space”. What is space? When you think about it it is nothing we can say that space is not matter but beyond that we cannot say what it is. However this does not preclude it from existing. So even if we cannot define supernatural god can still exist.

While I am on this point I might bring up a separate unrelated argument concerning the implications of the word supernatural. If we accept that god is supernatural this means that he is necessarily beyond our perception. In short we are bound by constraints of space and time whereas god exists external to those. So we would never find god even if we searched to the ends of the universe we could never find god because he exists outside of our reality. This also provides a logical counter to any belief that god does not exist because the belief could never be verified. If there is always something else out there perhaps even beyond our perception we can never say that there is no god.

      Back to the critique. I just showed why it does not disprove god but if I accept it as true then we might all just shut down our computers and go outside. It says that if we cannot define god then we can never discuss him. This means that in order for me to meaningfully continue I have to define god. I do not have to define supernatural but if I can define god then we can meaningfully continue the discourse about god. So I contend that the definition as to what god is can be found in religious sacred texts. For the sake of expediency I am going to use the bible as my reference just because I am most familiar with it. Now I do not want someone to copy and paste twenty reasons why the bible is bad from another thread if I wanted to deal with that right now I would be posting in that thread. This is to be taken as an object example and viewed in that light. Also I know that not all religions have sacred texts but I do not personally advocate those religions. So here goes. In the critique deludedgod claims that we cannot draw definitions from literary works. He cites an example about how alive in literature has a different meaning than the definition. The problem is that this is a generic noun like cow or pirate. These do not denote a specific thing rather a varied group and since literature tends to be specific a definition of for example a cow as a black animal with horns might not suffice. However God is a proper noun although it may be used be many different groups it implies a specific being similar to saying Billy or Jack. In these situations literature works differently. It only looks at one instance of object but when there is only one object it becomes a useful tool of knowledge. For example think of trying to discuss Aeneas without referencing the Aeneid.  Similar to define for example the Christian god we must look to the bible. So on that level when we say god in the Christian sense we refer to a all knowing all powerful all present being. Now of course there are other gods in other religions but this distinction is not relevant until we look at the specific characteristics of god and for the sake of this argument that is not a problem all I have to do is show that the proper noun God can be defined and I have done that so I believe this effectively deconstructs the critique.

So now that I have covered deludedgod’s objections let us move on and look at magilum’s arguments. We should probably start with the dictionary definition argument. The argument makes a vague claim that we should not use the definition of atheist as someone who does believes that god does not exist. He says that words change to reflect common usage. This is true that the definitions of words do change but since they reflect common usage they are best suited to define words because they give a concrete definition and reflect the most probable use of the word. Furthermore no counter definition was provided the only possible counter definition was to do a google search. I might say that the internet is probably not the most reliable information source and furthermore the definition I obtain may change from website to website. The final problem is that there is no justification as to why I should use this google definition I will find. The other thing is he asks me to do my own research which I did and when I went to a credible source these are the definitions I found.

 The second claim is that weak atheist’s are people who have not been convince that god exists but that they also do not actively believe that no god exists. So since they do not say there is no god they are not true atheists. If this is a summary of your beliefs then you are an agnostic. Here are a couple more definitions of agnosticism just to drive home the point.

A.    The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.B.    One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. C.    One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. D.    One who is doubtful or noncommittal about somethingSo if I read those definitions correctly they all speak of uncertainty and if I looked correctly at the summary of weak atheists beliefs it also speaks of uncertainty. Definitionally weak atheists are agnostics so since weak atheist is not defined in the dictionary then we should use the word agnostic in it’s place. Thus no matter how much you want to be a “weak atheist” you are actually an agnostic. But now we need to distinguish between atheists and agnostics. Definitionally they are different one discusses ultimate uncertainty while the other posits a belief that no god exists. So on this level there are no weak atheists there are agnostics which is where a lot of people in this thread fall and there are atheists which is where a few people in this thread fall. This I think goes back to the original question of the thread as to if atheism is possible.Now let us look to the one last blip in the top of his post which states that atheists are trying to change the definition of the word “atheist” to mean the same as agnostic. This is first just plain wrong because it only express the view of an individual but in a more fundamental sense now atheists who are actually agnostics can just call themselves agnostics. They instantly get more recognition and they do not have to bother changing a word. As a side not however if they still want to keep trying to change a word instead of using a new one I might suggest they try a different strategy because most people define atheism as a belief that no god exists.
There is one other one line response at the top of his post which is that I have to prove the word god meaningful which I just handled in reference to deludedgods critique.

Now go down to the bottom of the post where he essentially says that the existence of god is not very probable. The main response is that even if the existence of god is highly unlikely like.00001% to 99.99999% I am still allowing for the existence of god even if aliens are more probable he never disproves that god can exist. On this level my original advocacy still stands. Now as for evidence proving god I think there is another thread for that and we can discuss that there. So in general I think I answered Magilum’s responses to my advocacy.

Now look down to the post by Archeopteryx (nice name). Just for reference some of his responses were already listed so I will not repeat myself.

Start with the argument that definitions are not an authority. There are a few arguments against this.

First definitions reflect the common usage of words so they reflect how words are generally used and thus what most people mean when they say that word. Secondly dictionaries actively influence common usage of words for example I my Latin class whenever we are not aware of the meaning of a word we look it up and that is the definition we use. So dictionary definitions are more useful when defining words. But as one final point there are no alternatives given so until someone else gives justified definitions these are the ones we use. At that point the definitional analysis still stands.

Then look down to the second argument he uses an example he says that he could rationally reject the idea that there is a vampire in his apartment even though he is not completely sure that it is false. The problem is that to say something for example that vampires do not exist requires you to prove that. People say that vampires are fantasy but that is at best an assertion. Vampires might exist we cannot know. In the same way to prove that god does not exist requires that we show that he does not exist an atheist must prove that. The claim is still a positive claim because it claims that something is true in this case “god does not exist”. This still requires a justification if you want to be an agnostic you make a negative claim “I do not know if god exists”. This sounds like your opinion in which case you are definitially an agnostic. To call yourself an atheist by merit of the definition requires you to make a positive claim. So yes atheists still have to prove that god does not exist.

But then look to the next response that agnosticism is not a stance rather it is a modifier. There are two problems. First yes agnosticism can be used as a modifier in it’s adjective form but the definitions I gave were of a noun which does not modify something besides being a predicate nominative which renames the subject(not really applicable in our situation and more generally used in sentences like “He is a teacher”). But secondly I checked in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and as far as I can tell an agnostic is one who neither believes nor disbelieves in god. Forgive me if I am wrong but that seems like a middle ground position. I already responded to the rest of the arguments earlier in my post. So I think I have defended my position in a reasonable manner and I hope it is satisfactory. Sorry if it was a bit muddled but I tried to group common arguments. But just remember I am not trying to prove god but rather show why atheism can never be completely justified. And as a footnote I will be discontinuing the argument after this simply because I do not have time to write responses of this length so you can say whatever you want but do not expect a response.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for responding.

Thank you for responding. You are the first person to do so.

Quote:

So in a basic sense the critique begins by saying that in order to discuss god we must first define god. It then proceeds to explain that because any definition of supernatural relied on simply defining what the word is not then the word itself can never be completely defined for example saying “the Bismark was not a car.” Does convey some useful information but it does not define the Bismark itself. Thus to say that god is supernatural  and supernatural is not natural might be helpful in defining what god is not but it does not define god. The argument then runs that because we cannot define god in rational terms means that he does not exist.

Careful. This argument undercuts “evidence” of existence. No entity without identity. You must have missed a section. We cannot speak of whether or not an entity “exists”unless we know what the word describing the entity means. Make up a word. Now, how can we speak of existence of a being for which no definition. You would be faced with the same problem, it is merely that with “God” you have cognitive dissonance associated with the word. If you make a word, you must define it, otherwise, speaking of it existing is garbled.

You must have missed what I was arguing. I was arguing not about existence or not, but the limits of language. If we cannot express an entity via language, we cannot speak of it existing. I said the idea can be rejected a priori because it is meaningless. We cannot speak of the existence of something hitherto undefined. Make up a word. Now, how can you discourse on the existence of the thing this word refers to without creating a positive definition of the word?

Quote:

     There are a few conceptual problems with the argument on a basic level. First the argument itself does not prove that god cannot exist but rather that we cannot define god at least in positive terms. However this still allows for the existence of god. For example to say that morality cannot be defined is not to say that it does not exist rather it still exists and the fact that it is not defined simply precludes us from talking about it. Another example would be attempting to define space not in the astrological sense but as in the term “empty space”. What is space? When you think about it it is nothing we can say that space is not matter but beyond that we cannot say what it is. However this does not preclude it from existing. So even if we cannot define supernatural god can still exist.

God can still exist? Obviously this does not answer the question of what God is. We cannot speak of existence or not without speaking of identity! To exist is to exist as something, to be something is to meaningfully refer to something. TO meaningfully refer to something is to define something. That something is not defined means that we cannot speak of it existing, because we do not know what it IS we are speaking of as existing. So you merely magnify the problem. Please do not speak of “existence” until you can speak of identity. If you cannot speak of identity, then the concept can be rejected a priori. Before asking whether or not God exists, we MUST know what the entity is. I did not claim to disprove God, rather that speaking of God is destroyed by reductio ad absurdum. Make up a word. You have no idea what this refers to. It might refer to something which exists, but how can we speak of that without knowing what the entity refers to? Please do not avoid this point, by turning, in essence, to evasive maneuver. It will not get you out of the epistemic necessity of defining supernatural

Quote:

While I am on this point I might bring up a separate unrelated argument concerning the implications of the word supernatural. If we accept that god is supernatural this means that he is necessarily beyond our perception. In short we are bound by constraints of space and time whereas god exists external to those. So we would never find god even if we searched to the ends of the universe we could never find god because he exists outside of our reality. This also provides a logical counter to any belief that god does not exist because the belief could never be verified. If there is always something else out there perhaps even beyond our perception we can never say that there is no god.

Careful…you are appealing to transcendentalism. But this notion is just as meaningless as “supernatural” for the exact same reason. Especially insulting is the idea that God is “beyond logic”. Wittgenstein showed us in Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus, the idea of "outside logic" is incoherent. We cannot talk of beings as being "outside of" or "transcendent of logic" it is conceptually garbled to speak of "beyond logic". I would go one step further and propose that even the very idea of "outside logic" presupposes logical constraints. Why? The ideas of "outside" and "inside" which is to say, set theory, of things being classed into discrete categories by which we may assign them property depend on the soundness of logic. Hence, the idea of a being "outside logic" is inherently contradictory, since if a being was "outside logic", it might also be "inside logic" or indeed, the whole notions of "outside" and "inside" would be meaningless. It makes no sense to refer to "outside logic" as if there were discrete sets of things being "logical" and "not logical" because the idea of such discrete sets presupposes a foundation of logic.

Quote:

  Back to the critique. I just showed why it does not disprove god

Disprove what? What is God?

Seriously, until you rectify the problem of supernatural being meaningless, I am going to ask you what the word means, because, and here is the best part I have no idea and nor do you. Replace the word “God” in your whole response with “xfiz” or “Urk” or “fonk”. The entire response will read exactly the same, and to me, appear exactly as nonsensical.

Quote:

but if I accept it as true then we might all just shut down our computers and go outside. It says that if we cannot define god then we can never discuss him. This means that in order for me to meaningfully continue I have to define god. I do not have to define supernatural but if I can define god then we can meaningfully continue the discourse about god.

But as you implicitly state, You cannot define supernatural. It is an incoherent term. If God metaphysically is supernatural you must define it. Otherwise we cannot speak of God as a being, because we must ask what is the nature of this being? If we say God is “supernatural” as a way of describing what God is consubstantial with, and supernatural means nothing, then by extension, we cannot describe God. In your next section, you describe God as an all-powerful being. This is unhelpful. It is circular definition. You must define supernatural if you are to say that God is supernatural, otherwise we cannot coherently speak of this being. If we cannot speak coherently of the being, we cannot speak on whether or not such a being exists. The limits of my language are the limits of my world. If your language is too limited to speak of God, then you cannot speak of God. To say God is a “being” and to say God is “supernatural” is unhelpful. The first is too vague. The second does not mean anything, this is an enormous problem. We can speak of what God does, as in God is all-powerful, all-seeing and such, but if we cannot speak of what God is (defining it only in negative) then we have no entity since we have no identity.

Quote:

So I contend that the definition as to what god is can be found in religious sacred texts. For the sake of expediency I am going to use the bible as my reference just because I am most familiar with it. Now I do not want someone to copy and paste twenty reasons why the bible is bad from another thread if I wanted to deal with that right now I would be posting in that thread. This is to be taken as an object example and viewed in that light. Also I know that not all religions have sacred texts but I do not personally advocate those religions. So here goes. In the critique deludedgod claims that we cannot draw definitions from literary works. He cites an example about how alive in literature has a different meaning than the definition. The problem is that this is a generic noun like cow or pirate. These do not denote a specific thing rather a varied group and since literature tends to be specific a definition of for example a cow as a black animal with horns might not suffice. However God is a proper noun although it may be used be many different groups it implies a specific being similar to saying Billy or Jack. In these situations literature works differently. It only looks at one instance of object but when there is only one object it becomes a useful tool of knowledge. For example think of trying to discuss Aeneas without referencing the Aeneid.  Similar to define for example the Christian god we must look to the bible. So on that level when we say god in the Christian sense we refer to a all knowing all powerful all present being. Now of course there are other gods in other religions but this distinction is not relevant until we look at the specific characteristics of god and for the sake of this argument that is not a problem all I have to do is show that the proper noun God can be defined and I have done that so I believe this effectively deconstructs the critique.

Careful. You did not deconstruct the criticism. You described God vaguely as a “being”. This is pointing out the circular definition. This is called a rhetoric tautology. If you say God is supernatural, and supernatural is meaningless, then there is a hole in your definition, whetehr or not you like it, because it relies on an incoherent word. What do we mean when we speak of definition? We associate words referring to existing things as representations of existing things, and words are defined by being described by other words which may refer to different things. If one of the words used to represent an attribute has no meaning, especially such a critical attribute, there is a gaping hole in your "definition".

Furthermore, there is a relatively obvious problem associated with this dichotomy of attributes between God doing (all-powerful and such) and God being (supernatural, which is meaningless). There is a category error associated with it, which invalidates the definition. This may interest you (it is not necessary that you respond, but if you wish, I would be happy)

All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Ultimately, if we speak of God as supernatural, and supernatural is meaningless, you cannot escape your epistemic duty to rectify the problem of supernatural being meaningless. Make up a word which represents an entity. Now make up a word to describe the entity. There is a difference.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
[editing post]

[editing post]


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god." It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all. You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism. Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely.

So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

I'm an agnostic atheist.  Hello!

Give me 5 proofs that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BizarroAzrael
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-08-01
User is offlineOffline
What happens when we get to


What happens when we get to five proofs anyway?  Usually it's enough to prove something just the once.

 

"Here is the security video that shows my client was in another country at the time of the crime." 

"I see.  And...?" 

"What?  He's using an ATM and we have records of the transaction, and his prints are on the pad" 

"That's only three proofs!  Guilty!" 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   GOD ? god what ?

   GOD ? god what ? western, eastern ?

5 reasons ?  me x 5 , times infinity ....

debating god of abraham, is not a debate, it's just crazy.

Life is indeed amazing, should we write a religion ?

I prefer science, it is the best religion, and all  amazing  ....  yeah, understanding god, me, you .... 


Maverick Watts
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Why do people keep saying

Why do people keep saying that denying the existence of a deity is a belief?  It is not.  It's rejecting what is illogical.  If something doesn't coincide with logic, then why is belief required to reject it?  It isn't.  Strong atheism does not require faith or belief.  Only the knowledge of the logical obstacles of the existence of a deity.  Give me one reason why it's illogical to deny a being that can't survive infinite regression?  Just one.  Strong atheism is justified and is logical.  It does not require faith or belief.  That's like saying you heard someone could go into space with no suit on.  If you have the knowledge of what happens to humans in space when they are unprotected, why is belief or faith required to dispute this claim?  It isn't, plain and simple.  Bottom line:  weak atheism and strong atheism are both rational..they just separate the ones who question religion from the ones who denounce claims made by it.  Both are supported by logic and reason..


Wes
Theist
Wes's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-11-09
User is offlineOffline
I agree and disagree with

I agree and disagree with alot. Here are a few:

A Free Thinking Theist wrote:
The naturalist view of the universe is in fact very complex.

Agreed. Both views are in fact very complex. To say that one is much more simple than the other is akin to trying to compare the complexities of art and physics. Or the more common: apples and oranges.

A Free Thinking Theist wrote:
And natural disasters you ask? They give the good side of humanity a chance to express itself. In fact, famines and floods and so on would not be nearly as bad if we helped each other out.

I'm not so sure I can be with you on this one. When Katrina happened, the (roughly) 2500 dead and missing people then become casualities of God's attempt at giving us a chance to express ourselves. To maintain God's involvement in natural disasters holds God to be half good half evil. Sure it was good for us to have our opportunity, but don't you think God could arrange some other way for us to do that rather than kill so many innocents?

A Free Thinking Theist wrote:
5. Yes, flawed human beings made up lies, myths, false holy books, etc.

I'm with you here. Edison got the lightbulb wrong several hundred times (anyone know the exact number?) but got it right once. Multiple occurrences of incorrectness do not logically assume universal incorrectness.

 

Wes

We could really use another Crusade...