Proof of Strong Atheism

[Vox Humana]

Secondly, I believe that as skeptics we are always obliged to accept the possibility of a proponents assertion, to the extent that we give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion. Do you not agree?

I don't and I do. I do not agree that we are obliged to accept the possibility of any and all assertions. Some assertions are nonsense (e.g. "Hypothermia is taller than the 4th of July") and therefore have no claim to possibility. Some assertions are meritless, such as the assertion of a flat earth, and so are non-starters. I do agree that a proponent must be allowed to demonstrate the veracity of an assertion as long as it's not mere gibberish or patently false on its face -- in other words, as long it's not a waste of time from the get-go.

If a person approached you claiming that he had definitive evidence of the existence of God, would you allow him to present his evidence?

 

[Vox Humana]

This doesn't make sense to me. In what other context would we be asked to accept the possibility of the actual reality of God? Where else does the discussion of metaphysics and theology fit, if not under the rubric of philosophy?

Huh?

If God is no more than philosophy, then God is no more than an idea. We know that the concept of God exists. That's not at issue. The question is whether God is real.

Piggy, that makes no sense at all. The question of whether God is real rests squarely within the realm of metaphysics, almost by definition.

If your position is that outside of philosophical discourse we should not entertain the possibility of the existence of God, then I agree. I am unable to imagine a scenario where this occurs, however. If I'm on the right track here, some examples would be helpful.

 

[thaiboxerken]

However, in a philosophical context (and I believe this entire discussion is in a philosphical context,) I think it's untenable to make positive statements about anything that cannot be conclusively demonstrated.

In otherwords, you think it's untenable to say that anything doesn't exist, including anything you might imagine and make up, from Godzilla to gods to entire universes in people's colons where the entire star wars trilogy is replayed everyday on 42" plasma tv's that have been shrunking to microscopic size by radioactive hamsters.

Your position is simply absurd.

 

[Piggy]

Stopped back in for a quick peek before bed....

If a person approached you claiming that he had definitive evidence of the existence of God, would you allow him to present his evidence?

I dunno. Am I late for work? If so, no, I got better things to do.

Are they holding copies of the Watchtower? If so, no, I've seen them before. They're bunk.

But I was serious when I said that all it would take is one definition of God which could be demonstrated to be said meaningfully to have the potential to exist -- not in some imaginary universe, but with respect to our world -- and my claim is toast.

We have one such definition proposed, but it seems to have been abandoned when the question "Where?" was asked.

I'm open to other contenders, or still to the current one, for that matter... but it's apparent I'm going to have to post my position more clearly here before that can happen on this thread.

As it is, I'd be expecting people to respond to a bunch of disjointed and partial assertions. I should have started off with a better summary, and not the reposts. My mistake.

But yes, the whole point of this thread was to split off my sub-topic -- the contention that we know enough now to positively reject the reality of God -- so that it could be tested, and potentially debunked.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, that makes no sense at all. The question of whether God is real rests squarely within the realm of metaphysics, almost by definition.

If your position is that outside of philosophical discourse we should not entertain the possibility of the existence of God, then I agree. I am unable to imagine a scenario where this occurs, however. If I'm on the right track here, some examples would be helpful.

To be blunt, I don't even understand what you're saying.

Things exist or they don't. Everything I know of which exists, exists "outside of philosophical discourse". My car, my animals, the Grand Canyon -- these exist outside of philosophical discourse. The only thing which exists inside philosophical discourse, is discourse -- which is a bunch of ideas and talk.

If you want to assert that God is a bunch of ideas and talk, hey, I'm right with you.

But really, I have no idea what you mean by all this about metaphysics and philosophy. None of that matters to me. I'm talking about what's real and what ain't. And as far as I'm concerned, metaphysics and philosophy is just a bunch of academic abstraction.

 

[Vox Humana]

In otherwords, you think it's untenable to say that anything doesn't exist, including anything you might imagine and make up, from Godzilla to gods to entire universes in people's colons where the entire star wars trilogy is replayed everyday on 42" plasma tv's that have been shrunking to microscopic size by radioactive hamsters.

Your position is simply absurd.

I said this in an earlier post:
I believe that I as a skeptic am always obliged to accept the possibility of a proponents assertion, to the extent that I give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion. Do you not agree?

This is the foundation of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge, is it not?

 

[Piggy]

There's a difference between having an open mind and having an empty head.

 

[Vox Humana]

If a person approached you claiming that he had definitive evidence of the existence of God, would you allow him to present his evidence?

I dunno. Am I late for work? If so, no, I got better things to do.

Are they holding copies of the Watchtower? If so, no, I've seen them before. They're bunk.

If a person approached you claiming that he had definitive evidence of the existence of God, and assuming that you had no prior commitments and that the claimant was clearly not an adherent to a religion that you had already evaluated and found false, like JW, would you allow him to present his evidence?

 

[andyandy]

Before I summarize the strong atheist argument, it will be helpful to examine some of the more common false arguments used against it.

These are not your textbook fallacies. I suspect this is so because most of them are so transparent that no one dares trot them out except when atheism rears its ugly head, and even rational people are inclined to lose theirs.

1. The demand for logical impossibility:

This has been discussed above, so it doesn't need restating. Essentially, it is an attempt to avoid the question of whether a thing actually exists, by replacing it with the abstract question of whether its existence is impossible even under hypothetical circumstances rather than in the only circumstances we actually know.

2. The vanishing field trick:

This strategy involves positing a God which exists "subtly" or "on a transcendent level" or in other forms of no-place and no-time. It defines existence in a way that cannot be distinguished from non-existence, and reality in a way that is not discernable from non-reality.

3. The appeal to biological doubt:

Haven't seen this one so far on this thread, or the parent thread, but it's not uncommon when things get desperate for the last-gaspers. This is a variety of know-nothing argument which states that, because we don't have "direct access" to reality, but only to our mental schema, then we could be wrong about anything, and so can make no positive statements about what's not real. The refutation of this argument is a bit complex, so I'll link to it.

4. The demand for scientific disproof:

Perhaps the most prevalent of the fallacies regarding strong atheism, this argument contends that God must be accepted as potentially real because science cannot falsify claims about God's existence -- and this, because God is by nature undisprovable, or not subject to scientific scrutiny; or, alternately, because science inherently cannot achieve a margin of 100% certainty. And yet, there is no justification for limiting our methods of inquiry to those which are narrowly scientific. Although some definitions of God can be dismissed on the basis that they contradict verified observations, others reuqire no such measures because they can be dismissed solely on the basis of their internal contradictions or incoherence, or because their descriptions are mere gibberish, or for other reasons which do not involve science.

5. The "pick any card" ploy:

While admitting that the concept of God in its broadest sense allows multiple and often mutually exclusive definitions, it is commonly claimed by last-gaspers that we are obliged to concede the possible reality of God because one of these definitions might describe an entity which could fit the bill of a thing that we would be obliged to concede is potentially real. Yet this claim solves nothing, is utterly unsupported, and retains the fatal plasticity of the original incoherent concept. For the claim to have merit, at least one definition must be selected and proposed for consideration.

6. The bottomless pit adventure:

A souped-up variation of the "pick any card" ploy, this strategy seeks to remove the burden from the claimant, and insist that every theory in the candy-dish must be examined exhaustively before the concept can be positively rejected. Another version demands that everything must be known about the universe (and sometimes beyond!) before the God theory can be rejected. Yet this is unreasonable on its face, and not only because it amounts to a non-claim. In the first case, it requires a literally infinite search (there is no end to the number of candies which can be conjured up to add to the dish), which is unreasonable in light of the fact that one successful example brought by the claimant is sufficient to anchor his claim. In the second case, it makes the unjustified -- indeed nonsensical -- assumption that omnisicent knowledge is required to answer the question at hand, when in fact, all we need to know is what this entity is defined to be, and all we then need to determine is whether or not our knowledge of the universe prevents or allows the potential reality of such an entity.

6. The next best theory defense:

This no-nothing ruse insists that all knowledge is provisional, and that everything we know may eventually be replaced by a different view of reality. However, this is patently untrue, especially when it comes to rejecting theories about the world rather than asserting them. There are many hypotheses which are dead beyond any recall -- geocentrism, spontaneous generation of multi-celled organisms from dead organic matter, the flat earth, phlogiston, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers, and oceans of water lying just above our atmosphere, for example. A generic appeal to a hypothetical next-best-theory which is imagined to replace our current understanding of the world is simply insufficient to derail the process that must be accomplished in order to defend the last-gasp position -- that is, some viable definition of this God thing must be brought out and shown to be potentially real.

7. The "some day my prince will come" argument:

My personal favorite, because it is the most bizarre, this defense argues that even if there are no viable definitions of God right now, it's possible that someone may one day invent one. This is like arguing that we are obligated to believe that a thrak may possibly exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence of thraks, despite the fact that thrak-theorists can't even agree on any qualities of thraks, because who knows, one day someone might get it right.


Well, I'm afraid it's been a long week and I've worn myself out, and it's late in my neck of the woods, and there are tasks demanding my attention before I turn in, so I don't have time to type up the synopsis. Look for it tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.

Piggy, a great post - but i'm not sure that you can label such points as "fallacies" - rather they are just arguments which hard-atheism comes up against and struggles to (fails to) overcome. Certainly (1) (2) and (5/6) sum up quite nicely unknown, unknowable and incoherent. But to take (2) as an example, hard atheism seems to reject that god can be unknowable simply because such an entity can not be known. This strikes me as a rather weak argument.....

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re "pixies", if someone is saying as a fact that what they are calling pixies don't exist anywhere/time in the universe, it is up to them to demonstrate how they are able to know everything/time/where in the universe, how their knowledge is so grand, else modify their statement to reflect what it actually is; their strong belief based on what they and others know about a limited observable and measurable aspect of the universe.

Why don't they have the honesty and courage to do this?

 

[Piggy]

hard atheism seems to reject that god can be unknowable simply because such an entity can not be known. This strikes me as a rather weak argument.

The weak argument is to merely tack the quality of undetectability, undisprovability, or unknowability onto an unanchored concept (because, after all, you can add anything you want to a totally unanchored concept) and use that as an excuse for why there is no evidence of it at all.

Imagined entities which are by definition "unknowable", which by their nature "cannot be known", are empty concepts. They are mere memes.

Suppose I insist that you are obliged to believe that a thrak might be real. When you ask what a thrak is, I say, "I can't tell you -- it's unknowable".

Are you obliged to hold any belief whatsoever about thraks? No. Why not? Because there's no "there" there. It's just mental fluff. It can have no meaningful claim to any sort of existence or reality.

Time to eat, then I'll see how soon I can get the summary up.

 

[elliotfc]

Imagined entities which are by definition "unknowable", which by their nature "cannot be known", are empty concepts. They are mere memes.

First, by calling them "imagined" entities, you might as well stop there. There's no need to go any further.

Second, not all theists think that God is unknowable, or that God's nature cannot be known. I'd say a small minority. And hardly any Christian. Rather, we would know God in a way different from how we would know something else, like how much a particular rock weighed.

Third, I think the course of history demonstrates that these aren't *mere* memes. Rather, they're extremely significant and hardy memes.

Suppose I insist that you are obliged to believe that a thrak might be real. When you ask what a thrak is, I say, "I can't tell you -- it's unknowable".

I know I'm barging in, hopefully my intrusion is not unwelcome.

I would not be satisfied with your particular assertion.

Are you obliged to hold any belief whatsoever about thraks? No. Why not? Because there's no "there" there. It's just mental fluff. It can have no meaningful claim to any sort of existence or reality.

First, regarding thraks, you offer no meaningful claim, so again, you could stop right there, there's no reason to go further.

For Christian theists, they make a hell of a lot of meaningful claims. The claims can be rejected, but they are certainly meaningful.

To clear up a point of confusion...most theists think they can understand God partially, and certainly not fully. But that goes for everything under the sun, right?

-Elliot

 

[chriswl]

I said this in an earlier post:
I believe that I as a skeptic am always obliged to accept the possibility of a proponents assertion, to the extent that I give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion. Do you not agree?

Yet again you're getting mixed up between scientific, empirical facts and philosophical ideas.

Yes, I would give an inventor of a perpetual motion machine an opportunity to demonstrate it and explain the principle behind it. There may be things about the physical world that we haven't discovered that make his machine actually possible and we never want to close off the possibility of learning new things in this way.

However, if someone insists on the existence of something that is logical nonsense how exactly can I "give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion"?

Such an "opportunity" would be a sham. I would just be going through the motions of listening politely to his words. If he makes no logical sense then I have no way of seriously considering his views even if I wanted to.

 

[Vox Humana]

Yet again you're getting mixed up between scientific, empirical facts and philosophical ideas.

Sorry Chris, but the question of the existence of God is exactly a metaphysical - and therefore philosophical - issue. Same goes for pixies. It only becomes empirical when someone presents a falsifiable claim with respect to the subject.

However, if someone insists on the existence of something that is logical nonsense how exactly can I "give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion"?

Such an "opportunity" would be a sham. I would just be going through the motions of listening politely to his words. If he makes no logical sense then I have no way of seriously considering his views even if I wanted to.

I disagree that what I've said, and what we are discussing here, relates to logical nonsense. It is possible to present a logically coherent description of a pixie; therefore it is possible to test a claim to the actual existence of the described pixie. If a person claims to have a pixie in a shoebox, it will be up to him to provide evidence of the existence of said being.

Wouldn't Randi give a guy claiming a pixie in a shoebox a shot at the $1M?

I do agree that logical nonsense, e.g. "Hypothermia is taller than the 4th of July," may be discounted outright, and that the argument for a flat earth may be likewise discounted due to existing evidence that refutes the claim.

 

[Beth]

Before I summarize the strong atheist argument, it will be helpful to examine some of the more common false arguments used against it.

2. The vanishing field trick:

This strategy involves positing a God which exists "subtly" or "on a transcendent level" or in other forms of no-place and no-time. It defines existence in a way that cannot be distinguished from non-existence, and reality in a way that is not discernable from non-reality.

I'm not sure why you consider this a fallacy. The idea that God exists on a transcendent level is a common one in many religions and cannot be falsified or verified - at least not by current scientific methods. You pick an easy target and basically set up a straw God argument by concentrating on physical reality and dismissing the idea of a spiritual or trancendent reality when you dismiss this argument as fallacy.

As far as defining existence a way that cannot be distinguished from non-existance...well, defining any intangible entity has similar problems. You can't see or feel or touch justice. There is not an atom or molecule of it anywhere in the universe. Does that mean justice does not exist? I don't think so. It's an ideal, one that many people serve. One that I believe in. Just because it has no physical reality doesn't mean it isn't real, it only means that we cannot ascertain it's existance through the same methods we would use to ascertain that a tree or a rock exists.

Why is it that so many 'hard' atheists are materialists/literalists? They don't believe in God the same way they don't believe in Santa Claus. Me, I believe in Santa Claus. That is, I don't believe that Santa exists in a physical way, but I believe in the spirit of Christmas which is what Santa represents. He is not meant to be thought of a real person. Telling people it's as ridiculous to believe in God as it is to believe in Santa is to miss entirely what it is that many people mean when they say they believe in God.

SInce many believers in all religions believe that God is a spiritual entity that exists in a transcendant plane not a physical entity with supernatural abilities, your proof that God does not exist in any form must deal with this concept of God, not brush it aside as you have done here by claiming it is a fallacy.

 

[chriswl]

Sorry Chris, but the question of the existence of God is exactly a metaphysical - and therefore philosophical - issue.

I agree. I meant that you are treating it as an empirical issue when you say that you are "always obliged to accept the possibility of a proponents assertion, to the extent that I give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion". This is true for scientific, empirical claims. Not necessarily true for philosophical claims. We can sometimes rule those out a priori.

I disagree that what I've said, and what we are discussing here, relates to logical nonsense. It is possible to present a logically coherent description of a pixie; therefore it is possible to test a claim to the actual existence of the described pixie. If a person claims to have a pixie in a shoebox, it will be up to him to provide evidence of the existence of said being.

OK, but can we come up with a logically coherent description of "God" that doesn't do violence to what people who believe in God mean by the word? If we can't then we are justified in saying, quite bluntly, that God doesn't exist.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Remember that universal claims of "don't exist" (ie. anywhere/time in the universe) are drastically different than general negative claims (ie. "there is not an elephant in my shoe", and yes, a standard, slow moving, grey, un-magical elephant like you see at zoos) which are easily defensible.

The former claim is what some people make when they attempt to state that god(s) not existing is a fact. So again, how are they able to know about the entire universe- both space and time, with such certainty?

If in fact they could state things with such certaintly as they are implying, then they would be god(s), therefore disproving their own claim.

 

[chriswl]

Why is it that so many 'hard' atheists are materialists/literalists? They don't believe in God the same way they don't believe in Santa Claus. Me, I believe in Santa Claus. That is, I don't believe that Santa exists in a physical way, but I believe in the spirit of Christmas which is what Santa represents. He is not meant to be thought of a real person. Telling people it's as ridiculous to believe in God as it is to believe in Santa is to miss entirely what it is that many people mean when they say they believe in God.

You are the first person I have come across who is consistent enough to say that they "believe in Santa Claus" when they mean they believe in the spirit of Christmas.

If Christians who believe in God in this way would admit to believing in Santa and other fictional entities in the same way then I would accept their protestations that this is what they really mean when they talk about by believing in something. But they never do. This kind of "belief" only seems to apply to God.

In any case, we can easily say that justice exists as an idea in people's heads. Any hard atheist would be quite happy to say that God exists as an idea in people's heads. So I don't see the problem.

 

[Vox Humana]

Sorry Chris, but the question of the existence of God is exactly a metaphysical - and therefore philosophical - issue. Same goes for pixies. It only becomes empirical when someone presents a falsifiable claim with respect to the subject.

I agree. I meant that you are treating it as an empirical issue when you say that you are "always obliged to accept the possibility of a proponents assertion, to the extent that I give him the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his assertion". This is true for scientific, empirical claims. Not necessarily true for philosophical claims. We can sometimes rule those out a priori.

I apologize, I'm not following you. If someone comes to me with a philosophical proposition, on what grounds may I dismiss the assertion a priori? I can only think of two cases; 1) obvious logical incoherence and 2) the existence of evidence refuting the claim. Which of these cases apply to the God-theory, or have I missed a third case?

 

[chriswl]

Remember that universal claims of "don't exist" (ie. anywhere/time in the universe) are drastically different than general negative claims (ie. "there is not an elephant in my shoe", and yes, a standard, slow moving, grey, un-magical elephant like you see at zoos) which are easily defensible.

Only if the existence of the thing is an empirical question. Is God's existence an empirical question? God doesn't exist "anywhere/time in the universe". That would reduce him to an unmiraculous physical agent. Like an elephant, or a human or a superintelligent alien. It takes more than that to be God.