Proof of Strong Atheism

andyandy said:
Existence is certainly something which deserves discussion when asking "does god exist?" To talk about it is not to "fight dirty."
Click to expand...
You are not merely "talking about" it. You are engaging in sophistry by saying that God exists in the mind of believers. By that reasoning everything imaginable exists and all beliefs are true. You are trying to muddy the waters by deliberately confusing the question of the existence of God with the question of the existence of belief in God.

I ask you again, why are you doing this? What do you get out of arguing for a God that you (supposedly) don't believe in.

I can answer the reverse question put to me. I argue against the existence God simply because I am (currently) convinced that he doesn't exist. But I'm open to arguments. If I'm wrong I want to know and I want to know why I'm wrong. I want the truth.
 
chriswl said:
You are not merely "talking about" it. You are engaging in sophistry by saying that God exists in the mind of believers. By that reasoning everything imaginable exists and all beliefs are true. You are trying to muddy the waters by deliberately confusing the question of the existence of God with the question of the existence of belief in God.
Click to expand...

I said that if god exists in the minds of believers, then that would be an existence bourne of the subjective. It depends on what we mean by existence......so what is existence?
When you talk of "muddying the waters" what you seem to mean is that there should be no place in metaphysics for philosophy. What would your argument be for this?

I ask you again, why are you doing this? What do you get out of arguing for a God that you (supposedly) don't believe in.

I can answer the reverse question put to me. I argue against the existence God simply because I am (currently) convinced that he doesn't exist. But I'm open to arguments. If I'm wrong I want to know and I want to know why I'm wrong. I want the truth.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
I'm not arguing "for" god. I'm arguing that in general terms the word is meaningless. When you argue against god, what god is it that you don't think exists?

To ask "what i get out of it" is rather strange. Looking at the question, "does god exist?" my argument is how i would approach the question. I don't "get any more out of it" than if i appoached a question as to "does free will exist?" or "why do babies cry so much?" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
I said that if god exists in the minds of believers, then that would be an existence bourne of the subjective. It depends on what we mean by existence......so what is existence?
Click to expand...
"Existence bourne of the subjective" is babble. It means nothing more than "an idea", and the idea of a thing is not the thing. Would you care to buy my "bourne of the subjective" car? How much will you give me for it? I have a bourne of the subjective title and everything. I'll even throw in a set of bourne of the subjective radials -- brand new... I just thought of them this very moment.

Existence means phenomenal reality. It means being actual, in a way which is at least potentially distinguishable from non-reality.

andyandy said:
When you talk of "muddying the waters" what you seem to mean is that there should be no place in metaphysics for philosophy. What would your argument be for this?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, although this thread is in the religion forum because it presents a proof of atheism, it is not a thread regarding philosophy or metaphysics.

If you want to talk philosophy and metaphysics, please take it elsewhere, start a new thread.

I have no use for either of these, and they are irrelevant to the OP.


andyandy said:
I'm not arguing "for" god. I'm arguing that in general terms the word is meaningless. When you argue against god, what god is it that you don't think exists?
Click to expand...
We don't have to argue "against god". If god is a nonsense notion, then there's no god to argue against. Exposing the fatal inconsistencies of the notion itself is sufficient.

To demand a clear definition of a term which is asserted to have no clear definition -- I can think of no polite word for it.

And to go on to assert that this fatal lack of coherence somehow obliges us to either believe in it or shrug our shoulders, that's patently ridiculous.
 
Piggy said:
"Existence bourne of the subjective" is babble. It means nothing more than "an idea", and the idea of a thing is not the thing. Would you care to buy my "bourne of the subjective" car? How much will you give me for it? I have a bourne of the subjective title and everything. I'll even throw in a set of bourne of the subjective radials -- brand new... I just thought of them this very moment.

Existence means phenomenal reality. It means being actual, in a way which is at least potentially distinguishable from non-reality.
Click to expand...

If existence is phenomenal then something must have the potential to be sensed to be said to exist? In this case existence is mediated through the human consciousness. But what we sense is not what is actually there - it's merely an interpretation. In the example of sight, photoreceptors collect light. they send signals to neurons -and these generate electrical impulse which are processed by the brain. But the time it takes for light to travel from an object which we view to our photoreceptors means that we don't see what is there - but what was there at some moment in the past. So a phenomenal reality must necessitate existence as a construct of the human mind.

Or on a broader sense, we could ask why we should adopt such a anthropocentric view of existence? If the universe exists independently of human consciousness, why should it only be conceived through such a narrow viewpoint? How do we resolve a phenomenal reality with that which is altered by the measurement of being sensed?


Just to clarify, although this thread is in the religion forum because it presents a proof of atheism, it is not a thread regarding philosophy or metaphysics.

If you want to talk philosophy and metaphysics, please take it elsewhere, start a new thread.

I have no use for either of these, and they are irrelevant to the OP.
Click to expand...

How can you hope to talk about god without recourse to metaphysics? How can philosophy be irrelevant to a proof of strong atheism? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
andyandy said:
If existence is phenomenal then something must have the potential to be sensed to be said to exist? In this case existence is mediated through the human consciousness.
Click to expand...
Whoa, tiger. Statement 1 does not imply statement 2 (if statement 2 has any meaning at all).
 
andyandy said:
But what we sense is not what is actually there - it's merely an interpretation.
Click to expand...

Of course the things we sense are actually there. Do not confuse the workings of your mind with the objects outside your mind.
 
andyandy said:
In the example of sight, photoreceptors collect light. they send signals to neurons -and these generate electrical impulse which are processed by the brain. But the time it takes for light to travel from an object which we view to our photoreceptors means that we don't see what is there - but what was there at some moment in the past.
Click to expand...

So what? Are you suggesting that, in the time it takes for our brains to process the input, the object somehow ceases to have ever been?
 
Piggy said:
Of course the things we sense are actually there. Do not confuse the workings of your mind with the objects outside your mind.
Click to expand...

the stars i see in the sky may well not actually be there.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

subatomic particles have a non-zero chance of being found anywhere in the universe until their wavefunction collapses upon measurement.....indeed, according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, when one measures the position of a subatomic particle, we are not measuring an objective pre-existing feature of reality - instead the act of measurement is itself involved in creating the very reality it is measuring....... so to define existence in terms of phenomenal senses seems somewhat deficient.....
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
subatomic particles have a non-zero chance of being found anywhere in the universe until their wavefunction collapses upon measurement. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, when one measures the position of a subatomic particle, we are not measuring an objective pre-existing feature of reality. Instead the act of measurement is deeply emeshed in creating the very reality it is measuring.......
Click to expand...

You are using English to try and describe a mathematical theory - also don't forget we do know that the theory is at best incomplete. (The reason we know that is that the theory does not describe the world around us.)

andyandy said:
so to define existence in terms of phenomenal senses seems deficient.....
Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to use the "evidence" of mathematical theories that do not describe the world to conclude that it is deficient to use the evidence we do have of the world?
 
Darat said:
You are using English to try and describe a mathematical theory - also don't forget we do know that the theory is at best incomplete. (The reason we know that is that the theory does not describe the world around us.)
Click to expand...

Sure, but i'm not sure that the interpretations of mathematical theory should by default be considered inexpressible in English - the above paragraph was largely paraphrased from Brian Greene who i trust has a better grasp of the maths behind QM than myself. I'd also agree that this interpretation is a theory - however, it appears to be the most prevalent within the scientific community.

You seem to be trying to use the "evidence" of mathematical theories that do not describe the world to conclude that it is deficient to use the evidence we do have of the world?
Click to expand...

It does seem to describe the world around us pretty well within its remit of the subatomic - which bits do you mean? (i'll check my Fabric of the Cosmos for you :) )
 
andyandy said:
Sure, but i'm not sure that the interpretations of mathematical theory should by default be considered inexpressible in English - the above paragraph was largely paraphrased from Brian Greene who i trust has a better grasp of the maths behind QM than myself. I'd also agree that this interpretation is a theory - however, it appears to be the most prevalent within the scientific community.



It does seem to describe the world around us pretty well within its remit of the subatomic - which bits do you mean? (i'll check my Fabric of the Cosmos for you :) )
Click to expand...

AndyAndy,

My observation after having read many a philosphical thread here, is that 20th century Science is not welcome in most discussions. You will have to stay within Classical limits. ;)
 
andyandy said:
Sure, but i'm not sure that the interpretations of mathematical theory should by default be considered inexpressible in English - the above paragraph was largely paraphrased from Brian Greene who i trust has a better grasp of the maths behind QM than myself. I'd also agree that this interpretation is a theory - however, it appears to be the most prevalent within the scientific community.
Click to expand...

What is prevalent is that theoretical physicists know that their theories are at best just incomplete.


andyandy said:
It does seem to describe the world around us pretty well within its remit of the subatomic - which bits do you mean? (i'll check my Fabric of the Cosmos for you :) )
Click to expand...

You say it yourself "within its remit of the subatomic" - it doesn't describe an apple falling from a tree.
 
Hyparxis said:
AndyAndy,

My observation after having read many a philosphical thread here, is that 20th century Science is not welcome in most discussions. You will have to stay within Classical limits. ;)
Click to expand...

Personally I would say that wanting to draw a line at the end of the 20th century is not going to welcomed by many people here...

If people want to use that good old explain-away-every-mystery-with-a-bit-of-quantum then I like to say "show the maths". So if you want to claim that that gods or consciousness are hidden in "the quantum" fair enough - just show us your maths.
 
Darat said:
You say it yourself "within its remit of the subatomic" - it doesn't describe an apple falling from a tree.
Click to expand...

are we supposed to brush the sub-atomic under the rug? :rolleyes:

why would an appreciation of the subatomic not be pertinent to questions of existence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom