Proof of Strong Atheism

I can already feel a trotter moving towards my bottom, but I thought I'd take a stab at this god definition notion:

A "god" which creates space and matter by positioning itself - a single particle (whatever it is) - in space and time.
I call it "god is the atom". It simply appears in a position (in whatever number of dimensions) at a given time, of which it can choose any time future or past. So, the whole ball of wax is being "updated" almost like frames in a computer game.

Tags for this "god" : tiny, atom (as in single point, perhaps one of no dimension), simple, timeless, dot, algorithm.

Not that I bleev it; just poking a stick at your argument.
 
Donn said:
A "god" which creates space and matter by positioning itself - a single particle (whatever it is) - in space and time.

I call it "god is the atom". It simply appears in a position (in whatever number of dimensions) at a given time, of which it can choose any time future or past. So, the whole ball of wax is being "updated" almost like frames in a computer game.

Tags for this "god" : tiny, atom (as in single point, perhaps one of no dimension), simple, timeless, dot, algorithm.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I don't think I understand quite what you're saying....

Are you defining this God as something which continually "refreshes" all of spacetime, moment by moment, and yet is locatable within spacetime, and can appear at any location at will? That sounds like what you're saying, but I'm not sure.
 
Donn said:
Yeah - good enough!
Click to expand...

Ok. Well, seems to me there are 3 problems with this definition.

First, I think it falls under the Berkowitz exception, which disallows totally idiosyncratic definitions of God (e.g., I can't call my dog God and claim that God then exists). This definition does not appear to conform to any common meanings of the term "God" or "god".

Second, this God is defined as performing an action which does not seem to be actually occurring. There is no need to "refresh" the universe like a video screen.

And third, if it were nevertheless asserted to be doing this, the action would involve instant transfer of information, which is contrary to fact.

So I'm afraid it loses on 3 counts. And you know what they say about 3 strikes.... :(
 
I figured it had the advantage of being in the universe.
Also - since it weaves reality (including all forces, energy and matter) in all dimensions by jumping around in time and space - so very well that reality actually exists, it makes this god so tightly coupled with reality that we can't really tell it apart. I kinda thought that would make it hard to deny. On the other hand it makes it no different to reality itself, which means they are one and the same.

Oh, I give up. I support your train of thought anyway. Please write a book! Hell, make a movie.
:D
 
Donn said:
I figured it had the advantage of being in the universe.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is one of the key problems which I'd promised to vox_humana to delve into more. I've given some more thumbnail analyses of it, but haven't gone into much detail yet, actually.

This is the central contradiction, it seems to me, facing anyone who poses a sub-theory of GOD theory (a God or god) as the salvation of the GOD concept. And my earlier categorization of potential sub-theories takes this point into account

If God does not act within our sphere of existence, then God loses all meaningful claim to reality. God becomes a hypothetical thing in a hypothetical place at a hypothetical time. So claims for its existence are non-different from claims of its non-existence. In which case, no one is obliged to recognize it as potentially real.

If God does act within our sphere of existence, then it either does so completely within the bounds of natural science, or it violates these boundaries.

If it does not violate natural law, then it is redundant... it is indistinguishable from natural law. Therefore, it is not actually a God, not anything at all except a natural force.

If it does, then it is contrary to fact, and evidence will be required.

It is on this basis that I am able to assert -- absent some actual supported claim to the contrary, not merely some hypothetical claim of potentiality -- that the only options for sub-theories of GOD theory must be either dead, contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or redundant.

Donn said:
Also - since it weaves reality (including all forces, energy and matter) in all dimensions by jumping around in time and space - so very well that reality actually exists, it makes this god so tightly coupled with reality that we can't really tell it apart.
Click to expand...
This is redundancy. And I trust that the scientists on this board will tell you that it also violates validated models of nature, and that evidence will be needed to support such a bizarre claim.

Donn said:
I kinda thought that would make it hard to deny. On the other hand it makes it no different to reality itself, which means they are one and the same.
Click to expand...
There ya go!


Donn said:
Oh, I give up. I support your train of thought anyway. Please write a book! Hell, make a movie.
Click to expand...
The movie would be hopelessly dull. I think I could make a book interesting. But now that I'm out of the ivory tower, I no longer have summers and sabbaticals to look forward to. :(
 
Good job, Piggy!
You have done outstanding work in the cut-the-crap field.
Mountains of writings exist on this subject which merely muddy the water simply because the definitions of god are not clear. Once we can define terms clearly, then we can examine, and draw conclusions. If a term/subject is not definable, then it is nonsensical.
And maybe you should look to gathering your thoughts on paper-I should like to have a copy,if you do.
 
Piggy said:
It is on this basis that I am able to assert -- absent some actual supported claim to the contrary, not merely some hypothetical claim of potentiality -- that the only options for sub-theories of GOD theory must be either dead, contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or redundant.
Click to expand...
(wow)

All right, all right - I shall sadly lay down my arbitrary godlett. I don't fear retribution for the little bugger hath been well skewered!

No time ... snip ... excuses
Click to expand...
Hell, you sound like me!

Not to harp-on about it, but you should consider your time spent on this forum well-spent but perhaps you are wasting a really good analysis on a noisy medium ... Not to disparage the JREFF, but threads come and go so quickly that it's really hard to use them as reference - even with the search function.

Your stuff is damn good Mr Pig - it's my first exposure to such clarity and such bullheaded logical progress. Perhaps there are already books out there that do the same; I do not know.

That said, I say unto thee : www.lulu.com

At least think about it, eh?

PS: How about "The end of God" I feel a trend coming on :D
 
Donn said:
Not to harp-on about it, but you should consider your time spent on this forum well-spent but perhaps you are wasting a really good analysis on a noisy medium ... Not to disparage the JREFF, but threads come and go so quickly that it's really hard to use them as reference - even with the search function.

Your stuff is damn good Mr Pig - it's my first exposure to such clarity and such bullheaded logical progress. Perhaps there are already books out there that do the same; I do not know.
Click to expand...
There are other books out there, such as "Atheism: The Case Against God", "Atheist Universe", "Like Rolling Uphill", "The God Delusion", "Natural Atheism", and "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon".

I don't know of any book that focuses as specifically as I do here on dispelling the myths of the "last gasp" argument, on providing a rational proof which goes beyond the narrowly scientific approach.

So perhaps there's room for one more little paperback that sells a couple hundred units a year. But you see, I spend my workdays writing, reading, editing, proofing, and talking about writing. Then after work I usually continue some online threads, and/or do my own reading, and my own side projects (I'm a lyricist and a poet, and it's nice because someone else bothers with publishing and marketing the songs, and I don't care if the poems are ever published at all, so it doesn't feel like work). And a friend of mine who's a science teacher wants to collaborate on some Jack Chick style tracts explaining the basics of science and critical thinking.

I may turn to a serious project eventually, but at this point in my life, I'd rather spend my large chunks of free time working on the house or removing the thicket out back and planting new trees.

But don't be so quick to dismiss our little forum here. I think it's likely that many folks who post here are influential in their own ways in their own circles -- much moreso than a hermit like myself. If I have made any clear arguments here, I'm confident they'll find their way out into the wider world, at least a few feet.

It's happened before. For example, when a co-worker asked me if I knew about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and was there anything to them, I had learned enough here to be able to say something more convincing than "Oh, those guys are nuts". I was able to explain what they're saying and to explain quickly why it's total hogwash.

Granted, the "God is possible" meme is more pervasive, and harder to combat, than Loose Change, but hopefully I've contributed what little I can to its unmasking at the moment.
 
Donn; said:
1980136...snip...

Not to harp-on about it, but you should consider your time spent on this forum well-spent but perhaps you are wasting a really good analysis on a noisy medium ... Not to disparage the JREFF, but threads come and go so quickly that it's really hard to use them as reference - even with the search function.



...snip...
Click to expand...

I would say this thread is a candidate for Forum Spotlight.
 
Darat said:
I would say this thread is a candidate for Forum Spotlight.
Click to expand...
I concur, for the simple reason that the claim that "'strong' atheism is irrational because the existence of god(s) cannot be disproven" is a recurring feature on this forum, no matter how many times it's pointed out that those who express this opinion always end up having to resort to redefining the term "god" until it bears zero relation to the way the term is actually understood in everyday discourse. I thoroughly applaud Piggy's efforts to fix the goalposts of the "God-theory" firmly in place once and for all, and would like to see this thread kept in a prominent place for future reference when, inevitably, the "the existence of god cannot be disproven" argument gets trotted out once again.
 
Euromutt said:
I concur, for the simple reason that the claim that "'strong' atheism is irrational because the existence of god(s) cannot be disproven" is a recurring feature on this forum, no matter how many times it's pointed out that those who express this opinion always end up having to resort to redefining the term "god" until it bears zero relation to the way the term is actually understood in everyday discourse. I thoroughly applaud Piggy's efforts to fix the goalposts of the "God-theory" firmly in place once and for all, and would like to see this thread kept in a prominent place for future reference when, inevitably, the "the existence of god cannot be disproven" argument gets trotted out once again.
Click to expand...
Seconded. Enthusiastically.
 
Piggy said:
Granted, the "God is possible" meme is more pervasive, and harder to combat, than Loose Change, but hopefully I've contributed what little I can to its unmasking at the moment.
Click to expand...
Your weapon is well-honed, flexible and resilient. Gotta love that prose. Your argument is watertight, which means a lot more than saying your conclusion is obvious.

(As a gardener I appreciate that outside activites give one time to think, and you clearly haven't wasted it. I find it can get me into a rather calm, dispassionate state of mind that is very productive. I can relate to Prime Ministers who get into tree-felling or bricklaying as hobbies.)

The "God can't be disproven", aka "atheism is irrational" (where I come from , "irrational" is fighting talk :mad: ) meme is carried by philosophers, conspiracy theories by geeks and weirdos; there's some overlap but in essence these are two very different vectors. The god thing goes way back, the conspiracy thing is just froth. You don't often get philosophers bringing up 9/11 conspiracies - well, you can't prove they weren't brought down by demolition charges - but the god thing is more respectable, so that's what features.

I've never had much time for philosophy, although I've spent some time on it (you can't know you don't like opera until you've been to an opera. More misspent time, as it turned out, but at least that argument was no longer tenable). It seems to me that the opposite camp to us (if I may be so bold) is the camp of the philosophers.
 
Piggy, you've done a good job - great thread :)
How about considering this - let there be a God. But so what - surely God is just another agent in a complex material world.

To ask 'why did God do X?' is no different to asking 'why did I do X'?. If God is not material, he dissapears in a puff of logic.

If you get the idea I'm sure you could phrase it better than me - maybe another chapter for your book :)
 
hodgy said:
Piggy, you've done a good job - great thread :)
How about considering this - let there be a God. But so what - surely God is just another agent in a complex material world.
Click to expand...
Why bother considering it? The observed world does not throw up any reason for including a god in the understanding of it. The material world is complex, but can be reduced to simpler principles which, by acting, produce complexity. Nowhere in there is any observation that requires the introduction of a god to make it explicable. Any god with an influence would leave a signal, and a god without influence is simply imaginary.

To ask 'why did God do X?' is no different to asking 'why did I do X'?. If God is not material, he dissapears in a puff of logic.
Click to expand...
Never accept the premise of the question. God never did nuffin' 'cos there ain't no gods.
 
Sorry to revive this thread...

Piggy,

Thank you for taking the time to summarize your position and writing such a well reasoned article, as I have enjoyed reading it.

I did have one simple observation that you may want to consider.

You summarized your ideas regarding non-existence, but in reading them I was struck by another thought:

It has its roots in superstition, there's no valid evidence for it, there's no universal agreement on any core set of qualities, every time it's come up against a challenge from rational/naturalistic/scientific inquiry it has lost and as a result it's been so re-rigged over the years that in order to avoid violating known fact it has to be defined as an indefinable entity in no-space and no-time.
Click to expand...

These seem to be easily presumable maladies which would exist from any human trying to explain the existence of an infinite supernatural entity from their finite/dimensional perspective. Humans would do the best they could to explain in "human" terms and by typical methods of understanding: science, math, logic. So it should not be incoceivable that humans will NEVER be able to qualitatively express what this entity is because it is simply a quantity unmeasureable by any tool that humanity is able to create. This does not mean that this entity is impossible to experience existentially or otherwise, but that its metes and bounds may never be measured like we measure temperature or mass.

Wouldn't a supernatural being most definitely posess the
characteristics of "no-space" and "no-time" existence? Would it not be an ontological necessity of such a being who presumably created space and time not to be bound by them? In fact, I think that is the exact assertion that most theists make...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom