Ask a Radical Atheist

[Skeptic Ginger]

I really like you Piggy, but in this case I'm afraid that I don't see how.

There is a fundamental split in God definitions between East and West. In the West gods have typically been viewed as separate from creation -- either a part of creation or The Creator.

In the East there are definitions of god that consider god to be the universe.

You can argue that god doesn't matter when it comes to judgment or needing to be appeased, but the Easterner will simply say, "So what? Those are Western concerns."

Within the Western tradition there have also been attempts to "save God" by appeal to higher mathematics. The story goes (as you know), we think so one (or in this case, three) dimensionally. Think of God as a multidimensional being and this universe is merely a small three dimensional portion of this greater multidimensional being. What you may see as 'miracles' are merely interactions in this three dimensional space of the greater multidimensional being -- you know the flatworld story.

In other words, the so-caled 'disproofs of God' by means of natural explanations are nothing of the kind. Natural explanations merely show us the means by which god acts. Sure, all the miracle stuff may be wrong and the whole "I'm going to judge you at the end of time" is just human projection, but there is still something there that someone wants to call God.

Not every one views god as (or in) a separate ontological category.

You are presenting a position that god beliefs differ, how does this change the fact that they remain mythical beliefs? What does the fact god is the Universe do for the believer? If such a belief is that 'karma' will have an effect, that can be tested. If repeated reincarnation until one reaches 'nirvana' is claimed, that can be tested. And if god being the Universe has no effect, no outcome because of it, then it doesn't differ from the irrelevant layer of belief claiming gods exist but don't have any effect on the Universe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

God:
1. a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
1. b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

They do, don't they.

Thus my assertion that it is the religious that create god.

Which is nothing more than a concept, an idea, a myth.

 

[Piscivore]

Not according to many who identify as atheists. The common mantra is "I just don't have a belief about god."

They don't have a belief about what?

But, sure, you could just as easily identify any artifacts left behind by atheism as atheism as reactions to theism. Otherwise, there really is no reason for them -- like Dawkin's book.

Exactly.

I've yet to read the definitive work on why hornfloogles don't reminicerate the skanling frousters because no one much sees a need.

Of course, because it's just plainly obvious that hornfloogles remincerate on dwelpherous frousters, they cormincerate on skanling frousters. One learns this at one's houbuster vertimous, unless one is a froog. And no one bothers explaining things to them.

 

[Piscivore]

Which is nothing more than a concept, an idea, a myth.

Did I say otherwise?

Do those things not exist?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You are presenting a position that god beliefs differ, how does this change the fact that they remain mythical beliefs? What does the fact god is the Universe do for the believer? If such a belief is that 'karma' will have an effect, that can be tested. If repeated reincarnation until one reaches 'nirvana' is claimed, that can be tested. And if god being the Universe has no effect, no outcome because of it, then it doesn't differ from the irrelevant layer of belief claiming gods exist but don't have any effect on the Universe.

It doesn't matter what it does for the believer or if it can be tested. The original claim was that all definitions of god are impossible. Such arguments are designed for no other purpose than to oppose that claim.

Mythical? No, not the definition of 'god is the universe'. That one is purely definitional. And that is the only purpose it serves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll play.

Piggy, there are two tiny doors in the back of my impregnable fortress of Atheism.

In the future, perhaps humans or human/computer hybrids will evolve greater and greater intelligence, and with this, greater and greater powers, to the point where we would become God-like. We could do all the tricks attributed to God, including impressing the **** out of the hominids on Mizar 5. Would we be God, at least to less advanced civilizations?

The universe got started somehow. It's all very well to say that it's meaningless to ask what happened before the Big Bang, because time didn't exist as we know it. But, what got everything started? If this is a complete mystery, doesn't it leave room for a Universe-Maker--about which we can say nothing, but which still fills us with awe?

If the very ground of our being is uncertain, and our future unclear but potentially without limit, doesn't this force us to be agnostic?

Obviously, I don't get from there to going to church on Sunday...I'm just askin', and now I'm gonna eat some bacon...

If you change the definition of god to one of something in the natural universe, then you are simply adapting the word to a different use. There have been a number of sci-fi short stories with a similar scenario where a human elicits worshiping from a tiny race of beings. In that use of the word, it isn't describing a magical being, it is simply using existing vocabulary adapted to a new situation.

The reason it makes no sense to put a god layer in the description of the creation of the Universe is at least threefold. One, there is simply no evidence what so ever. That means you are saying the equivalent of, if I imagine fairies then you must maintain the possibility that fairies could exist because I have thought about them. There is no evidence, why put the god option on the table?

Two, what good does it do to add the god layer to the explanation of how the Big Bang came about when now you have an even more difficult problem. Where did the god come from? And if you want to say the god was always there you could just as easily say the Universe was always there as well. There is no need or benefit for the god layer in the theory of the Universe.

And the third thing, which I actually find the most compelling, we can look at the evidence we do have and see it overwhelmingly supports god beliefs are mythical beliefs.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Did I say otherwise?

Do those things not exist?

Nice equivocation. I guess Peter Pan exists too, then.

 

[Piscivore]

Nice equivocation. I guess Peter Pan exists too, then.

What did I equivocate? I never used any definition or sense of "God" but that one, or any definition or sense of "exist".

Yes, "Peter Pan" exists in a similar way. He will not be flying through any children's windows soon, but he's funding a London hospital. We can pinpoint the when he began to exist, and we can postulate that at some point in the future, when the last book rots away, the last DVD melts, the last story told, the last statue shatters, that he will cease to exist.

Piggy's condition was not that it be shown that "god" exists as real, physical enitity, but that we show that all definitions of "god" were not impossible. This one is not impossible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....the word god to refer to their emotional relationship with the universe....

A world view is not a god just because you label it so. And anything else this 'emotional relationship' stands for would simply be an emotion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You still don't get it.

The Eastern perception of God is fundamentally different from the Western. You apply Western thinking to Eastern ideas. That's where you go wrong.

If "God is the universe", what makes "God is the universe" different from "God is what science explains"?

If god is a thing, then it has parameters, it exists. If it is a world view, then that doesn't make it a different 'god concept', it makes it a different use of the word, god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

OK, then God exists. God is the universe. So, it doesn't make any sense to claim that God cannot exist.

Trivial or not, who cares? The claim is refuted.

I think a better word than trivial is irrelevant but I shall let Piggy speak for himself.

If all you are saying is god is the natural Universe, then you have simply defined a god which only cannot be refuted because it is an empty word.

What does the claim, God is the Universe mean? It differs not from describing the Universe through scientific observation. We are all star dust. The particles that we detect belonging to any thing existed before they became the thing and will exist after they are no longer the thing. Those same particles were all (in the form of energy) within the singularity and are now all within the Universe. They are all one, we are all part of the whole, the Universe.

This is not a definition of god, this is a different use of the word.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A world view is not a god just because you label it so. And anything else this 'emotional relationship' stands for would simply be an emotion.

So, you are telling me that the entire history of pantheism is wrong? You know that they are wrong because you have the definition of god? Most of this exchange has concerned the problems with a single definition of god and a single Western way of looking at it. There is simply more than one way of looking at this issue.

The emotional relationship is a relationship. It doesn't stand for anything. Just as 'consciousness' doesn't stand for 'a brain state', as though that were some entity.

Once again, don't think of the word 'god' as necessarily representing some ontological entity. There are other ways of conceiving what the word means.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think a better word than trivial is irrelevant but I shall let Piggy speak for himself.

If all you are saying is god is the natural Universe, then you have simply defined a god which only cannot be refuted because it is an empty word.

What does the claim, God is the Universe mean? It differs not from describing the Universe through scientific observation. We are all star dust. The particles that we detect belonging to any thing existed before they became the thing and will exist after they are no longer the thing. Those same particles were all (in the form of energy) within the singularity and are now all within the Universe. They are all one, we are all part of the whole, the Universe.

This is not a definition of god, this is a different use of the word.

Grrrrr, how many times must I repeat the same thing. This is not a simple re-assignment of one word for another. This is not an argument for a new ontological entity.

Words carry connotations. The connotations of 'universe' do not include the idea of wonder and awe within them in the same way -- at least in common usage. What is so very wrong with using the word 'god' to refer to the relationship one has to the totality of all that exists? I really don't understand your objection. You don't want to engage in that language game, fine, don't engage in it.

 

[articulett]

I go along with the "universe is my god" kinds of evasions. That's fine... a "spinoza's god" if you will. But usually when people say god they imply an entity with attributes we associate with consciousness-- a plan, intelligence, reasoning, feelings, etc. These are things that don't appear to exist absent a material brain... qualities that humans are known to project on other people and, by extension other things and possibilities.

I, personally, find no more reason to believe in a god that is or has consciousness than all the other immaterial conscious things-- angels, demons, thetans, etc.

When piggy says gods cannot be, I hear him saying that consciousness outside of a material brain is impossible. If someone believes in such a thing, they have provided no evidence for a belief and dismissing "god" is the same as dismissing "ghosts". My beliefs are like Piggys. I experience awe and wonder and I'm eager to find out more... but I don't think gurus and feelings and faith are the method to find out more-- just ways to feel like you "understand" something without adding to any understanding at all.

If I felt uncomfortable using the word "atheist" because of all the prejudice that goes with the word... if pressed, I might say, "the universe is my god"-- but I'm as hardcore of an atheist as Piggy and Dawkins and Randi. I think everyone would love evidence that there's something "there"-- that's what the MDC is about. But it's all word games and feelings and defense of faith.

Faith is not a means of knowledge. Beliefs are like opinions. They are only as respect worthy as the evidence behind them or the respect offered to those with differing beliefs and opinions.

If you want Piggy or any atheist to respect your "beliefs" (which we know are "facts" to the believer)-- support them with evidence or show the same respect for his lack of belief. You know-- "do unto others...." (limbo... Claus...)

 

[calebprime]

@Piggy

Eric Clapton?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Grrrrr, how many times must I repeat the same thing. This is not a simple re-assignment of one word for another. This is not an argument for a new ontological entity.

Words carry connotations. The connotations of 'universe' do not include the idea of wonder and awe within them in the same way -- at least in common usage. What is so very wrong with using the word 'god' to refer to the relationship one has to the totality of all that exists? I really don't understand your objection. You don't want to engage in that language game, fine, don't engage in it.

So you admit it's just a word game?

 

[CFLarsen]

"My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God" /= "no definition of God would satisfy

."

That's precisely what it means. If his argument isn't dependent on any definition, then it makes no difference if god is defined as a sandwich, a leprechaun or a supernatural being.

Since Piggy has made it clear that leprechauns cannot exist, no definition of god would satisfy him.

That's what the science is investigating. If it didn't have mass, it wouldn't account for the mass our calculations indicate should be there, and we wouldn't be investigating it.

It wouldn't account for the effects it has based on what we currently know of how the universe works. But that doesn't mean there couldn't be a totally new way of describing the universe.

Just look at quasars: That sure changed a lot of things about our understanding.

Do you have any such qualities a god must have to warrant scientific investigation?

It has to be within the boundaries of science, of course.

If god is a thing, then it has parameters, it exists. If it is a world view, then that doesn't make it a different 'god concept', it makes it a different use of the word, god.

That doesn't answer the question: If "God is the universe", what makes "God is the universe" different from "God is what science explains"?

What does the claim, God is the Universe mean? It differs not from describing the Universe through scientific observation. We are all star dust. The particles that we detect belonging to any thing existed before they became the thing and will exist after they are no longer the thing. Those same particles were all (in the form of energy) within the singularity and are now all within the Universe. They are all one, we are all part of the whole, the Universe.

This is not a definition of god, this is a different use of the word.

Not at all. It fits beautifully with the Christian god who made Adam and Eve, Adam from dust, Eve from Adam(dust).

Address post #437, please.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So you admit it's just a word game?

That is what I have been saying all along. It is a different vocabulary allowing a different way of looking at the world -- the way that all advances are made.

One way of reforming Piggy's original post is to say that the old definitions for god have passed and we now need a new word or a new way of using the old word.

Take the word 'atom' -- it originally meant 'indivisible'. Clearly that is not true, so we did not jettison the word, we simply rearranged what the word means. Or, to repeat, the word 'consciousness'.

The objection to Piggy's OP is not ontological. It is semantic.

Unless, of course, magic is possible; then it has to be ontological too.

 

[Piscivore]

That's precisely what it means. If his argument isn't dependent on any definition, then it makes no difference if god is defined as a sandwich, a leprechaun or a supernatural being.

Which, to his argument, does not make a difference.

Since Piggy has made it clear that leprechauns cannot exist, no definition of god would satisfy him.

No, it means that definition of god does not invalidate his argument. That does not mean that all definitions will not invalidate his argument. This is a generalisation error on your part.

It wouldn't account for the effects it has based on what we currently know of how the universe works. But that doesn't mean there couldn't be a totally new way of describing the universe.

What sort of way? A way that does not include gravity?

ETA: Would such a way be scientific? What has that to do with the fact that dark matter has at least one quality in contrast to Piggy's objection to statements of the nature "I have no clue what X might be -- it is totally beyond my understanding or anyone else's and I can't tell you any of its qualities or where it might be"

Just look at quasars: That sure changed a lot of things about our understanding.

Did they invalidate gravity, or explain the missing mass?

It has to be within the boundaries of science, of course.

Of course. Do you have any such qualities a god must have to warrant scientific investigation?

 

[CFLarsen]

Which, to his argument, does not make a difference.

No, it means that definition of god does not invalidate his argument. That does not mean that all definitions will not invalidate his argument. This is a generalisation error on your part.

You need to stop jumping in without reading the thread. Piggy isn't using leprechauns as gods, but as examples of things that, like god, cannot be.

What sort of way? A way that does not include gravity?

How can anyone know that??

Did they invalidate gravity, or explain the missing mass?

I didn't bring up the example of quasars to explain dark matter, but to point out that we discover new things about the universe all the time.

Of course. Do you have any such qualities a god must have to warrant scientific investigation?

Huh?