Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

Of course, but none of those fit the definition offered above. Why would a trickster god necessarily exist? Necessary existence, as I understand the way the term is used, is based on God as perfect being. That would seem to imply moral perfection. Why not list that attribute along with the others listed since intelligence and libertarian free will are also implied by it?

Well, I'll let the poster answer that, since it's not a position I'm prepared to defend.

 

[Piggy]

A beautifully written treatise on your reasons for not believing in god. You have not, however, provided any evidence for your knowledge.

I agree with everything you wrote. You have enumerated several perfectly valid and well argued reasons to believe that there is no god. What you have not done is demonstrate knowledge of the non-existence of god as a general hypothesis.

In fact you dismiss a number of potentially valid possibilities on the basis of not liking them or because they lack testability. A lack of testability is not, in and of itself, evidence that a proposition is false.

Knowledge and belief are two different things. I have no need to believe that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, because I know with absolute certainty. I have irrefutable evidence for it, and that removes any need for belief. If you know something for certain then there is no need to explain why you believe it to be true, only describe how you know it to be true. Conversely, if you cannot explain how you know something to be true, but can only describe your reasons for believing it, then you clearly lack knowledge.

I have no doubt that you are certain in your beliefs, as am I, and my beliefs are the same as yours. The difference is that I don't equate my strongly held beliefs with knowledge.

So, assuming that you do know that there are no gods of any possible description, I'll give you another chance to answer the question that I actually asked. How do you know it to be the case?

If I were to actually provide all the evidence to support every plank of everything I said in that post, I would literally have to write a book of several hundred pages.

You know that's not forthcoming, so you get to play this game.

The plain fact of the matter is that the scientific worldview has entirely replaced the mythic worldview, and as a result there's no more reason to believe in the old view than there is to believe that Tolkien wrote history.

And the supposed margin of error is a philosophical fiction.

Believe it if you like, but so far you haven't given me any reason to.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In other words you have simply defined god in such a way as to satisfy your belief that god does not exist.

Pure sophistry.

No, the opposite is true. It is anti-sophistry. And I think I am broad enough with my minimum definition to capture the largest bulk of theism. Heck, I am not even asking for the omnis, or answered prayer, or any anthropomorphisms.

 

[Trent Wray]

This is a very important point that I think is often overlooked by the non-religious, which is why I mentioned above about using the definition that those that believe in a god have for their label of god. Vishnu is not Allah as they do not share the same definition. ETA: Even within the "same" religion there can be differences between the different flavours as to the definition of their god.

And I think this point helps to show the foundation of what one who doesn't believe in a god/gods is built upon ... whether that foundation is built upon the lack of evidence for Kali, Vishnu, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, CargoCultGod, etc not being sufficient enough to show they exist by their definitions, or whether or not a person simply would never acknowledge that a god exists regardless of the definition because of their own personal expectations of what a "god" is or isn't. i.e. an atheist as opposed to an antitheist. And I think this distinction is helpful at times.

 

[Philosaur]

It must be free in the libertarian sense. You see, a God cannot just do what a God has to do, e.g. create the world exactly the way it is. But it also cannot be that God is somehow random, arbitrary. So, I am asking for a contradiction.

And that is it. Meeting those criteria is impossible. And anything that does not meet these criteria, I won't consider as a God in the proper sense.

No, the opposite is true. It is anti-sophistry. And I think I am broad enough with my minimum definition to capture the largest bulk of theism. Heck, I am not even asking for the omnis, or answered prayer, or any anthropomorphisms.

So, your criteria are both broad and impossible to meet?

I think you're credibility is quickly going down the drain.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Maybe I'm missing some massive bit of irony this is riffing on up-thread, but: aren't you doing the very thing you are fed up with?

Everybody does that, at least to some extent. Whether they know that, or not. The trick would be to come up, and stick to a definition that is somewhat pertinent. Not too straw-manish, not too restrictive, but not too broad either. And not, just re-define "God" however you see fit, sometimes just to score a point.

Plus, you've defined God using a contradiction, which assures that the definition will not be met. As a rhetorical technique, you've definitely insulated yourself from further argument, but your definition can play no part in any further argument as it violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Yeah, it may look like a rhetorical technique. However ... what if there really is a contradiction? Then the arguement is either dead, or leads an existence as a zombie. And I would be also right to insist upon the contradiction or impossibility being met.

Take something else for instance. A perpetual motion machine. You tell me! Should we re-define perpetual motion as long as necessary as to make it not impossible? Me, I don't. It is simply dead. (OK, every so often you do see people 'revive' the idea nevertheless.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So, your criteria are both broad and impossible to meet?

I think you're credibility is quickly going down the drain.

Hey, I didn't make it so, you know? I am just drawing the consequences.

(And as an aside, "broad" != "anything goes")

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Of course, but none of those fit the definition offered above. Why would a trickster god necessarily exist? Necessary existence, as I understand the way the term is used, is based on God as perfect being. That would seem to imply moral perfection. Why not list that attribute along with the others listed since intelligence and libertarian free will are also implied by it?

Necessary being is pretty much similar to a first cause. I don't think that in and of itself makes claims to morality or perfection. Those two do often show up however in connection with necessity in order to not make it look so poor and tautological. OK, I may be slightly cynical here.

No, I am simply asking that God be the most 'fundamental' thing that exists and that everything else ultimately depend on it. In short, that if it were removed it would take everything else with it: no God => no nothing.

 

[Piggy]

A beautifully written treatise on your reasons for not believing in god. You have not, however, provided any evidence for your knowledge.

I agree with everything you wrote. You have enumerated several perfectly valid and well argued reasons to believe that there is no god. What you have not done is demonstrate knowledge of the non-existence of god as a general hypothesis.

In fact you dismiss a number of potentially valid possibilities on the basis of not liking them or because they lack testability. A lack of testability is not, in and of itself, evidence that a proposition is false.

Knowledge and belief are two different things. I have no need to believe that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, because I know with absolute certainty. I have irrefutable evidence for it, and that removes any need for belief. If you know something for certain then there is no need to explain why you believe it to be true, only describe how you know it to be true. Conversely, if you cannot explain how you know something to be true, but can only describe your reasons for believing it, then you clearly lack knowledge.

I have no doubt that you are certain in your beliefs, as am I, and my beliefs are the same as yours. The difference is that I don't equate my strongly held beliefs with knowledge.

So, assuming that you do know that there are no gods of any possible description, I'll give you another chance to answer the question that I actually asked. How do you know it to be the case?

Btw, wollery, what is it that you want evidence for?

Do you really think that evidence needs to be presented regarding what I assert has been discovered via space exploration, genetics, archaeology, and so forth?

You're not stupid and you're not ignorant, so I can't believe that you actually want to have decades of science rehashed in detail.

You know as well as I do that the ancient worldview on all that has been overturned.

You say I "dismiss" arguments against my position... but you don't bother to cite me or explain your objections?

Give me a break.

Do you want "evidence" that deism is flawed reasoning, for instance? The objection to deism (as I clearly explain it) is not the kind of objection that requires evidence like fingerprints, or carbon dating, or observations of supernovae. That would be ridiculous.

What I have done is to expose the faulty reasoning behind it.

In short, if you object to my reasoning, you're going to need to cite me and explain the reasons why you object.

As it is, you're simply making assertions and engaging in handwaving.

That's not to say you don't have a point. Perhaps you do. But I'm going to need to hear something much more specific if you expect me to know what it is.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Shouldn't it also be worthy of worship, as in morally perfect? Makes it even more difficult to meet the criteria.

The point is not to make it harder to meet the criteria. (Even if it may look a little like this.)

Not necessarily. History is full of trickster gods, wrathful gods, punishing gods, petulant gods, and so forth.

You are missing the most obvious: Deism, where you often have a God that is simply 'amoral'.

 

[Philosaur]

Everybody does that, at least to some extent. Whether they know that, or not. The trick would be to come up, and stick to a definition that is somewhat pertinent. Not too straw-manish, not too restrictive, but not too broad either. And not, just re-define "God" however you see fit, sometimes just to score a point.

I think I see the distinction you're making: One on hand, you have ad hoc definitions that are capricious and possibly contradictory coming from one person (or group), and on the other, you have personal definitions that can at least be self-consistent without necessarily being consistent with everything else out there. If this is correct, then I agree.

Yeah, it may look like a rhetorical technique. However ... what if there really is a contradiction? Then the arguement is either dead, or leads an existence as a zombie. And I would be also right to insist upon the contradiction or impossibility being met.

Well, but this is at odds with your first point above. If someone else can form a personal definition that does not include a contradiction, then this point is moot. You haven't proven that every definition of God must necessarily contain a contradiction. You've only shown that your definition of God is impossible to satisfy.

By the way, the contradiction you cite looks like a repackaged version of the standard argument against free will. And there are non-trivial counter-arguments to it. I won't say they convince me that free will exists, but you seem to assume the standard argument is indisputable.

 

[gph]

Fair enough, but it should be noted that my tolerance for people who believe in faith is conditional - insofar as oppression of women constitutes a violation of human rights. While this may be a feature of some religious systems, it's not a requirement of them, and I treat it as a human rights issue outside of theist/nontheist. If a theist is not an oppressor of women, then hey, believe in god all you want.

There definitely are non-oppressive theists in the world but that doesn't negate those that are and for clearly spelled out theistic reasons.

Similarly, exposing kids to religion I don't have a problem with in itself, so long as they are also exposed to a variety of alternatives. Which, unless they're closed off from the world, is rather hard to avoid. And, anyway, forcible confinement of children in order to preserve religious belief would, I think, also qualify as a violation of human rights.

I have a problem with it. Nobody knows the whole truth of our existence. If people claim to know they're being dishonest or they're delusional. I think instilling dishonest or delusional ideas in children, about things they simply can not comprehend, is abusive.

As for the retardation of science, sure, some people set out to do that. Too many for my tastes. Now, you could make a case that religion requires this by default (science not generally being amicable to religion) but I think most applications we find of this behaviour has a lot more to do with the individuals involved. We may disagree there, and that's cool.

The most threatening religious attacks on science aren't coming from individuals. They appear to be well organized, at least in Christian and Muslim areas of the world.

But I don't see people believing in a deity as a "cancer", because I don't see where they're obligated, by believing in a deity in any form, to oppress women, enslave children, and retard science. That may happen, and that may happen perhaps as a result of individual religious belief, but belief in a god does not equate to these things necessarily following.

In theory, yes. In practice, the evidence is everywhere.

So in my opinion, which is only my opinion, the actions of individuals within a religion do not necessarily reflect the whole of all its members. All three of your examples, moreover, are caused by intolerance - and since we (presumably) live in societies that offer rights for religious freedoms, then it hardly works to defend against intolerance that leads to the suppression of rights by engaging in intolerance that leads to the suppression of rights.

I'm in no way advocating for the suppression of rights. I'm advocating for conversational intolerance.

So. Where religion violates human rights (or other rights), then the debate can - and should - be held on those terms and, really, when addressing those particulars I don't see bringing god into it as a requirement.

I'd rather fight the disease than the symptoms.

I mean, if you met a theist who didn't oppress women, didn't retard science, and didn't indoctrinate kids - would they still be a cancer?

How would they not allow their beliefs to inform their actions? If they're all of those things and voting for Michelle Bachmann for the next US president, for example, only because she has a personal relationship with a dead Jewish guy, they're a cancer on human flourishing.

* I chose to not address the "inevitable extinction" point with the others, because I think this is a strawman. While some religious people might be pretty eager for doomsday, I don't think this scenario is inevitable and it certainly can't be proved such. I think that's frankly a bit silly.

There's certainly no way to prove the future but I see no way around the following scenario. Do you?

Weaponry development is well funded and will be for the foreseeable future. How long before science produces extinction weaponry that can be easily manufactured? Things that go boom might be a while but I don't see biological taking very long. My guess is 200 years at the outside for backyard production. Regardless, I thinks it's inevitable that the technology will be commonplace.

How many people in the world would push the delete button right now if they could? How many of that group would be doing it for some religious nonsense they've been force fed as fact? How many casual believers would become distressed enough, at some point in their lives, to just "kill them all and let god sort them out"?

As I posted earlier, we could completely eliminate religious beliefs and it still could easily happen. I'd just rather it wasn't guaranteed to happen because someone was deluded into thinking death is better than life.

 

[Belz...]

That's because it's an unfalsifiable proposition.

"There is no God" is falsifiable by simply providing one piece of evidence for God.

How is it unfalsifiable ?

EDIT: In fact, "there is a God" is far more unfalsifiable, since no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, one can always retreat further, as monotheism has, into obscurity and still claim "there is a God".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Necessary being is pretty much similar to a first cause. I don't think that in and of itself makes claims to morality or perfection. Those two do often show up however in connection with necessity in order to not make it look so poor and tautological. OK, I may be slightly cynical here.

No, I am simply asking that God be the most 'fundamental' thing that exists and that everything else ultimately depend on it. In short, that if it were removed it would take everything else with it: no God => no nothing.

OK, sorry for the confusion. I've heard necessary being most commonly applied to the definition of God used in the ontological argument where all the omnis are part of the definition.

I see what you are doing with this, so there really isn't any need to introduce the concept of worthy of worship. For many theists it is a necessary component, though.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think I see the distinction you're making: One on hand, you have ad hoc definitions that are capricious and possibly contradictory coming from one person (or group), and on the other, you have personal definitions that can at least be self-consistent without necessarily being consistent with everything else out there. If this is correct, then I agree.

You have lost me a little here. Maybe you could try again?

Well, but this is at odds with your first point above. If someone else can form a personal definition that does not include a contradiction, then this point is moot.

And maybe I do not have any real disagreement with that person about how the world actually is. But merely a small disagreement about word usage.

You haven't proven that every definition of God must necessarily contain a contradiction. You've only shown that your definition of God is impossible to satisfy.

There are plenty of definitions of "God" which are not contradictory. But they are also not what is meant by God in the context of a theological discussion. And plenty of definitions of "God" which, if plugged in to "atheism" would render the whole thing totally untenable and idiotic nonsense.


Again, let me try to make an example where this is similar: Magic. There are plenty of definitions. However not all of them are pertinent to a skeptical discussion. Stage-magic, for example, is not. And similar to above, if you took "magic" in the sense of stage-magic and plugged it in to "skepticism" (which implicitly touches on magic) it would render the whole thing totally untenable and idiotic nonsense.

You've only shown that your definition of God is impossible to satisfy.

You are free to disagree with my definition.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

OK, sorry for the confusion. I've heard necessary being most commonly applied to the definition of God used in the ontological argument where all the omnis are part of the definition.

I see what you are doing with this, so there really isn't any need to introduce the concept of worthy of worship. For many theists it is a necessary component, though.

If God is "worthy of worship" -- so much the better. But if it is simply a deistic God, where this just does not apply -- fine too.

 

[slingblade]

If whatever god is, it does not interact with the universe in an observable way, then whatever god is, it's of no consequence and might as well not exist.

Did I do that right?

 

[Philosaur]

You have lost me a little here. Maybe you could try again?

I'm not sure this particular point is that important, but I'll try again:

Person A makes up ad hoc definitions of God to satisfy or counter whatever argument is at hand. These definitions may be mutually exclusive, but the point for Person A is simply to win arguments. This is what you were complaining about, right?

Person B (you, in this case) presents a definition which might be different from whatever is out there, but the definition is at least consistent over time.

This is the only way I can find to unravel the contradiction I was pointing out at first. Is this clearer, and is this what you meant?

There are plenty of definitions of "God" which are not contradictory. But they are also not what is meant by God in the context of a theological discussion.

Well, here it seems you're assuming your conclusion. Can you prove that there are no coherent definitions of God (ETA: ) in the context of theological discussion?

And plenty of definitions of "God" which, if plugged in to "atheism" would render the whole thing totally untenable and idiotic nonsense.

Doesn't your definition do exactly this? What's the point of being atheistic about something whose definition is a contradiction in terms? Does it make sense to say you are an a-married-bachelor-ist?

To me, atheism is only an interesting position if the question of God's existence is contingent.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If whatever god is, it does not interact with the universe in an observable way, then whatever god is, it's of no consequence and might as well not exist.

Did I do that right?

Like a non-existent, invisible pink neutrino you mean?

 

[marplots]

It isn't.

Belief in multiplication != multiplication.

If the teacher asks you "What is five times six?" and you answer "I believe in multiplication", you have not done any multiplication.

But that fact is independent of the fact that multiplication does exist -- kids do it in school every day -- while God does not.

But that's what I meant. Don't missionaries and priests "do God" every day? They are certainly doing something (when not doing kids). The something they do is more than the fact that they believe, it's a material fact that requires energy and changes the state of the world.

Saying that this kind of process-god is just a habit of mind or a mental pattern doesn't help. After all, so is my worry about weeds in my lawn and there are weeds. It also isn't just localized in one person, there's a community with feedback and so on.

Do nations exist? Nationalism? Remember, you don't actually have to have any territory to be a nation (Knights of Malta) and you can be nationalistic without a nation (Palestine).

It seems to me if we want an entity that has an effect on the world but can't be pinned down (or pulled up like my weeds) we should be looking at more than the easy answers. We should define God by what we discover instead of deciding ahead of time. We shouldn't take believers' word for it.