Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[wollery]

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

Knowledge. You have given lots of evidence for belief, but very little for knowledge.

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.

Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I say that I agree with all of your arguments. I understand very well the advances in science, I'm a professional scientist, and agree that advances in science have pushed the concept of god into irrelevance.

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.

No, you dismissed deism as being irrelevant or absurd by dint of the fact that there being a deist god has the same effect on the Universe as there not being a deist god. But irrelevancy or absurdity by themselves do not make something wrong, and the existence or non-existence of the deist god having the same effect is not a reason to dismiss the concept entirely. Occam's Razor is a guide, not a hard and fast rule.

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

I don't object to your reasoning, only to the conclusion you draw from it. You talk about reasons to believe, and then draw a conclusion of knowledge. In short your argument is that there is no reason to believe in god, which I agree with, but then make the leap to conclude that god definitely doesn't exist, and I don't see how that logically follows from the premises or arguments that you make. I agree with your arguments but the conclusion I draw from them is that we can't know the answer. I guess that technically I'm ignostic, since I see the answer as unknowable and therefore irrelevant to how we live our lives.

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.

Likewise.

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see how you make the leap from your reasoning to your conclusion.

I honestly think that we're 99% in agreement, but that final 1% is something that we may never communicate to each other in any convincing fashion.

 

[wollery]

"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".

Indeed, "there is no god" is falsifiable, but that wasn't the proposition you made.

Your proposition was that there will never be evidence of god.

That is an unfalsifiable propositon. There is no way to prove whether there will or won't be evidence in the future, and even if there weren't that wouldn't disprove god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I like this because of the clarity. I dislike it because it seems to deny the reality of concepts and their consequences.

So, for example, does multiplication exist? It has no mass and the world with and without it would be the same -- or certainly was for some billions of years.

What about other concepts? If I absolutely dig Bugs Bunny and my worldview has been shaped by the cartoon, so I behave differently based on having seen it... does the rascally rabbit exist? Is he real?

I think you'd agree that belief in God exists and that fact has consequences and has shaped the world tremendously. But then, we have to wonder about things that used to exist (slavery in the US) and how, even though they no longer do (and even the concepts as motivators have disappeared -- for the sake of argument) they changed the world as we know it now, a kind of reaching into the present of some no longer existing past that arguably has made the world different and continues to do so.

In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts.

Technology depends on math. Where do you get the idea the world is the same with and without multiplication?

Belief in gods and gods are not the same thing.

When you move the goalpost off the playing field, it becomes irrelevant to the game.

If it's unknowable, it can't be "real" or "exist", because in that case the world with and without it is identical.

I don't know if I agree with the claim something which is unknowable can't be real or exist, but it is for all intents and purposes, like the goalpost that is not on the playing field, irrelevant.

 

[marplots]

Technology depends on math. Where do you get the idea the world is the same with and without multiplication?

Belief in gods and gods are not the same thing.

When you move the goalpost off the playing field, it becomes irrelevant to the game. I don't know if I agree with the claim something which is unknowable can't be real or exist, but it is for all intents and purposes, like the goalpost that is not on the playing field, irrelevant.

The goalpost may be off the field, but there are a lot of players kicking the ball that way. Maybe we need a bigger field.

What I'm trying to get my head around is a category of thing that isn't physical itself (no mass) but interacts with the physical world in relevant and measurable ways. Isn't this what is described for God?

So, yeah, the ideas are going to be "out there." Just where, I do not know.

 

[yog_sothoth]

"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".

It is interesting that the "There is a god" relies on arguments from ignorance. There is simply no objective proof that gods, spirits, or anything supernatural exists.

In the old stories and religious texts "There is(are) no god(s)" was falsified by frequent appearances by gods and whatnot. In the real world the gods are apparently much more shy than in their founding texts and stories.

 

[Piggy]

But irrelevancy or absurdity by themselves do not make something wrong

We have nothing to talk about.

Seriously, we don't.

If you're willing to believe that irrelevant or absurd positions must be taken into account, then of course you're never going to come to any conclusions about anything.

 

[Piggy]

Indeed, "there is no god" is falsifiable, but that wasn't the proposition you made.

Your proposition was that there will never be evidence of god.

That is an unfalsifiable propositon. There is no way to prove whether there will or won't be evidence in the future, and even if there weren't that wouldn't disprove god.

I suppose, then, that you're willing to hold out for future evidence for the existence of phlogiston?

 

[Piggy]

I don't know if I agree with the claim something which is unknowable can't be real or exist, but it is for all intents and purposes, like the goalpost that is not on the playing field, irrelevant.

If it's truly unknowable, not just currently unknown, that means that it can't be detected in any way, even in theory, which means that the universe is identical with and without it.

This means that "This thing exists" and "This thing doesn't exist" describe an identical situation.

Since "this thing" is common to both assertions, this means that we can accept that "this thing exists" can be true if and only if we accept the condition that "exists" and "doesn't exist" mean the same thing.

So, if "This thing exists" is not true under the condition that "exists" means something different from "doesn't exist", yet is true under the condition that "exists" means the same thing as "doesn't exist", it logically follows that "this thing doesn't exist".

 

[Piggy]

Unfalsifiable gods cannot exist

The whole notion of unfalsifiable gods is a red herring.

Because, by definition, these cannot exist, cannot be real.

If anything is potentially detectable, then it is potentially falsifiable.

A thing which is truly, categorically unfalsifiable is categorically undetectable, which means a world with and without it are exactly the same.

Yet a thing like that:

1. Cannot be a "god", because calling it a god is a Humpty-Dumptyism;

2. Cannot be "real" because, as explained above, under those conditions "real" has to be defined to be a synonym for "not real".

Therefore, we don't have to concern ourselves with any current, or potential, definitions for unfalsifiable gods.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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?

Approximately, yes. (I do think however that my definition matches the relevant definitions of God 'out there' quite fine.)

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?



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?

Ultimately this all is semantics. How on earth do you prove that a definition is correct? All we can do is we can agree on something. And I have layed out my terms. If there is something that you feel is wrong with that, you can always disagree, or try to.

Doesn't your definition do exactly this?

[ETA]
No, I meant a 'definition' that would render atheism untenable nonsense. Like a God that is simply what we value most in life, or a God that exists in the beauty of the world.
[/ETA]

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.

I don't think it is about whether it is an interesting position or not. It is rather whether it is "right". And if God simply does involve a contradiction, then what I am supposed to do, in your opinion? Let's take the third criterion that I listed. God must have libertarian free will. It is the easiest to disagree with. However, I can quote a Roman Catholic catechism that says exactly that:

295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness:
[snip]

296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely "out of nothing":145
[snip]​

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm#295

Now what am I supposed to do with what this plainly says?
Agree? No.
Disagree? Yes.
And what would we call that? Atheism.
Is it a soft problem? No.
A hard problem? Yes.

And that gives strong atheism. At least as long as this definition is followed. (But frankly, deviating from this position is only going to create different sort of problems. A God that is 'confined' for example. Or random. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. And dammend too if you try to square the circle.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Unfalsifiable gods cannot exist

The whole notion of unfalsifiable gods is a red herring.

Because, by definition, these cannot exist, cannot be real.

If anything is potentially detectable, then it is potentially falsifiable.

A thing which is truly, categorically unfalsifiable is categorically undetectable, which means a world with and without it are exactly the same.

Yet a thing like that:

1. Cannot be a "god", because calling it a god is a Humpty-Dumptyism;

2. Cannot be "real" because, as explained above, under those conditions "real" has to be defined to be a synonym for "not real".

Therefore, we don't have to concern ourselves with any current, or potential, definitions for unfalsifiable gods.

I don't think the religious types would ever agree that God is categorically unfalsifiable but only potentially falsifiable. The Christian crowd certainly think that he interacted with the world at least a few times. Just not in a way that you could ever go about testing him.

 

[slingblade]

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

Hmmm, then I guess I didn't do it right. Oh well.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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?

I think you forgot to apologize for interrupting the discussion and offering an alternative perspective.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The goalpost may be off the field, but there are a lot of players kicking the ball that way. Maybe we need a bigger field.

What I'm trying to get my head around is a category of thing that isn't physical itself (no mass) but interacts with the physical world in relevant and measurable ways. Isn't this what is described for God?

So, yeah, the ideas are going to be "out there." Just where, I do not know.

Yes, I think that pretty well sums it up. I think the really interesting issue is to try to demonstrate why that position is non-sensical. Sure, it is not obviously logically impossible, so theists try to argue for it as possible. But is it really possible? I have very serious doubts.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

I really like that. That is excellent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Y’know Piggy, you make a very good case for the non-existence of God. Many here simply rant, and betray their emptiness. I could try and pick apart a great many of your points, but the ultimate result would be a stalemate…and the issues are complex to the point of incomprehensibility. Your conclusions though seem to rest very solidly on your not-too-shabby ability to actually intelligibly evaluate and understand evidence. A reasonable approach. It is often the criticism that is most consistently leveled at believers, of any persuasion….that they ignore the evidence.

A few years ago a conference was held. Beyond Belief it was called. All the brightest lights of the skeptic and atheist community assembled (Dennet, Harris, Dawkins etc.) to duly ridicule the ignorant of every variety. Among them were included two individuals who have been friends for quite some time...who didn't seem inclined to toe the company line. Noam Chomsky and Scott Atran. This was their response to the rational approach…to the assumption that we know enough about what we know to definitively conclude whether or not we know enough about what we know.

…it should be obvious to everyone that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.
On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.
Noam Chomsky

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems.
Scott Atran

It has become almost a cliche to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics.
Richard Dawkins

….and an appropriate reply…from none other than a certifiable genius:

Vanity of science. Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science.
Blaise Pascal

The small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify we give the name of knowledge.
Ambrose Bierce


Invariably, the ignorant will chime in with their ‘God of the gaps’ nonsense. Not worth responding to. The argument is vast, complex, and…at this point…unresolved. The choices are invariably personal, which is where all real choices happen. Somewhere that science has yet to come anywhere close to arriving at (as Chomsky accurately pointed out).

I'd like to address a couple things here, but perhaps not the whole post.

It's been my experience that a lot of professionals know a lot about a little. I do as well. But in my profession I crossover into multiple other areas. I'm a nurse practitioner. I see how physicians work and how nurses work. Not that none of one group understands the other. Linda who seems to have left us was clearly a physician who practices nursing just as I am a nurse who practices medicine. But nonetheless, it is an eye opener to cross professions. And, I deal with the regulatory professions in my dealings in occupational health. I see physicians and nurses who don't realize every requirement is not based on clinical practice. There are some things we have to do that are based on regulatory requirements. I've had the benefit of being exposed to educational science. A knowledge deficit is not always the problem. And I've had a personal interest in communication, marketing and persuasion sciences, as well as being fascinated all my life with any science that reveals some part of the Universe (cosmology, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, archeology, psychology, sociology), and I am an avid world explorer. In short, I also know a little about a lot.

So with that in mind, I can say I have seen professions with tunnel vision, and the skeptic and science communities who do think our failure to improve the collective critical thinking skills is all about a simple knowledge deficit.

HOWEVER, this is changing. Many fields now require two or more sciences combined. Astrobiology, for example is a new degree. Bioinformatics is another area of study that combines computer science with genetic science. And, one sees the skeptic and science communities looking at the science of communication now rather than treating everything as a knowledge deficit.

I've seen these changes growing over the last 2 decades. So while I agree with the Chomsky and Atran quotes you've posted here, I believe the tide has shifted.

 

[Piggy]

I don't think the religious types would ever agree that God is categorically unfalsifiable but only potentially falsifiable. The Christian crowd certainly think that he interacted with the world at least a few times. Just not in a way that you could ever go about testing him.

And they would be wrong about that.

 

[slingblade]

I think you forgot to apologize for interrupting the discussion and offering an alternative perspective.

Damn, you're right. Sorry for not being saying I'm sorry.

 

[punshhh]

I have said, “Gods don’t exist”. No qualifications, end of story.


The very presence of this forum, depending as it does on computers and electronic infrastructure and synthetic materials, is itself part of the proof that not only are there no gods, but there can be no gods.

And I have not one shred, not one iota, not one quark of doubt about that. Just as I have no doubt that the earth is round, that Tolkien wrote fiction, and that unicorns don’t grant wishes.

Nor should I.

Yes you have put forward a good series of arguments for the non existence of God. However I would add a disclaimer;

"From the view point of humanity at this time, these are the arguments for the non-existence of God."

Unfortunately this does not answer the question about God/gods. It is a summary of human thinking (or brain activity) in consideration of a mythological God, itself a human thought (or brain activity). As such its just machinations of the human mind, a mind evolved for picking bananas, throwing rocks/spears and hanging out around fires.

The assumption that the human mind is in any way qualified to consider the question of God/gods is presumptuous and places the human faculty of thought on a pedestal.

A pedestal on the back of a turtle in the dark.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Indeed, "there is no god" is falsifiable, but that wasn't the proposition you made.

Your proposition was that there will never be evidence of god.

That is an unfalsifiable propositon. There is no way to prove whether there will or won't be evidence in the future, and even if there weren't that wouldn't disprove god.

If there is no god then the position that there never will be evidence of god is simply a logical conclusion though. The world is not flat and there will never be evidence that it is.

You ask for an explanation of how we know gods don't exist. Given the number of gods that have been posited that's going to take a rather lengthy post to provide.

Could we shortcut this? I assume that you would agree that we know at least some on the list do not exist? If so, can you provide a shorter list of the specific god or gods that you do not believe we know do not exist?

If it's truly unknowable, not just currently unknown, that means that it can't be detected in any way, even in theory, which means that the universe is identical with and without it.

This means that "This thing exists" and "This thing doesn't exist" describe an identical situation.

Since "this thing" is common to both assertions, this means that we can accept that "this thing exists" can be true if and only if we accept the condition that "exists" and "doesn't exist" mean the same thing.

So, if "This thing exists" is not true under the condition that "exists" means something different from "doesn't exist", yet is true under the condition that "exists" means the same thing as "doesn't exist", it logically follows that "this thing doesn't exist".

I believe I said earlier that the wiggle room in 'exists' is what people are trying to exploit. And people questioned me! You are absolutely right, unfalsifiable gods can exist only in a way that is no different to them not existing.

I don't think the religious types would ever agree that God is categorically unfalsifiable but only potentially falsifiable. The Christian crowd certainly think that he interacted with the world at least a few times. Just not in a way that you could ever go about testing him.

If he interacted with the world then its testable. I believe the Christian god is purported to have interacted on many occasions. Of course when we look at these occasions and realise they didn't happen they then become metaphor. For example, we know the God that caused Noah's flood doesn't exist because that never happened. What then happens is we end up in a neverending circle of moving the goalposts and redefining what this god actually did or didn't do. Which is utter gentleman's dangly bits.