Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piscivore]

No, seriously. Not iron acted on by other forces, but floating iron.

No, seriously. Why are you imposing this arbitrary limitation?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

In that case may I suggest a couple of books for you to read?

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions
The Hero with a Thousand Faces
History of Mysticism: The Unchanging Testament

And Piggy if you would watch this 60 minute video it may give you a little food for thought, as you ponder this question.

/shrug

If you've read and processed all that, surely you can distill a succinct expression of god that blows Piggy's position away.

Making an appeal to an authority not yet read is fine and dandy, but if you understood them well enough to recommend them, surely to can articulate the relevant bits.

 

[Hokulele]

Your marriage is not your husband, it is your relationship. Calling your boyfriend your husband describes your relationship with your husband. And whether you have relationship [A] with a boyfriend, or relationship with a husband, you are still talking about an entity, the man. So it follows then that Ichne is calling the natural Universe, God. But that doesn't make it any more a god than calling a telephone pole God. Nor does defining the Universe as God have any meaning.

So Ichne is essentially saying what he said, the word describes a thing, the Universe, which the person with that belief has a relationship with. The relationship is only relevant if it means something. What does it mean other than believing the Universe is [X]. What does that mean? Nothing as far as I can see.

Well, my analogy was off anyway. Considering that Ichneumonwasp was basing some of his arguments on Wittgenstein, no analogy would be possible.

 

[Jimbo07]

Could a two dimensional being see the 'third dimension' in flatland? They could see two dimensional 'cuts' of three dimensional objects passing through -- something that would look 'magical'.

Well, the problem there is that there are distinct phenomena (the cuts). Even if you don't understand that there is something more, there is at least 'something' to observe.

And no, I am not making this as a specific claim, only that it is one possibility that discounts the idea that God is impossible. Especially if God encomapsses the entire third dimension that we experience so that we could not see any change in Him.

Well, it is in this case. Invoking pseudo-scientific, or mathematical-sounding lingo is begging to have a definition picked apart. Using a mathematical definition to try to describe God is very problematic, because dimensionality is well-understood, but this definition is not. This is part of the challenge that Piggy is laying down. By the time you've fought through any definition, you've usually left a gaping hole.

I agree with you that the word 'cannot,' is not tenable, simply because Piggy has failed to demonstrate that imaginary things like magic, and spooks and groxaplox 'cannot' exist. I buy Skeptigirl's contention that a universe with this garbage is not a stable (in so far as physical phenomena go) universe, but there's no proof that the other is not the truth! We have never seen evidence of a Great Deceiver, and I'm likely to grow into my toilet seat if I spend my time in the bathroom afraid of one, but there is no proof.

...

Why do I care, and why am I continuing to make patently absurd points? I want very much to know what we know and to a lesser extent, what we are able to know.

It's knowledge which is the best tool in the fight against superstition, not statements which appear to people (like a couple in this thread), as if their arguments are being simply dismissed.

To say, the observable universe is as observationally consistent with the non-existence of a meaningful God, as one with, is much more damning and problematic to the theist position than assertions that God cannot exist. It's why there's a perceived conflict between science and religion, in the first place! Some are only too aware of where physical evidence could potentially lead...

 

[Limbo]

If you've read and processed all that, surely you can distill a succinct expression of god that blows Piggy's position away.

You make it sound so easy. That would be a long and difficult post. It would take me days to compose. And then there's no guarantee Piggy would even read and respond to it. No, this thread isn't the place for something like that. It's better that he read the books and watch the video, IMO.

 

[articulett]

Especially if God encomapsses the entire third dimension that we experience so that we could not see any change in Him.

Him? So this god has a gender?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I never suggested otherwise. But none of these great works are something done out of boredom, mere idleness, are they? Something powerful made people who had to eke out a rough living do these things, yes? No mere whim or fairy tale. Whether this "god" has any of the properties we might think it ought to have- and as has been said, these qualities are capricious, subjective, and highly varied, such that it seems foolish to insist that "god" have any of them to be "god"- it at the very least is a powerful motivator, yes?

But there is no evidence "something powerful" was a god. There is evidence it wasn't.

...Since the first mother taught their child that's why we don't.

No, the evidence is some morality is hardwired. Empathy has something to do with it. The evidence is that morality is the product of biology and culture combined. Kids have a sense some things are bad without being taught. It emerges around the age of 4.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You make it sound so easy. That would be a long and difficult post. It would take me days to compose. And then there's no guarantee Piggy would even read and respond to it. No, this thread isn't the place for something like that. It's better that he read the books and watch the video, IMO.

You could go for the 25 words or less version.

 

[articulett]

You make it sound so easy. That would be a long and difficult post. It would take me days to compose. And then there's no guarantee Piggy would even read and respond to it. No, this thread isn't the place for something like that. It's better that he read the books and watch the video, IMO.

You are asking Piggy to figure out your definition and then figure out if he can dismiss it. That's ridiculous. Do you study Scientology to find out if you can dismiss it... or do you just not believe it until there is evidence that convinces you it has validity?

You are asking Piggy to do something for you that you would probably not do for anyone else. You don't really seem open to any position but the one you came here with. Piggy wants to know if there is any definition or god worth believing in. If you can't convey it, then that sounds like your answer is "no". God appears to be a subjective feeling you have about a "something" that may or may not exist that you can't find words to convey. Nobody is asking you to stop believing in it... but if you want someone else to find it a respect worthy thing worth believing in, you need to learn to express it and quit insulting those who can't make sense of what you are saying.

If you can't convey your beliefs or position better than Tom Cruise conveys his, you can expect skeptics to treat your beliefs similarly. That's fair, right? You are not out exploring every possible belief system to see if they might have meaning to you, are you? If you can't convey it in words, it's probably not a useful definition of "god". You appear to believe in "something" that is indistinguishable from a belief in Scientology or a belief that you astrally project... why should piggy be interested or care? What differentiates your "something" from a delusion of that something?

 

[CFLarsen]

You indicated "it makes no difference [to Piggy] if god is defined as... a leprechaun..." It was to that I was responding.

And you misunderstood.

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

".

It means he knows no single definition of god that invalidates his argument. That does not mean that no definition will invalidate his argument, it means if one does, he does not know it. He explicitly asked for any. It is not his failure that you cannot provide anything more concrete than "there might be".

This is (still) a generalisation error on your part.

You still ignore his "cannot".

I don't know, it is your hypothetical.

Okay, but we are not talking about what we know about the universe, except that you offered dark matter as a something that science was investigating that had not any qualities. Yet, as far as science is concerned, it does have at least one. Whatever some future world view that is not scientific might say about the matter is really irrelevant, isn't it? We are talking about science.

Yes, we are, and that's precisely why it is highly relevant to talk about what future science will look like. We know that the scientific world view changes with new discoveries, so there is no reason to think it won't change in the future.

Do you agree that science has nothing to say about things that have no qualities?

Give me an example of something without qualities.

Do you understand that as far as science in concerned, dark matter is not one of those things that has no qualities?

We assume that it has a quality known to us as gravity. If dark matter has mass, then the laws of nature are fine - we just need to look deeper into what it really is. It could also be something entirely new.

It is a simple question, Claus. Do you know of any such qualities a god must have to warrant scientific investigation? Yes or No.

I already answered it.

I keep having to correct your now many misunderstandings. Do try a little harder to keep abreast.

I think it's time to make one point perfectly clear.

Several posts earlier, one poster pointed out that I'm not interested in abstract philosophical musings, but only in empirical reality.

Another poster commented that this "explains a lot".

Indeed it does.

I take this issue very seriously. Whether God does or does not exist is of utmost importance. The answer to that question has enormous impact on what this world is, and what we are as humans.

I am not fooling around here.

This is not some parlor game for me, or some abstract intellectual exercise.

I'm not talking about placeholders in some abstract philosophical space. I'm talking about the real world that all of us wake up in every morning.

So if anyone wants to propose that God may be real, they'd better be talking about a God that is God, not some empty collection of words, or something that no believer actually believes in, or something that can only be real if "real" is the same as "not real" or if "God" is the same as "not God".

I've spent many hours of my life pondering this question. I take it seriously. I ask that others here do so as well.

Thank you for yet another condescending dismissal of all who disagree with you.

Pardon my French, but are you really this ignorant, or are you just pretending?

Dark matter -- whether it proves to be actual or not -- is an anchored concept.

No one would say of dark matter "it is utterly beyond man's understanding, and I cannot tell you any of its qualities".

You're trying my patience.

There are a lot of scientists who would love to hear what your understanding of dark matter is. I'll await your face on Science magazine real soon.

Excuse me, but human beings left every one of these artifacts.

You can say that because you know. But what if, a thousand years from now, all copies of Star Wars is lost, but only the Jedi religion is left?

Uh... yeah. Would you accept one that wasn't?

You wouldn't - right up until the moment you moved the goalposts, by referring - yet again - to your own judgment of what is "meaningful", "relevant" and now, "genuine".

Again and again, you boil it down to what you think and like. Everything that is not to your liking, you dismiss.

Are you any different? Do you believe things that don't make sense to you? I doubt it.

I accept that people can have beliefs that are meaningful to them, even if it isn't meaningful to me.

No, I have not.

If anyone can produce one that doesn't fall into error, then I'm wrong, plain and simple.

Since you have also rejected every definition merely because you say it is in "error", there will be no definition of God that would satisfy you.

Now you're back into your post-modernist claptrap.

People believe all kinds of nonsense. The fact that a notion is meaningful to someone... that holds no weight. Therefore, I'm not concerned with what other people find meaningful in their hearts. I'm concerned only with what holds up to objective scrutiny.

So far, you haven't even attempted to produce anything of the sort.

I haven't described prejudices here. I've explained precisely why I believe all potential definitions must fail.

You are the one who keeps using the term "meaningful". If it is "meaningful" to others, you dismiss it. If it is "meaningful" to you, you accept it.

You should either address what I'm saying, or put a cork in it.

Oh? It's censorship for those who disagree with you?

Well, I wasn't claiming dogs made up god. (That, as I recall, was Claus' assertion).

Do try to keep up, please. It was skeptigirl, not me.

Y'know, I never understood the whole "Clapton is God" thing.

I mean, if I want to listen to a white boy play the blues, I'm gonna listen to Stevie Ray, or Lowell George, or JJ Cale.

Don't get me wrong, Eric knows his way around a fretboard like nobody's business. But his real strengths are psychedelic jamming, on the one hand, and pop tunes like "Wonderful Tonight" on the other.

He's an excellent guitarist, but I don't feel a whole lotta soul in him. When he got together with Winwood for "Dear Mr. Fantasy", Steve blew him off the stage.

And if I were Clapton, I'd shake in my boots before matching my axe with Duane Allman or Dickey Betts.

So, it isn't meaningful to you to listen to Clapton if you want to listen to a white boy play the blues?

And there you have it, my friends.

If that does not speak to the utter absurdity of the "God may exist" position, then I don't know what does.

If I were CFLarsen, I'd be ashamed to show my avatar on this forum after that remark.

If I were you, I'd work a bit harder to accept that you could be wrong.

I consider magic to be completely debunked.

We now understand the fundamentals of action and reaction on the macro level. Magic bypasses those. It is therefore without any theory of potential action.

In addition, every single test of magic has been a bust for magic.

If validated models of our world disallow magic, and it fails testing at every turn, and the worldview which supported it has been replaced by a validated on which does not allow it, then it's bogus, plain and simple.

That doesn't answer the question. Magic may be completely debunked, but is it impossible?

 

[Piscivore]

But there is no evidence "something powerful" was a god. There is evidence it wasn't.

No evidence? The Egyptian pyramids and temples were built by volunteers to glorify their god, same with Chartres. They carved the names of the gods on them, put images in stained glass in the windows. The Mahabharata, the Bible, the Egyptian books of the Dead were all written to explicate and preserve the gods they describe. What evidence exists that any of these things I mentioned was motivated by any reason apart from a god?

No, the evidence is some morality is hardwired.

"Some". Not all. Some people do not murder, do not steal, because they fear god.

Empathy has something to do with it. The evidence is that morality is the product of biology and culture combined.

And for a signifigant percentage, God is the manifestation of that culture. You're not disagreeing with me.

Kids have a sense some things are bad without being taught. It emerges around the age of 4.

"Some things". Not all. Some kids are taught some things are bad because god disapproves.

 

[Piscivore]

You still ignore his "cannot".

There is no "cannot" in either "My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God" or "no definition of God would satisfy

"- and one of those phrases is yours.

If you are just going to read whatever you want into people's posts you might as well keep beating your head on that desk.

Dude, you brought it up.

Yes, we are,

No, you are, because you are trying to change the subject. If this is something you want to discuss start your own thread about it.

Give me an example of something without qualities.

Why? You presented "dark matter" as one and it was incorrect. There's no further point to be made.

I already answered it.

So "Huh?" is an answer, to you? Is that Danish for something? I don't speak in incoherent grunts, can you put that in English?

Do try to keep up, please. It was skeptigirl, not me.

Oh, right. Your claim was you could read a dog's mind.

 

[Radrook]

What scientific evidence do you have that suggests that there is no god? There's no evidence that I know of that there is one, but is there evidence that there isn't? And why believe in either case if there is no evidence in either case?

That's an excellent point! If one takes pride in being skeptical, then that skepticism should be evenly applied. Unfortunately it isn't. Which casts suspicion as to the motives in applying skepticism in that arbitrary seemingly self-serving way.

 

[articulett]

The evidence that there is no god is identical for the evidence that there are no fairies or demons or Thetans. When people believe in things that are indistinguishable from delusions or imaginary things or myths, it's not up to others to prove they don't exist.

You believe in "god"-- so define it and tell us what makes you believe in it or allow let us treat it the same way you treat fairies and all those other invisible immeasurable things you don't believe in-- duh.

Until there is evidence that consciousness can exist absent a material brain, the most logical thing to do is to treat all such concepts as delusions. There is no way to distinguish a voice from god from a voice in your head... and until there is, Piggy (and myself... and most other skeptics) will treat your god with the same respect that you treat Tom Cruise's, Xenu-- and for the same reasons. No evidence.

 

[articulett]

Or maybe like you treat Santa-- you know that lots of people believe... you know that he's a product of human imagination.... you know humans invent these sorts of "explanations" and "magic"

I believe in God like I believe in Santa. The concept is real; the entity is not.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, seriously. Why are you imposing this arbitrary limitation?

It's a thought experiment to question the whole idea of conceivability, not an exercise in what looks like iron floating. Sure, we can envisage iron floating on water because we have experience with things that we may mistake for iron that turns out to be wood. Or we have seen iron suspended in air with the help of a large magnet.

The exercise isn't about iron or water or how to make iron seeming to float on water physically possible. It is about whether or not 'conceivability' is a reliable measure to determine if something is logically possible.

So, just to clarify -- this is not a pin and it is not in/on any other liquid. The issue is -- since we can imagine iron floating on water, does this mean that it is not logically impossible for iron to float on water? I think what we do is imagine something floating on water and attach the idea of it being iron in some vague way to it. I'm not so sure that we really 'conceive' iron floating on water properly.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Him? So this god has a gender?

Big burly guy with a thuderbolt fetish and a hyper-critical streak a mile wide, sits in glory for the sole purpose of hearing little non-corporeal magic faeries praising his very being or he'll squash them like a bug.

Yep, sounds like a guy to me.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, the problem there is that there are distinct phenomena (the cuts). Even if you don't understand that there is something more, there is at least 'something' to observe.

Granted -- which is why I had to propose that our three-dimensional space must be completely encompassed by his/her/its multi-dimensional being. Or we just haven't had the experience yet of making that observation. If our three dimensional reality is nothing but one of its dimensions, then how could we say that idea is impossible?

Of course there is no reason to believe that it is true, but that isn't the point. I'm not proposing this as even a likely possibility, only that it is not the case that god is impossible if you take a view like this. It would have implications for theology, of course.

Well, it is in this case. Invoking pseudo-scientific, or mathematical-sounding lingo is begging to have a definition picked apart. Using a mathematical definition to try to describe God is very problematic, because dimensionality is well-understood, but this definition is not. This is part of the challenge that Piggy is laying down. By the time you've fought through any definition, you've usually left a gaping hole.

Of course it begs to be taken apart -- that is the whole point of the thread. This is just one proposal for why the statement "god cannot exist" is potentially wrong and nothing more. Again, I don't believe this garbage, but the gauntlet was thrown down. I'm just playing by the rules. So far he hasn't touched this one yet.

I agree with you that the word 'cannot,' is not tenable, simply because Piggy has failed to demonstrate that imaginary things like magic, and spooks and groxaplox 'cannot' exist. I buy Skeptigirl's contention that a universe with this garbage is not a stable (in so far as physical phenomena go) universe, but there's no proof that the other is not the truth! We have never seen evidence of a Great Deceiver, and I'm likely to grow into my toilet seat if I spend my time in the bathroom afraid of one, but there is no proof.

The untenability of 'cannot' was my only reason to enter this discussion. I don't have any other interest in it -- except for this issue of 'conceivability', since it might put the quash on the whole idea of magic. If magic is not properly conceivable (whatever that means), then the idea of a 'magical god' goes out the window too.


...

Why do I care, and why am I continuing to make patently absurd points? I want very much to know what we know and to a lesser extent, what we are able to know.

It's knowledge which is the best tool in the fight against superstition, not statements which appear to people (like a couple in this thread), as if their arguments are being simply dismissed.

To say, the observable universe is as observationally consistent with the non-existence of a meaningful God, as one with, is much more damning and problematic to the theist position than assertions that God cannot exist. It's why there's a perceived conflict between science and religion, in the first place! Some are only too aware of where physical evidence could potentially lead...

I fully agree. And, again, that is why I brought up the issue of conceivability. This isn't my idea -- I've taken it from others -- but is it possible that much of our philosophical tradition is just wrong? What if the whole idea of god as magic (and dualism) is not even logically possible because it violates other rules? What if the knowable is all we have to work with? Our imaginations might be fine for stories, but perhaps it has no role in philosophical investigation -- and that is directly in line with Piggy's purposes.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But in Flatland, there is evidence which is not explicable given the limited viewing capability. We have that issue with 11 dimensional leaky gravity string theories. And despite the claims there is no evidence, there are things we observe and need an explanation for.

With god beliefs, there is no evidence. We have invisible pink unicorns. There is no evidence upon which to hypothesize god. Why should we entertain the idea invisible pink unicorns could exist? Remember also, the evidence we do have supports the conclusion god beliefs are inventions of human imagination. And that evidence is overwhelming.

I fully agree, but that is not the challenge that Piggy threw down at the beginning. His challenge was that god cannot exist. A multidimensional entity (that must include our entire third dimensional space -- that's why we can't see it, it's just the three dimensions of space to us) seems to satisfy the challenge. That it is unfalsifiable is beside the point to the challenge. If that sort of entity can exist, then it is not the case that god cannot exist.

As to the fact that god beliefs are inventions of human imagination, of course, but that is not what is at issue here. That is a separate issue -- though obviously one that has lead us all to reject theism -- and one with which all thoughtful believers must deal. Unless they spend time thinking about Nietzche, Freud and Marx they are just fooling themselves. I have heard of a few who still believe after doing so, but I think they are rare.

 

[Senex]

I have a question for the radical atheist, Piggy...

Could a God make a rock that is so heavy, that no one in the universe, including God him/herself, can lift?

Now I'm not interested in any of your atheistic mumbo-jumbo abstract philosophical musings on the nature of questions, but only in the empirical reality of a "yes" or "no" answer.

Mention the word fallacy and I'll give you a fallacy alright, right after I steal your glasses and make my own god-fearing fire.