Ask a Radical Atheist

[Vincent Vega]

Where?

Where would this all-knowing, all-powerful God be?

That's your argument? I am dissapointed. Because you can't sense it it can't exist?

Outside the pond obviously, to continue the fish analogy. One can only hope to know within the limits of their own experience.

 

[Piggy]

What if God was something that we simply haven't been able to detect yet?

What if God was what, exactly, that we haven't been able to detect yet?

Claims about entirely undefined entities are not claims at all.

It's like my claiming that a woogle exists. When you ask what it is, I say I have no clue, it's something we might run across one day, that's all.

This would be mere silliness.

It's claiming that your team cannot be defeated because you have no team.

Think about X-rays. We had no idea that they existed, until they were detected. Couldn't the same be said for god?

No. God is not something we have no idea about. God is an ancient concept, and there's no use pretending it might be something entirely different.

 

[Piggy]

Which god?

Any God. You name it.

Are you claiming that every theist believe in the same god?

Nope.

if I say: "My god is the principle behind nature" does that makes me a believer in god?

All it makes you is a sloppy thinker.

Or do you believe that you have to clearly state that because any kind of phrasing that involves god implies that you believe in the same god others believe?

Nope.

Say, for instance, that I talk to a Mormon, and he states "I'm convinced about the existence of god". Does this predisposes him to believe than when others talk about god... they are "really" talking about his god?

Nope.

(for me this is your posture, denying god is denying your gods, not every other possible god).

Wrong again. I've said this very clearly. There is no possible definition of God which is valid (i.e. not mere humpty-dumptyism, or empty, or nonsense, or equivalent to not-God) which can be meaningfully said to possibly exist.

 

[GreyICE]

That's humpty-dumptyism. If God is defined as potentially a computer program, then it's not God, or at least, it's a God which (again) is indistinguishable from not-God.

A 'computer' with the capacity to idly exceed the thinking capacity of the entire human race while successfully simulating an entire universe bears no relationship to the adding machine you're typing on. It would be so far beyond merely sentient that we lack words to describe it. Not-God appears indistinguishable from God.

It's also an invocation of the Great Deceiver trope, which has problems I've mentioned above.

Hmm? The Great Deceiver trope only has validity if we assume God is benevolent. Assuming an indifferent or malevolent God, there appears to be no real problem with God playing with humanity, besides the fact that we really, really, really hope it isn't happening.

The problem is that we don't appear to be pinning down the definition here. You keep stating that God-like entities would be indistinguishable from not-God. Is there, or is there not a meaning to the word? Can we make the definition 'something that possesses complete power over the entire universe and knows everything that occurs within it' or is that not acceptable.

Also note that God may be a particularly ancient concept, but that does NOT mean it is well-defined. Lightning, as a word, existed long before they had a real definition for what it was, beyond 'flash of loud destructive light in the sky'

 

[Tricky]

Any God. You name it.

Multivac.

 

[Piggy]

Is the phrase, "cannot be meaningfully said to exist," equivalent to, "cannot exist?"

The first seems to me to be saying that we cannot make a positive assertion, the second is a negtive assertion. Am I correct?

You might think of the former as a subset of the latter.

The reason God cannot exist is that the entire framework upon which the concept of God or gods rested -- the mythic, supernatural worldview -- has collapsed, and has been replaced by a naturalistic worldview which is now the only game in town.

The old views of God still persist, but they are clearly contrary to fact, so we may dispense easily with them.

Yet the urge to believe in God, as well as the strong cultural traditions of belief, persist even among those who are aware of this fact.

So all sorts of dodges and subterfuges arise to attempt to prop up the dead theory.

These include:

The appeal to the cookie jar.

Humpty-dumptyism.

Inventing entirely imaginary (unanchored) ad hoc realms devoid of qualities which serve only to house God.

Appealing to a future definition (one of the most bizarre ploys in the bag).

Defining God as equivalent to not-God.

Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".

So there is a subset of false arguments for God which rest upon rendering the statement "God exists" non-meaningful.

 

[Piggy]

That would depend on how we measure it.

What shape is the Earth in the 4th dimension? The 5th, 6th, etc?

No, it would not, because frisbees and beach balls are not hyperdimensional objects.

Science as we know it today will never change?

What about evolution?

Since I haven't made any such claim or addressed evolution, I fail to see the point of these questions.

 

[Damien Evans]

Of course you are!! Just didn't know you wanted to be my friend

Ah. Well, now you do.

 

[Piggy]

That's your argument? I am dissapointed. Because you can't sense it it can't exist?

No, I'm seriously asking you that question.

Where do you propose such a thing would exist?

I am not claiming that everything we don't currently perceive must not exist.

Now, where would such a thing supposedly exist?

 

[Apathia]

Oddly enough, I don't think "atheist mystic" must necessarily be oxymoronic, but in practice it probably always is.

Yes, once it gets translated into metaphysical language, it soon becomes moronic.

 

[godofpie]

If anyone would like to prove Piggy wrong I'm happy to become your God. I do require a tithe of 10% of your earnings for the rest of your life. (Given the current financial situation in the USA for USA worshippers this has to be in Euros or gold not USA dollars.)

I promise I will be a more responsive God than the one with the long white beard that lives above the clouds and I will not demand the sacrifice of your first born - unless they repeatedly kick the back of my seat on a transatlantic flight.

I've got dibs on Darat. Piggy, I have never met Darat. I assume he exists because he posts here and he leads me to believe he is omnipotent and ambivalent which is exactly the same g.o.d.(good orderly direction) I found in AA. Since I started reading this forum especially the agnostic/atheist posts I have started to ask myself do I really need a g.o.d. to stay sober. My relationship with my g.o.d. is very simple. I say a prayer every night (not on my knees, just in bed and eyes closed) thanking g.o.d. for keeping me sober and asking that his/hers/they/its will be done in my life, not mine. All I can tell you is that I feel better when I say the prayer than when I don't. So, even though I kind of feel like a hypocrite, I am going to continue to pray. G.o.d. doesn't have to exist in a tangible sense to be beneficial to me. Could you concede that g.o.d. can exist as a thought?

 

[Piggy]

Could you concede that g.o.d. can exist as a thought?

This is another case of confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself.

Your thoughts did not create the universe or do any of the things attributed to God by those who believe in God.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Piggy:

Do you believe in love? What scientific evidence would you need to believe someone loves you? Would you also accept other evidence? If so, what kind? How much evidence do you need before you believe someone loves you?

NOTE: Yes - I know it's tempting to give a silly answer (with plenty of euphemisms), but I'm really hoping for a serious answer.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Piggy:

This is a seperate question and I didn't want it associated with the first one.

Do you think certain types of beliefs are made based on probabilities? Do you think religious beliefs are the same way - or different?

 

[Piggy]

Do you believe in love? What scientific evidence would you need to believe someone loves you? Would you also accept other evidence? If so, what kind? How much evidence do you need before you believe it?

Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.

But what does that have to do with God?

 

[Piggy]

Do you think certain types of beliefs are made based on probabilities? Do you think religious beliefs are the same way - or different?

I'm afraid I don't understand you.

When I play poker, I make all sorts of judgments based on probabilities.

But again, what does this have to do with God?

Do I think religious beliefs are similar or different from what, exactly?

 

[GreyICE]

Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".

Does this come in English?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.

I was wondering what evidence you use to come to those conclusions? What about love for you?

But what does that have to do with God?

You only want God questions?

OK - is your belief about God based on probabilities? So that - currently you'd say there is no God because there is a 0% chance, or maybe a 5% chance He's there? So, in other words, it's so low - you've decided that there is no God. And if so, what percentage of probability do you need before you believe He's there?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm afraid I don't understand you.

When I play poker, I make all sorts of judgments based on probabilities.

But again, what does this have to do with God?

Do I think religious beliefs are similar or different from what, exactly?

Yeah - reading it - it doesn't make much sense. Sorry. I think I crossed some thoughts there.

Do you have any beliefs that you have that you've made based on probabilities?

 

[-Fran-]

Ah. Well, now you do.

Aaaww