Ask a Radical Atheist

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, Claus keeps a little file of the times he's admitted he was wrong. Let me preempt him (and win Skeptigirl's prize) here.

Occasionally he has admitted getting a statistic wrong. Or a name. If you're looking for examples where he admitted his reasoning was wrong, you won't find them in those links.

I am really amazed at this list. But I shouldn't be. I have tried my best to present anything to Claus he will actually discuss. But as logical and clear as I present a point or an issue, he simply ignores it.

I have added a clarification to my challenge. But you do win the original contest. So I'm off to start a new thread. Hopefully in addition, I shall modify the personal nature of it by asking for everyone to submit a post where they actually conceded a point based on evidence presented by another or evidence found while researching something supporting their original position. It will take me a while to find a post of mine fitting the bill though I know I have done so on a number of occasions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The funny thing is that there are a lot of definitions of God, and they're all very easy to disbelieve, because they make no sense. However that just leaves you with a pile of disbelieved definitions.

That leaves you where I am, atheist-agnostic.

Aggregating all the definitions, and attempting to steamroll them into all future definitions so you arrive at positive atheism doesn't seem logical to me.

(P.S. I see you're still clicking the read button)

The way I see it, the god definition is not so random. In fact, there is a very clear pattern. The more science disproves aspects of god beliefs, the more the definition of god shrinks.

God controls weather and crops. Science discovers what really underlies the weather and agriculture production. Science is successful consistently predicting the weather and producing better and better crop yields. Praying, performing rituals, blood sacrifices, etc. do not consistently improve crop yields. Praying, performing rituals, blood sacrifices, etc. does nothing to extend lives and end suffering. Advances in medical science extends lives and eases suffering. The Bible claims pain in childbirth is punishment for Eve's original sin. Accepting Jesus is supposed to result in forgiveness of that sin. Accepting Jesus does nothing to lessen the pain of childbirth. Science develops anesthesia and eases the pain of childbirth 2,000 years after Jesus supposedly lived.

One by one science provides a natural explanation for things previously attributed to gods by humans who didn't know any better. As each scientific revelation occurs, the definition of god adjusts. It was a parable, it was symbolic, a day really meant something else, we can't know the mind of God, God has a plan we just have to trust that. It is a faith based belief and cannot be compared to an evidence based belief.

Finally god believers have nothing left. If they have been ignoring the evidence and scientific discovery, god believers simply maintain a level of denial, wherever they choose to draw the line. If they are not ignoring the scientific evidence, they adjust the definition of god until they reach a definition of a god which is beyond scientific inquiry. If science refutes every god belief, move the goalpost outside of the boundary of the game.

Now you have a god which cannot be disproved. Despite the fact science has disproved every god belief to that point and despite the fact no god belief ever started out as some untestable entity. This god is untestable because this god does nothing within the natural world. Science at this point, cannot say what happened before the Big Bang because we have no way of observing that. Well then, the definition of god must be a god who started the Big Bang then quit interacting with the Universe. Science cannot test anything that is outside of the natural Universe. Well then, god must be something outside of the Universe.

Of course all the rest of the aspects of god beliefs must either change or simply not be put together with the new definition of god in the same conscious thought. In one thought, god makes its presence known. In a separate thought, god does not interact with the Universe. In one thought, god answers prayers. In a separate thought, god does not interact with the Universe. In one thought, god inspired the Bible. In a separate thought, god does not interact with the Universe. And on it goes.....

A definition of god which does interact with the Universe should be detectable. But a god which does not interact with the Universe should have had no way to make its presence known. Then there is that absurdity of claiming god must want us to believe without evidence. There is something about this "faith" we are supposed to accept as if that pleases god (at least the Christian god anyway). There is nothing in the Bible that says believing without evidence is some key thing. In fact, time and time again the Christian god has direct interactions with humans and performs miracle after miracle. Time and time again despite these fantastic things people don't do as they are told. But I digress...

Science continues to detect no miracles. In fact, science debunks all claims of miracles when the actual evidence is examined. So the definition of a god who performs miracles most certainly will not do. God must want people to believe without any evidence whatsoever. This is now defined as the thing god must want because there is no evidence. It does not say anything in the Bible about believing in God despite overwhelming evidence the Bible is a book of myths.

But no matter. People 'know in their hearts' that there is a god. Of course the reason some people 'know in their hearts' and others have no such magical thoughts is defined as God giving people free will. Again the god definition shifts to accommodate the evidence.

In the end we have a definition of a god who does nothing and the fact such a god would by definition, be unknown to the human species is conveniently not allowed to interfere with the new definition of an undetectable god. The fact no god belief in history was of an undetectable god until that evidence against god beliefs became overwhelmingly apparent there was nothing detectable is conveniently not allowed to interfere with the new definition of an undetectable god.

And that is how the new god definition came to be known. And God was pleased.

 

[articulett]

Amen

 

[CFLarsen]

Pardon, but you didn't ask for evidence he was ready to admit he was wrong. You asked for "anything in Piggy's posts here that he [is perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise], yes or no?

Same thing.

"But let us see if anyone can land a solid punch against radical atheism.".​

"There is no longer any room for God. Do you find any? I do not."​

"If there were a viable explanation for how a God or gods might exist, then the radical atheist position would be untenable."​

You "forget" this:

In fact, I go perhaps a bit farther than Mr. Adams in that I would not even use the word "opinion". By my reckoning, we know enough now to say definitively not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.

And what does he answer when I ask him where he entertains the idea that he could be wrong?

Wherever I happen to be.

I wasn't referring to this thread. I was referring to my life.

That's male bovine manure.

Did you present some evidence that unequivocally shows that he is wrong?

Did you?

Can you?

Yes or no?

It is obvious that he merely dismisses anything that contradicts him as not being "meaningful". See later.

Is it your opinion that if someone says they believe there is no God (as opposed to not believing in God) that they are not a skeptic?

It isn't a question of believing that there is no god or not. I do that, too - because I haven't seen any evidence of any god, and we have perfectly natural explanations for whatever god is claimed to be.

It is a question of saying that there cannot be a god, regardless of what happens. It isn't skepticism to merely brush arguments and evidence aside and call it not "meaningful".

Shermer described beautifully what a skeptic is:

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.
A Skeptical Manifesto

[short derail]I propose a contest. If anyone can find a single post by Claus among his 39,300+ posts where Claus clearly and plainly states he was wrong they win. Claus, you are included, perhaps you can save us the work.

I know of at least one discussion where I believe Piggy expressed willingness to reconsider his conclusion based on new information. That would be re-consideration of non-human primates learning human language.

You demand of me that I "clearly and plainly" state I am wrong, yet when you present your evidence that Piggy will admit to being wrong, it is your belief that he does.

That's not just slippery, that's dishonest.

I just want to add that I've seen Piggy cede points as well...

Claus--never.

But that's a point we really can't take seriously, can we? Because you have me on ignore, so how could you see where I admit to being wrong?

Claus,

It can be as hard talking to radical atheists as it is talking to religious fundamentalists, yes?

Unfortunately, yes. I'm not even sure they are all that much of radical atheists, because their argumentation is is more fundamentalist in nature. The only argument we hear is basically "God cannot exist - and I'm right!"

That's as blind as the religious fundamentalist who screams "God exists - and I'm right!"

Pardon my French, but that is complete b******t.

Your kneejerk response that all skeptics must always be open to new evidence for any and every proposition is mere dogma.

See Shermer's manifesto above.

All you have to do to change my mind is to demonstrate how I am mistaken.

You have utterly failed to do so.

Because you dismiss everything as not being "meaningful".

Fwiw, I see no point in you asking me any further questions either, since your questions thus far have been irrelevant and frivolous.

And not one of them could be meaningfully said to be God and to potentially exist.

Care to challenge me on that?

Then get off the pot and engage me.

Ayup. You merely dismiss everything as "irrelevant", "frivolous", and not being "meaningful".

Wait a minute, I'm confused. Earlier you said, "My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God." So no matter what someones particular definition of God is, you will apply your arguments to it and then you win and so the definition doesn't matter, yes? But then you say undefined ones don't matter either.

So it's a lose-lose situation for those who try to debate you, isn't it? If they have a definition, it doesn't matter. If they don't it doesn't matter. You've covered your ass pretty well, haven't you?

Precisely.

I have been advised that I need to clarify this. The error must be more than something banal. If it is merely a name or number or some other single fact that is incorrect, that is not sufficient. The post we are looking for is one in which a conclusion is changed based on the information presented by another person. That is what Claus is asking of Piggy, to be open to changing a conclusion should convincing evidence be presented.

This definitely needs a new thread since it is too far off topic to be included in this one. I shall start one.

How dishonest of you. Once you discover that I have admitted to being wrong, you try to "clarify". But this is not "clarifying", that's a fundamental change of your little challenge.

I know what you are arguing. And I can see you have no basis for your argument.

Your underlying premise is wrong. That premise is, because we don't see whatever it is you expect to see, it means something. But that is a false conclusion and is not a basis upon which we can conclude something about Piggy's willingness to change his conclusion about a subject. I think we can conclude, however, that as intelligent as Piggy is, he could not have gotten there without a willingness to learn new things and adapt conclusions to new information.

Claus: I don't see X in Piggy's post.
Skeptigirl: There is no reason X should be in Piggy's post.

You are doing the exact same thing as Piggy now: Boil everything down to opinion, and then declare that you are right.

But now that you mention it, just where in your own posts can we find, "anything in [your] responses in this thread that indicates that [you are] prepared to admit that [you] could be wrong"?

Because I'm a skeptic. I accept contrary evidence. Read Shermer's manifesto. Understand what it means being a skeptic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Amen

So nominate it already. I was particularly proud of that one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are having trouble addressing a couple concepts, Claus.

You demand of me that I "clearly and plainly" state I am wrong, yet when you present your evidence that Piggy will admit to being wrong, it is your belief that he does.

In 39,000 posts, Claus, not in every single thread. You are making the absurd claim that if you do not see something in a single thread that is the same as me asking to see it somewhere within 39,000 posts!

Questioning an underlying premise is not, "Boil[ing] everything down to opinion".

I do indeed have an opinion. You made a statement that if you did not see evidence of something in this thread, you could draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence. No, you can't draw the conclusion you want to draw from the evidence you are proposing. It just doesn't follow.

Second issue is your claim that conceding you had a name wrong or a statistic wrong is qualitatively the same as conceding you had a conclusion wrong. No it isn't. If as you say

Because I'm a skeptic. I accept contrary evidence. Read Shermer's manifesto. Understand what it means being a skeptic.

then you ought to be able to show us a post where you changed a conclusion based on new evidence presented in a discussion. Showing us you conceded getting a fact wrong, be it a name or some other tidbit, is not in any way the same as showing us a post where you actually changed your previous conclusion about something. If you don't know the difference then perhaps I can discuss it further with you and that can be the first thing you actually learn from someone else in the forum.

If you cannot show us that you actually changed a conclusion in 39,000 posts then I have no choice but to conclude you are merely mouthing the words that you accept contrary evidence.

 

[Kahalachan]

But I've decided not to fight any battle, my friend.

I'm just answering questions, you see.

But I'm very aware of this rhetorical trick which I refer to as "appealing to the cookie jar".

The theists have this cookie jar into which anyone can drop any definition of "God" or "god" they please. When any particular definition runs afoul (which they all must do, and perhaps someone will ask me about that issue at some point) they point to this cookie jar and cry, "Yes, but there are an infinite number of possible other definitions in that cookie jar, and you can't disprove all of them!"

But the problem there is that you either have a claim or you do not.

And an infinitely plastic definition is no claim at all, since it has no agreed-upon qualities. It is a non-claim.

You cannot simply abandon your claim for a non-claim and somehow believe you have defended your point. (And I mean "you" here in the British sense of "one", not you in particular.)

The appeal to the cookie jar is an admission of failure per se.

To illustrate, let's take the example of flogiston. When the discovery of oxygen supplanted the debunked flogiston hypothesis, suppose the proponents of flogiston had said, "Well, actually, although everything we claimed about flogiston has proven untrue, and there is, in fact, a perfectly valid theory which accounts for all its supposed attributes, we reserve the right to redefine flogiston in any way we see fit, even in ways that contradict everything we've ever said, therefore you cannot say that flogiston doesn't exist".

This would be obvious nonsense to everyone.

And it's equally nonsense when applied to God.

The appeal to the cookie jar is a transparent and invalid rhetorical trick.

You either make a claim or you do not.

The appeal to the cookie jar is a non-claim.

I would have to disagree. Some people may be Ad Hoc to avoid being wrong, but some people may see a logical contradiction of their god as a chance to refine their understanding of that which they believe in.

Some may be humble enough to say "I could be wrong" so there might be another god who doesn't contradict itself.

I used to be deist and I eventually got to the point where I simply believed in an extra-universal intelligence similar to accepting extra-terrestrial intelligence. I also believed in a god who cared but was hands off and that bad things were allowed to happen cause god would infinitely reward in the afterlife and there was no eternal hell.

Both gods would be impossible to disprove as of now.

The way to disprove the first would be to disprove there is nothing outside of this universe.

You can't go the Epicuran riddle with the latter, cause if god infinitely is benevolent in the afterlife, that would be like taking 40 cents out of your bank account and then depositing an infinite amount of money. There's no loss.

 

[dglas]

Grrrr. Shermer pisses me off!

 

[CFLarsen]

You are having trouble addressing a couple concepts, Claus.

In 39,000 posts, Claus, not in every single thread. You are making the absurd claim that if you do not see something in a single thread that is the same as me asking to see it somewhere within 39,000 posts!

This is the thread that Piggy started, and invited people to "ask a radical atheist" and be a "punching bag of sorts".

It is clear that Piggy can't show any evidence that he is prepared to admit he is wrong in this thread.

It is also clear that Piggy can't show any evidence that he is prepared to admit he is wrong in any thread.

Questioning an underlying premise is not, "Boil[ing] everything down to opinion".

I do indeed have an opinion. You made a statement that if you did not see evidence of something in this thread, you could draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence. No, you can't draw the conclusion you want to draw from the evidence you are proposing. It just doesn't follow.

Yes, we can. If he can't show evidence in this thread, then that evidence does not exist in this thread.

Second issue is your claim that conceding you had a name wrong or a statistic wrong is qualitatively the same as conceding you had a conclusion wrong. No it isn't. If as you saythen you ought to be able to show us a post where you changed a conclusion based on new evidence presented in a discussion. Showing us you conceded getting a fact wrong, be it a name or some other tidbit, is not in any way the same as showing us a post where you actually changed your previous conclusion about something. If you don't know the difference then perhaps I can discuss it further with you and that can be the first thing you actually learn from someone else in the forum.

If you cannot show us that you actually changed a conclusion in 39,000 posts then I have no choice but to conclude you are merely mouthing the words that you accept contrary evidence.

I am not playing in a field where you move the goalposts all the time.

First, you simply couldn't imagine that I had ever admitted to being wrong.

Then, after Tricky showed you wrong, you moved the goalposts: Now, it has to be something other than the evidence I posted in another thread. And if I do provide that evidence, you'll simply move the goalposts one more time.

You are a fraud, pure and simple.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No moved goal post, Claus. Tricky was declared the winner and I started a whole new game with revised rules because the earlier rules had a flaw. Of course you won't play, you can't. In 39,000 + posts you have probably never once admitted you had drawn the wrong conclusion.

And you can call me names all you want. It would be falling on deaf ears. I'm pretty confident that most people with a basic command of the English language understand the qualitative difference between admitting a factual error and admitting a conclusion is in error.

And once again, your underlying premise remains wrong. There is no reason anyone needs to show evidence they are prepared to change their mind if the evidence is forthcoming. It is ludicrous premise. It doesn't matter how long the thread is or who started it. One doesn't need to repeat such statements in some kind of 'Claus said so' ritual.

However, I must point out to you, Piggy clarified he would change his mind if evidence was forthcoming and you called him a liar. Now you really have a dilemma. First you complain he didn't present some ritual statement you claim he should have and when he correct this deficiency just for you, you reject the correction. That would of course make your claim that Piggy "show any evidence that he is prepared to admit he is wrong in this thread", because you have now said that no evidence can be sufficient.

So just how is Piggy supposed to satisfy your need?

 

[Piggy]

Piggy,

In the end, it doesn't matter what YOU believe, what matters to other individuals is what THEY believe

Actually, since this thread is "Ask a Radical Atheist" and I'm the Radical Atheist doing the answering, then on this thread, it actually does matter what I believe.

If you don't care what I think, you're simply on the wrong thread.

 

[Piggy]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. Earlier you said, "My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God." So no matter what someones particular definition of God is, you will apply your arguments to it and then you win and so the definition doesn't matter, yes? But then you say undefined ones don't matter either.

So it's a lose-lose situation for those who try to debate you, isn't it? If they have a definition, it doesn't matter. If they don't it doesn't matter. You've covered your ass pretty well, haven't you?

You seem to think this is some sort of trick.

But it's not, of course -- it's a fundamental problem with God theory.

Because all possible definitions of God are fatally flawed, some theists resort to the ploy of refusing to define the term at all (or in any meaningful way).

So, yes, no matter how anyone defines God, I (or anyone else) can apply reasonable scrutiny to the definition, and upon examination the definition will fail to describe a God which can be said to potentially exist. And if someone fails to define God, they have made no claim to begin with.

This is not some treachery on my part. It is a fatal flaw in God-theory.

 

[Piggy]

I note a continuing lack of participation on your part in locating a suitable definition. While I'm sure its not exactly your sole job to define it, your lack of interest renders this equivalent to making an entire thread that, to essentially says:

"I am very very sure I don't believe in something, but I'm not quite sure what it is I'm disbelieving." Not the most stellar argument that a rational thought process is going on, I have to admit.

I could provide any number of definitions -- and so can anyone else. These are readily available.

If anyone wants to ask "Why do you think God-X could not possibly exist?", they're free to.

But no, I'm not going to pick a definition and knock it down. If I do that, I'll only meet a chorus of "Strawman! That's not the only definition of God!"

 

[Piggy]

See Shermer's manifesto above.



Because you dismiss everything as not being "meaningful".

Shermer is not my guru. I do not sit at his lotus feet and receive his wisdom.

I agree with Asimov on this point -- some things we do know, and that's that. We do not need to be "open to new evidence" that 2 and 2 do not equal 4 in everyday life. They do, and always will.

We do not need to be open to any "new evidence" that heliocentrism is wrong and geocentrism is right. Or that leprechauns actually keep pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Or that unicorns grant wishes to anyone who can capture them.

Your claim that we must always be open to new evidence is a mere dodge. It is dogma, not a carefully considered position relative to a particular point in question. You have accepted it whole-hog, and then you go about applying it to any and every situation regardless of the facts. That's dogma, plain and simple.

As for the issue of some definitions of God being meaningless, you are wrong to say that this is a mere "dismissal" on my part.

I have explained which sorts of definitions of God are meaningless and why. That's not just a brush-off.

 

[Piggy]

I would have to disagree. Some people may be Ad Hoc to avoid being wrong, but some people may see a logical contradiction of their god as a chance to refine their understanding of that which they believe in.

I think we need to use Gould's tactic here of distinguishing between changes in theory which expand or correct or enhance our understanding of it, on the one hand, and changes which destroy it, on the other.

In the case of evolution, discoveries since Darwin have modified the theory, but the pillars on which it rests stand firm -- e.g., speciation by natural selection.

In the case of God theory, all the pillars have been soundly knocked out from under it. What remains are unsupported theories (old-school theories which are simply contrary to fact) or theories so modified that they no longer describe a God which can be distinguished from not-God (God is love, God is nature) or theories devoid of all qualities whatsoever (maybe God exists on a higher plane of reality, God is utterly beyond our comprehension so we cann't say anything definitive about Him, etc.).

My original discussion of the cookie jar was a bit more narrow than that, though. I was referring to an oft-used rhetorical ploy whereby a theistic argument, having failed, is then replaced with this: "But you STILL can't say there's no God because there are an infinite number of possible definitions and you couldn't possibly disprove all of them."

That's the appeal to the cookie jar.

I compare it to abandoning the field, stopping the clock, then claiming your team cannot really be defeated because the game will never end.

But the appeal to the cookie jar is not a victory, when you examine it.

By transitioning from a concrete claim to that appeal, a theist is abandoning an actual claim in favor of an appeal to an entity so plastic that it allows any definition anyone might dream up. And such an entity is, for all intents and purposes, undefined. And claims about undefined entities are non-claims, which no rational person can reasonably be asked to consider seriously.

 

[CFLarsen]

Shermer is not my guru. I do not sit at his lotus feet and receive his wisdom.

I didn't post it because it was Shermer. I posted it because he expresses what skepticism is well.

I agree with Asimov on this point -- some things we do know, and that's that. We do not need to be "open to new evidence" that 2 and 2 do not equal 4 in everyday life. They do, and always will.

We do not need to be open to any "new evidence" that heliocentrism is wrong and geocentrism is right. Or that leprechauns actually keep pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Or that unicorns grant wishes to anyone who can capture them.

Your claim that we must always be open to new evidence is a mere dodge. It is dogma, not a carefully considered position relative to a particular point in question. You have accepted it whole-hog, and then you go about applying it to any and every situation regardless of the facts. That's dogma, plain and simple.

That's a very narrowminded approach. Remember this little thing that Einstein discovered? Relativity and that stuff? That the everyday laws of physics suddenly were not so cut-in-stone as people once had thought?

That's why skepticism is so strong: It always opens up for whole new explanations - if the evidence is there.

You seem to think this is some sort of trick.

But it's not, of course -- it's a fundamental problem with God theory.

Because all possible definitions of God are fatally flawed, some theists resort to the ploy of refusing to define the term at all (or in any meaningful way).

So, yes, no matter how anyone defines God, I (or anyone else) can apply reasonable scrutiny to the definition, and upon examination the definition will fail to describe a God which can be said to potentially exist. And if someone fails to define God, they have made no claim to begin with.

This is not some treachery on my part. It is a fatal flaw in God-theory.

So, how can you be proved wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

No moved goal post, Claus. Tricky was declared the winner and I started a whole new game with revised rules because the earlier rules had a flaw.

Bull.

Of course you won't play, you can't. In 39,000 + posts you have probably never once admitted you had drawn the wrong conclusion.

Prove it.

And you can call me names all you want. It would be falling on deaf ears. I'm pretty confident that most people with a basic command of the English language understand the qualitative difference between admitting a factual error and admitting a conclusion is in error.

That's now what you originally wanted. You didn't think I had admitted errors, and when you found out that I had, it suddenly turned into me not admitting an erroneous conclusion.

That's fraud.

And once again, your underlying premise remains wrong. There is no reason anyone needs to show evidence they are prepared to change their mind if the evidence is forthcoming. It is ludicrous premise. It doesn't matter how long the thread is or who started it. One doesn't need to repeat such statements in some kind of 'Claus said so' ritual.

And yet, you demand that of me? You are not just a fraud, you are also a hypocrite.

However, I must point out to you, Piggy clarified he would change his mind if evidence was forthcoming and you called him a liar. Now you really have a dilemma. First you complain he didn't present some ritual statement you claim he should have and when he correct this deficiency just for you, you reject the correction. That would of course make your claim that Piggy "show any evidence that he is prepared to admit he is wrong in this thread", because you have now said that no evidence can be sufficient.

No, I haven't.

So just how is Piggy supposed to satisfy your need?

It isn't my need. He opened this thread and asked for questions.

 

[Piggy]

Fwiw, of course I've been wrong on this forum.

Just off the top of my head....

In my language myth thread, I recall someone pointed out that in some cases reference works do preserve the agreed-upon definition of a term (for certain terms, such as technical language, which require exactitude) so I had to drop my original claim on that point.

In a thread about free will, I changed a position during the course of the discussion because my original position was simply untenable in the light of what others were saying.

In the dieting thread I made a couple of statements about high fructose corn syrup which were wrong -- in one case I had confused, in my memory, a reference to HFCS w/ a reference to trans-fat, and in the other case the research from 2005 which I recalled had subsequently been overturned by research published in 2007.

Of course, in this thread, and on other threads on the topic of God and atheism, I've freely admitted that it only takes one valid definition of God which describes something that could possibly exist, and my "strong atheist" position falls. However, I've explained why I believe no such definitions are possible, and so far, no successful challenge to that has been presented, here or elsewhere.

My objection to the "new evidence" argument is specifically to the argument which fails to present any evidence, but rather makes a generic appeal to potential "new evidence" without providing any. That simply doesn't wash, if reason demonstrates -- as it does in this case -- that the theory is thoroughly debunked per se.

 

[Piggy]

Remember this little thing that Einstein discovered? Relativity and that stuff? That the everyday laws of physics suddenly were not so cut-in-stone as people once had thought?

That's why skepticism is so strong: It always opens up for whole new explanations - if the evidence is there.

I'm quite aware of Einstein.

But what you're doing is pointing to other cases and insisting -- without explaining why -- that this case must be similar.

It is not.

The magical, supernatural world-view is dead. We are not going back to it, any more than we're going back to belief in Zeus, a flat earth, sympathetic magic, or geocentrism. God theory belongs on the same ash-heap as those.

So, how can you be proved wrong?

I don't believe I can. I've looked at it every which way I can think of, and the conclusion appears iron clad to me. However, I've been wrong before. There may be things I've overlooked. All it takes is for someone to show where my thinking is flawed or to provide a valid definition of God which can be said to possibly exist.

So far, however, I haven't met with any objections or cases which hold water.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because all possible definitions of God are fatally flawed, some theists resort to the ploy of refusing to define the term at all (or in any meaningful way).

So, yes, no matter how anyone defines God, I (or anyone else) can apply reasonable scrutiny to the definition, and upon examination the definition will fail to describe a God which can be said to potentially exist. And if someone fails to define God, they have made no claim to begin with.

This is not some treachery on my part. It is a fatal flaw in God-theory.

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.