Ask a Radical Atheist

[Ichneumonwasp]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I get the feeling that you are making one strong claim -- "Magic is not logically possible." That is probably true. We tend to use 'logically possible' to mean, 'if I can think it, it must be logically possible', but we are then stuck with this problem -- 'think it, how?'. can we really conceive of magic or do we just kind of fake it and have some vague notion of a magical entity or magical occurrence? What does it mean to conceive of something?

 

[calebprime]

I'll play.

Piggy, there are two tiny doors in the back of my impregnable fortress of Atheism.

In the future, perhaps humans or human/computer hybrids will evolve greater and greater intelligence, and with this, greater and greater powers, to the point where we would become God-like. We could do all the tricks attributed to God, including impressing the **** out of the hominids on Mizar 5. Would we be God, at least to less advanced civilizations?

The universe got started somehow. It's all very well to say that it's meaningless to ask what happened before the Big Bang, because time didn't exist as we know it. But, what got everything started? If this is a complete mystery, doesn't it leave room for a Universe-Maker--about which we can say nothing, but which still fills us with awe?

If the very ground of our being is uncertain, and our future unclear but potentially without limit, doesn't this force us to be agnostic?

Obviously, I don't get from there to going to church on Sunday...I'm just askin', and now I'm gonna eat some bacon...

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

If you are aware of Einstein's discoveries, then you should acknowledge that our scientific world-view is bound to be changed dramatically in the future.

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.

But you merely reject arguments as not "meaningful". You don't refute them.

You are not a radical atheist. You are a fundamentalist atheist.

 

[Jekyll]

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?

Actually it's a lose-lose-lose scenario.
Either your claim about god is:

1)Incoherent and self contradictory, in which case you're by definition wrong.

2)Vacant ~Either god is love, or god is the idea of god, or god moves in such mysterious ways that they are indistinguishable from him doing nothing. In this case you've managed to invent a new concept to go with a word, but one that tells us nothing about the world.

3)Just plain wrong ~ You've stepped up to the plate and tried to tell us something meaningful about the world. The existence of God implies X, where X is something you couldn't get to without God. Claims like; "Armageddon is coming!" or "I will heal this man through faith alone!" . Unfortunately, only complete nutjubs go out on a limb like this, and they're invariably wrong.

Now there is always a hypothetical fourth option that you'll manage to say something which is both meaningful, correct and dependant on the existence of god. But that's never happened before and I don't see it happening today.

@Ichneumonwasp "God is the universe" is a vacant claim, or what Piggy calls a non-statement.

 

[Piggy]

There is a fundamental split in God definitions....

Is there a question for me in there somewhere?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is there a question for me in there somewhere?

I'll take Piggy for $300, Alex.
How can you say that all definitions of god are impossible when there are two fundamentally different definitions of god, only one of which is amenable to your analysis?

Yes, the Western view of God as a magical being who is separate from creation doesn't play out well when critically examined, but the best you can say about the Eastern view is "OK, that's fine, but I don't have to worry about it." It's OK to answer that way, but it doesn't disprove the eastern view of god, which is possible.

 

[Piggy]

In the future, perhaps humans or human/computer hybrids will evolve greater and greater intelligence, and with this, greater and greater powers, to the point where we would become God-like. We could do all the tricks attributed to God, including impressing the **** out of the hominids on Mizar 5. Would we be God, at least to less advanced civilizations?

Let's stay with the actual world. If you propose that God is such a thing, perhaps you can explain how this God can accomplish feats in this world without any detectable energetic trace.

The universe got started somehow. It's all very well to say that it's meaningless to ask what happened before the Big Bang, because time didn't exist as we know it. But, what got everything started? If this is a complete mystery, doesn't it leave room for a Universe-Maker--about which we can say nothing, but which still fills us with awe?

It may not actually be meaningless to ask what happened before the Big Bang, if we consider the Big Bang as an effect with a cause and define "before" in those terms, rather than in terms of this universe's timeline.

But in any case, God is not just any ol' universe-maker you care to imagine. A collision of p-branes ain't God.

If the very ground of our being is uncertain, and our future unclear but potentially without limit, doesn't this force us to be agnostic?

No. The worldview which included God has been thoroughly debunked and replaced. The non-supernatural model is the only one making any advances. It has won.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that God will suddenly pop back into the picture at some point.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Actually it's a lose-lose-lose scenario.
Either your claim about god is:

1)Incoherent and self contradictory, in which case you're by definition wrong.

2)Vacant ~Either god is love, or god is the idea of god, or god moves in such mysterious ways that they are indistinguishable from him doing nothing. In this case you've managed to invent a new concept to go with a word, but one that tells us nothing about the world.

3)Just plain wrong ~ You've stepped up to the plate and tried to tell us something meaningful about the world. The existence of God implies X, where X is something you couldn't get to without God. Claims like; "Armageddon is coming!" or "I will heal this man through faith alone!" . Unfortunately, only complete nutjubs go out on a limb like this, and they're invariably wrong.

Now there is always a hypothetical fourth option that you'll manage to say something which is both meaningful, correct and dependant on the existence of god. But that's never happened before and I don't see it happening today.

@Ichneumonwasp "God is the universe" is a vacant claim, or what Piggy calls a non-statement.

Everyone keeps saying that this is a new definition of god. But it isn't. These are very old definitions of god in other traditions.

Vacant or not, it is a venerable view of God.

I cannot see it as a non-statement. It represents a particular relation to this 'object' -- the universe.

 

[Piggy]

Is it really too much of a burden for you to follow this thread's format and ask questions rather than attempting to engage in chat?

I would very much appreciate it if you'd stick to the "Ask a..." format here, because from prior experience I know that freewheeling discussions on this topic become impossible to keep up with.

However, I'll address these comments.

If you are aware of Einstein's discoveries, then you should acknowledge that our scientific world-view is bound to be changed dramatically in the future.

You need to explain why this is relevant.

Some ideas are false. We know they're false. There aren't any unicorns and cannot be any unicorns because magic is baloney.

So merely pointing to the fact that our understanding of the world changes... this is not sufficient to address the question at hand.

But you merely reject arguments as not "meaningful". You don't refute them.

Meaningless points need no refutation.

I'll say it again: Any definition of God which requires us to accept conditions under which "exist" and "not exist" are indistinguishable, or "real" and "not real" are indistinguishable, or "God" and "not God" are indistinguishable -- these are meaningless claims.

I've described scenarios in which this is the case.

Those types of claims do not deserve serious consideration, because it is unreasonable for anyone to demand that anyone admit that "God exists" may be true if-and-only-if the terms "God" and "exists" are rendered indistinguishable from their opposites.

 

[Piggy]

I'll take Piggy for $300, Alex.
How can you say that all definitions of god are impossible when there are two fundamentally different definitions of god, only one of which is amenable to your analysis?

Yes, the Western view of God as a magical being who is separate from creation doesn't play out well when critically examined, but the best you can say about the Eastern view is "OK, that's fine, but I don't have to worry about it." It's OK to answer that way, but it doesn't disprove the eastern view of god, which is possible.

Having been a Taoist and a Buddhist, I'll have to disagree with you on this point.

Their gods, too, all dissolve in exactly the same way.

Popular Taoism and Buddhism are rife with gods who intervene, grant wishes, perform miracles, appear to humans, and such. These are just as phony as ancient and modern Western gods who do the same things, for the same reasons.

Intellectual Taoism and Buddhism have done precisely the same thing that Western spiritualism has done, and defined their gods in such ways as to render them empty.

If you know of an Eastern definition of God which can be reasonably claimed to possibly exist, by all means, let's hear it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'll say it again: Any definition of God which requires us to accept conditions under which "exist" and "not exist" are indistinguishable, or "real" and "not real" are indistinguishable, or "God" and "not God" are indistinguishable -- these are meaningless claims.

I've described scenarios in which this is the case.

Those types of claims do not deserve serious consideration, because it is unreasonable for anyone to demand that anyone admit that "God exists" may be true if-and-only-if the terms "God" and "exists" are rendered indistinguishable from their opposites.

To keep to the question format, how is this not simply a case of you looking with Western eyes? How is this not a case of you wanting more from God? What is so wrong with God just *is*, the universe just *is* and they are the same thing?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Popular Taoism and Buddhism are rife with gods who intervene, grant wishes, perform miracles, appear to humans, and such. These are just as phony as ancient and modern Western gods who do the same things, for the same reasons.

Right. I'm not referring to those forms.

Intellectual Taoism and Buddhism have done precisely the same thing that Western spiritualism has done, and defined their gods in such ways as to render them empty.

If you know of an Eastern definition of God which can be reasonably claimed to possibly exist, by all means, let's hear it.

But emptiness is the whole point of those philosophies. What is so wrong with calling that God? Why do you want God to be something else?

This whole God thing is largely a relational issue, an emotional discourse. It needn't be expressed in ontologic terms.

 

[CFLarsen]

You need to explain why this is relevant.

Some ideas are false. We know they're false. There aren't any unicorns and cannot be any unicorns because magic is baloney.

So merely pointing to the fact that our understanding of the world changes... this is not sufficient to address the question at hand.

I am beginning to see why you miss what skepticism is. And you have a very sketchy concept of what science is.

First, unicorns are not magical creatures. They are mythical figures, belonging to the cryptozoological section of skepticism, together with Bigfoot, Yeti, and Nessie.

We discover new species every day. And while it isn't every day we discover a new animal the size of a unicorn, it is by far not impossible that unicorns could exist.

Not likely - but not impossible either.

Second, you need to understand the provisional nature of science. Scientific facts are only facts for as long as the evidence supports them. If we find new evidence that contradicts the old theories, we throw the latter in the bin and move on. Science progresses, and it does so by new evidence.

You clearly have not understood this crucial point.

Meaningless points need no refutation.

It is not sufficient for you to merely state that it is "meaningless". That is equivalent to a creationist stating that evolution is "meaningless".

I'll say it again: Any definition of God which requires us to accept conditions under which "exist" and "not exist" are indistinguishable, or "real" and "not real" are indistinguishable, or "God" and "not God" are indistinguishable -- these are meaningless claims.

I've described scenarios in which this is the case.

Those types of claims do not deserve serious consideration, because it is unreasonable for anyone to demand that anyone admit that "God exists" may be true if-and-only-if the terms "God" and "exists" are rendered indistinguishable from their opposites.

Not all claims are like that. You need to address and refute those. But you don't do that by saying they are "meaningless".

How can you call yourself a skeptic, if you take a position that can't be proven wrong?

 

[Piggy]

To keep to the question format, how is this not simply a case of you looking with Western eyes? How is this not a case of you wanting more from God? What is so wrong with God just *is*, the universe just *is* and they are the same thing?

What's wrong with "God just is" is that it's not a claim for anything. It's talk about nothing.

What's wrong with "God is the universe" is that it makes God indistinguishable from not-God, or makes God entirely redundant, so again, you're not actually asking me to believe anything. Therefore, I dispense with God.

 

[Piggy]

But emptiness is the whole point of those philosophies. What is so wrong with calling that God? Why do you want God to be something else?

But I don't want God to be something else. I'm perfectly happy dealing with these definitions, as well as any others.

These definitions of God aren't actually claims for anything.

No claim, nothing to believe in. It may be dispensed with.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What's wrong with "God just is" is that it's not a claim for anything. It's talk about nothing.

What's wrong with "God is the universe" is that it makes God indistinguishable from not-God, or makes God entirely redundant, so again, you're not actually asking me to believe anything. Therefore, I dispense with God.

So? You seem to assume that God must have some other property rather than people using the word god to refer to their emotional relationship with the universe.

You can dispense with God and that's fine. But you haven't demonstrated that everyone else should do the same, that that version of God cannot exist. All you show is that you choose not to engage in that sort of God-talk. That is entirely different.

It's the same issue with God as a multidimensional being and our universe being only a 3-dimensional part of that greater entity. Since we cannot really understand what that means, how can you eliminate the possibility out of hand?

 

[Piggy]

I wish I could address some of your other points, but I'm sorry, if you can't be bothered to follow the format of the thread, I can't be bothered to respond. I would actually like to, but it will get out of hand.

How can you call yourself a skeptic, if you take a position that can't be proven wrong?

I'm not the one who misunderstands skepticism. I'm not the one indulging in dogma.

I am skeptical of atomic theory, and after careful consideration, I conclude it's accurate.

I am skeptical of string theory, and after much less careful consideration, I conclude I have to leave it at "I dunno -- maybe, maybe not".

I am skeptical of leprechauns, and after careful consideration, I conclude "they ain't, and can't be".

There are certain things that simply are not going to be proven wrong. A thoughtful skeptic will accept this.

It is not ever going to be proven wrong that, in our everyday lives, if you have 2 of something, and you get 2 more, you'll have 4 instead of 5.

It is not ever going to be proven wrong that the earth is shaped more like a beach ball than like a frisbee.

It is not ever going to be proven wrong that Greek mythology was not an accurate worldview.

it is not ever going to be proven wrong that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of our local system.

In the case of God, however, I can be proven wrong.

If you can show me how my thinking is incorrect (which it might be) then I'll have to abandon my strong atheist stance if I'm wrong about a key point which punches a hole in everything.

If you can produce a legitimate definition of God which describes a being that can be said to possibly exist, then I'll have to abandon my strong atheist stance.

But simply accusing me of being non-skeptical because I've come to a well-considered conclusion which takes into account all the evidence at hand... no, that has no impact.

Simply making a generic appeal to being open to new evidence in all cases... no, that doesn't wash, either.

 

[CFLarsen]

What's wrong with "God just is" is that it's not a claim for anything. It's talk about nothing.

What's wrong with "God is the universe" is that it makes God indistinguishable from not-God, or makes God entirely redundant, so again, you're not actually asking me to believe anything. Therefore, I dispense with God.

You still don't get it.

The Eastern perception of God is fundamentally different from the Western. You apply Western thinking to Eastern ideas. That's where you go wrong.

If "God is the universe", what makes "God is the universe" different from "God is what science explains"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But I don't want God to be something else. I'm perfectly happy dealing with these definitions, as well as any others.

These definitions of God aren't actually claims for anything.

No claim, nothing to believe in. It may be dispensed with.

But they are claims for something. They are claims for a particular relation to the universe -- that we should feel reverence before it. That is how I take Einstein, Spinoza and Martin Gardner's view of the matter. Sure, they are not ontological claims for some separate entity, but they are claims for something. It is just a different "thing".

 

[Piggy]

So? You seem to assume that God must have some other property rather than people using the word god to refer to their emotional relationship with the universe.

That's right, I do.

Emotions aren't God. If you say that emotions are God, then obviously God exists, but it's a trivial definition. Emotions are emotions. Calling them God adds nothing.

And when you take a historical perspective, it's obvious that this is a mere ploy, removing all qualities from the deity which make it distinguishable from mundane reality.

The claim "God exists" under this scenario becomes equivalent to "emotions exist", which is trivial.

You can dispense with God and that's fine. But you haven't demonstrated that everyone else should do the same, that that version of God cannot exist. All you show is that you choose not to engage in that sort of God-talk. That is entirely different.

It's the same issue with God as a multidimensional being and our universe being only a 3-dimensional part of that greater entity. Since we cannot really understand what that means, how can you eliminate the possibility out of hand?

I have not said that others should do the same.

In fact, I've said that God-thought is likely built into our brains, and if you somehow expunged all reference to religion from the world overnight, it would be quickly reinvented out of whole cloth.

As for the question there, just listen to yourself for a moment.

"We cannot know what idea X actually means -- so you must admit that it may be a correct idea."

Nope.