Ask a Radical Atheist

[thaiboxerken]

That's just tautology. You can substitute "United States of America" in what I said and get the same meaning. It is more than just the land or the artifacts.

Yes, it's the total sum of a country. Is China an emergent property? Are all countries just emergent properties?

Just an emotion?

Yes.

That's your definition, not mine. I'm offering mine for Piggy's analysis.

Ok, I'll let Piggy knock this nonsense down in his own way.

 

[Piggy]

Shermer, Randi, Plait, Gardner, Dawkins, Wiseman, Nickell, Radford, Sagan.

You think that they misunderstand skepticism - while you don't?

I've disagreed with Sagan on this point already, but Sagan was speaking as a scientist, not a skeptic, and I do agree with him as regards science, but not skepticism.

If they all claim that a skeptic must believe that there is a genuine possibility for "new evidence" for every claim under the sun, then yes, I disagree with them.

It makes no sense. I cannot see any justification for such a claim.

There is no need to take seriously the possibility that new evidence will be produced for leprechauns, or that 2+2 actually equals 5 in our everyday lives, or that the 4th of July is taller than C sharp minor.

You said the opposite before, but...

How?

I've already told you how. Produce a definition of God that could possibly be real, or show the error in my logic.

What you seem to want me to do is to actually produce such a definition for you or identify such an error for you.

This is absurd.

I have already said that I do not believe there is such a definition. And if I knew of a flaw in my logic, I wouldn't hold the position that I hold.

You're just wanting to be lazy about this. All you've done is to make appeals to some generic margin of doubt, and ask me to debunk my own point of view for you.

It adds meaningfullness.

Do you recognize that it does?

No, I don't.

But we don't know everything about the universe. We don't know everything about people's emotions. We don't know everything about the physical laws.

Nor do we need to in order to answer the question.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which religions? If you're thinking about Taoist influenced ones you really can't translate Tao as God it just doesn't make sense.

Forms of Buddhism, Taoism. And Pantheism. God , universal principle, meh same 'thing'.

Anyway, it's a vacant statement in the sense that it tells us nothing about the universe.

When you say "The universe is God" you don't mean to tell us anything about the universe. You don't want us thinking that the universe is all knowing, all powerful, sentient,compassionate, or that it decides what will happen to us. You just want to tell us that you worship the universe.

That might be nice for you, but it is still a vacant statement about the universe. It only tells us about you.

Sorry for derailing your thread, Piggy.

I'm not proposing this as the answer or that I particularly believe it. It is one way that I communicate it.

But the issue of it not telling us anything more about the universe -- yep, that's encoded in the whole idea. It isn't about telling you anything new about the universe -- it is merely a relational term. It is an entirely different way of looking at God-talk.

As far as it telling about the person making the statement -- well, yeah, that's the whole point.

 

[Piggy]

You just denied science.

Then you are the one who misunderstands science.

Science does not traffic in entirely undefined ideas.

Totally undefined notions cannot be investigated.

No one has ever launched a scientific inquiry into idea X which is defined as "I have no clue what X might be -- it is totally beyond my understanding or anyone else's and I can't tell you any of its qualities or where it might be".

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, it's the total sum of a country. Is China an emergent property? Are all countries just emergent properties?

Yes.

Yes.

And what is an emotion? It is an emergent property of a biochemical process. Hormones and previous patterns of stimuli acting on our brainmeats.

Ok, I'll let Piggy knock this nonsense down in his own way.

I can't wait.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've been to Japan quite a few times and have never heard any Japanese refer to the universe as "god." I know many Chinese, Thai and Filipinno as well that don't. Who are you talking about?

Certain forms of Buddhism and Taoism. All forms of pantheism. Don't want to call it god. That's fine.

Not really. If "god" simply is the universe, why pray to it? If you're not praying to it because it's simply silly to pray to the universe, why call it god?

Who said anything about praying to it? If you don't pray to it, you can't call it god? Is there a rule book?

Eastern religions have had deities and gods for a very long time, I don't see where you're coming up with this "god is the universe" stuff.

And, once again, I'm not referring to those common beliefs.

It doesn't matter if it's a new or old way of looking at "god", either way, it renders the term as meaningless as saying "god" is a cheese sandwich.

Of course it doesn't. I am objecting to Piggy calling this humpty-dumptyism as though someone is trying to pull a fast one and re-define god. It is just a different way of viewing the divine. It isn't the same as saying that god is a cheese sandwich for obvious reasons. It is a relational term.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, excuse me if I missed this, but it is a long thread with a lot of side discussions.

What is your response to the theistic argument that a powerful God started the universe and then stepped away?

My response is "What, exactly, are you saying started the universe then stepped away, and into where?"

That apparent definition of God actually isn't a definition at all. It attributes no qualities to God. And no meaningful claims may be made regarding utterly undefined entities.

You state in the opening post "not only that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist."

Why is it the God described above cannot exist?

It cannot exist because claims for the existence of entirely undefined entities are non-claims.

If I say a woogle created the universe, then demand that you must admit that this woogle might exist, but refuse to say what this universe-creating woogle might be, I'm being ridiculous, because there's nothing for you to believe.

It is reasonable for you to dismiss my apparent claim as a non-claim, and unreasonable for me to attempt to insist, on the basis of what I've said, that you must concede that this woogle might be real.

You're left asking, "believe that what might be real?"

The reason that I believe God cannot exist is that all the justifications for God have been debunked, and all the remaining explanations attempting to prop God up are either non-sensical, empty, humpty-dumptyism, meaningless, or contrary to fact.

I adopted a strong atheist position when I had considered the available possibilities thoroughly enough that I could say with confidence that all possible categories of justification must fall into one of those errors, as I've explained earlier in this thread.

So far, no one on this thread, on this forum, or who I've ever met or read has provided one that does not, or been able to explain how any definition of God could avoid one or more of those errors.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It isn't the same as saying that god is a cheese sandwich for obvious reasons. It is a relational term.

It's meaningless.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And what is an emotion? It is an emergent property of a biochemical process. Hormones and previous patterns of stimuli acting on our brainmeats.

What is a sandwich? It's the emergent property of placing two pieces of bread around a piece of meat.

 

[Piggy]

Sorry for derailing your thread, Piggy.

No, that's not a derail. I welcome side-discussions here. And what you said was perfectly clear and accurate. Carry on.

 

[Piggy]

"God", like our conciousness, is not a "thing", not an entity, it is an emergent property- an emergent property of that conciousness.

<snip>

What do you think of this?

Emergent properties and entities can be observed and measured.

If the presence of believers in groups somehow produces God, then what are you saying exactly is being produced? What are its qualities?

Plus, we also get into the problem of those very believers not actually believing that they create God -- so to define God as something they create, well, hello Humpty, if you know what I mean.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's meaningless.

It isn't meaningless. It simply isn't providing a meaning that you seem to expect.

OK, let's take a word and examine its meaning. The word is "consciousness". What in the world does that word 'mean'? As long as we continue to exaine that word with our dualistic language and assumptions it seems to refer to some undefinable 'entity' that causes all sorts of problems. Treat it as a behavior, a process, a 'verb' and all those problems disappear.

So, let's take another word -- 'god' and examine it the same way. What if the word is treated in an entirely different way with different assumptions -- it does not refer to a new ontological entity but to the relationship between us and all that is.

How is that meaningless? It tells you something about a relationship. It doesn't tell you about some putative wacky sky fairy with a thunderbolt fetish, but it wasn't meant to do that in the first place.

 

[roger]

My response is "What, exactly, are you saying started the universe then stepped away, and into where?"

That apparent definition of God actually isn't a definition at all. It attributes no qualities to God. And no meaningful claims may be made regarding utterly undefined entities.

"Something started my car" This is without definition, without qualities, except as some kind of car starting thingy. Thus, it cannot exist?

So, to put some clothes on the "what, exactly", I'll say this God was a powerful sentience where "powerful" means the ability to start up a universe at a minimum.

Clearly we have no evidence for such a sentience, and indeed I neither believe it exists nor hold out much expectation that it does exist, but it is a claim that is different from "ofwef;asdf exists". The claim is that the universe had a start, and it was started by a sentience. Do you view that as a meaningless statement?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It isn't meaningless. It simply isn't providing a meaning that you seem to expect.

No, it's meaningless, it communicates nothing.

How is that meaningless? It tells you something about a relationship.

It's meaningless, it tells me nothing about any relationship. It just says "god is the universe."

 

[Piscivore]

Emergent properties and entities can be observed and measured.

Indeed. "God" has left artifacts all over the place. Chartres. The Sistine Chapel, The Gutenberg Bible. The Acropolis. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salvation Army.

If the presence of believers in groups somehow produces God, then what are you saying exactly is being produced?

Behaviour patterns that would not exist absent the notion of "god". Praying, rituals, hymns.

What are its qualities?

Creating arbitrary connecions between otherwise unconnected believers is one. Providing a basis for morals and ethics is another.

Plus, we also get into the problem of those very believers not actually believing that they create God -- so to define God as something they create, well, hello Humpty, if you know what I mean.

Not quite. My definition does not include a faith component. Would you say that because Wolfman's Mousu friends think western medicine is another ritual for exorcising an evil spirit, my understanding of germ theory is "humpty-dumptyism"?

 

[Jekyll]

Forms of Buddhism, Taoism. And Pantheism. God , universal principle, meh same 'thing'.

Colour me unconvinced. It might be a nice way to explain stuff to a theist, but same thing? I'm not so sure about that.

I'm not proposing this as the answer or that I particularly believe it. It is one way that I communicate it.

But the issue of it not telling us anything more about the universe -- yep, that's encoded in the whole idea. It isn't about telling you anything new about the universe -- it is merely a relational term. It is an entirely different way of looking at God-talk.

As far as it telling about the person making the statement -- well, yeah, that's the whole point.

Well that's fine, but then you're not disagreeing with Piggy(by virtue of your statement being vacant). If we remove the word God from both your statements we have:
Piggy)There is no supreme being.
Hypothetical you, communicating) I worship the universe.

There's no contradiction here. You're not making the argument that god exists at all, in fact you rely on there not being a supreme being in order to say, "The universe is God." without confusing everyone.

 

[Apathia]

A non-theistic definition of God is like a non-mammalian definition of man.



That's not actually my objection.

If you say that "God is the universe", what have you said?

Either you're saying that God is God, and God is also the universe, or you're saying that "God" is simply a synonym for "universe".

If it's the latter, then God has no qualities in and of itself.

The universe is the universe, and we know it exists, and we can consider the universe as the universe, with all the qualities we can verify, without ever touching on the topic of God.

So if you say that "God is the universe" but has no independent qualities, then this becomes one of those cases in which God is merely equivalent to something which, considered on its own, is not God.

So it is one of those cases in which we're asked to believe that God may exist under conditions in which God and not-God are indistinguishable.

And it is unreasonable to demand that anyone accept such conditions. Under those conditions, "God exists" becomes a totally meaningless statement.

But that doesn't have to be the case. For instance, I can say that George is my father, and George is my mother's husband. If they divorce and my mother remarries, George is still my father, but he is not my mother's husband.

George is my father because I have half his DNA. He's my mother's husband because my mother is married to him.

So "God is the universe" could be a statement like "My father is my mother's husband". If that is the case, then we need to know what qualities God has other than being the universe. Otherwise, God remains undefined, and claims about undefined entities are meaningless.




Care to describe what these are and see if they're not empty, nonsensical, or contrary to fact?

Pardon Piggy, but your answer evidences that you have not examined the views I cited to any depth yourself. And you really need to before you make sweeping dismissals based on no understanding of those positions.
There's nothing about them, of themselves, that is contrary to scientific fact, they are not empty of meaning, but you would summarily find them "nonsensical" because they are contemplative and philosophical approaches.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it's meaningless, it communicates nothing.



It's meaningless, it tells me nothing about any relationship. It just says "god is the universe."

Perhaps you missed the earlier discussion.

'God is the universe' is not a statement that merely renames the universe to be 'god'. That would be daft. It is a statement about the way one feels in relation to the universe -- that relation is one of reverence. As such, that statement doesn't deal in ontological issues.

There are other ontological approaches to this. The Deistic god is one. I don't see a way to prove it doesn't exist. Sure, there is no way to tell the differnce between a Deistic god and a self-creating universe, but that's not the point since the original claim was that god cannot exist.

There is also the ontological approach of having god be multi-dimensional and this universe simply being a very small part of god's totality. I also don't see how that can be disproved.

 

[Jekyll]

No, that's not a derail. I welcome side-discussions here. And what you said was perfectly clear and accurate. Carry on.

Oh good.

 

[thaiboxerken]

'God is the universe' is not a statement that merely renames the universe to be 'god'. That would be daft. It is a statement about the way one feels in relation to the universe -- that relation is one of reverence. As such, that statement doesn't deal in ontological issues.

Then it simply means you feel warm and fuzzy about the universe. Ok, that's a meaning, but it has no significance to me. I can say cheesecake is god because I really like it. It tastes divine.

There are other ontological approaches to this. The Deistic god is one. I don't see a way to prove it doesn't exist. Sure, there is no way to tell the differnce between a Deistic god and a self-creating universe, but that's not the point since the original claim was that god cannot exist.

Unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.

There is also the ontological approach of having god be multi-dimensional and this universe simply being a very small part of god's totality. I also don't see how that can be disproved.

Same as the deist approach.