Do you know everything about the universe?

[HeavyAaron]

Yes, you've given me a possible definition to use, but it's not a valid one. Since I can dispense with the ontological argument by other means, it goes on the rubbish heap.

You really are getting dense, aren't you? How many times must I tell you that I'm referring to the definition from the Ontological Argument, not the Ontological Argument itself? Can you at least try to make that distinction?

Dispensing with the Ontological Argument does not make the definition invalid. You might wish this were so. But it's not. A failed proof of P is not a proof of not P.

And of course we need a definition. You are not allowed to define God as "whatever" because God is not a "whatever".

I haven't definied God as "whatever" either. You can make unreasonable demands on me, and I will continue to refuse them.

Here's why.

If you define God as a bowl of sugar, then your proof will work for imaginary realities in which bowl of sugar = God. But in our universe, bowl of sugar != God. Therefore anything you demonstrate will not be true for non-imaginary reality.

If you define God as a bowl of sugar than the statement "sugar != God" is false. Surely you can see that? It's definitionally true! (that God==sugar) So if you make rediculous statements that are patently false as part of your support, well... yeah.

So for your approach to work, for you to be able to claim that it is necessary to search every point in the universe in order to declare that God is not real, you have to do something like this:

1. Show that there is a class of elements Q which require examining every element in set S in order to determine that they do not exist.

This is necessary because drkitten has already shown that there exists a class of elements P for which examination of all elements in S is not required in order to determine that they do not exist. I am perfectly willing to grant that class Q exists.

2. Demonstrate that God is of class Q and not class P.

If you do not provide a definition of God (a definition which includes those qualities which sufficiently distinguish God from all things which are not God) then step 2 is impossible, and your proof fails.

I've already granted that limitation on the definition of God to satisfy you. I've stated, that if you like, we can limit ourselves to considering definitions of God which are not contengent on the existance or non-existance of other objects. I've even pointed out that most common definitions of God already have that characteristic.

What you're trying to get away with here is the equivalent of saying "I'm not telling you what God is, so you can't disprove it." The problem with this approach is that if there is no definition of God, then there can be no claim that any such entity might exist, as it has no qualities.

No, no. You don't get to get away with that. The Strong Atheist position isn't "we can disprove the existance of a God." It's "we can disprove the existance of all Gods." So, if you disproved the existance of one specifically defined you wouldn't have achieved that objective.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

Even if I thought I knew everything, how could I be sure?

If there was something I didn't know, how would I know I didn't know it if I thought I knew everything?

This is actually easy to resolve.

One of the things that you must know to know everything is whether or not you know everything. (That is, after all, a thing to know.) If you don't know if you know everything, then you would, in fact, know that you don't know everything. (I posited this MUCH earlier in this thread.)

Now, suppose that you believe that you know everything including that you know that you know everything. You could still be wrong. So, what? You'd be wrong.

Aaron

 

[drkitten]

If you define God as a bowl of sugar than the statement "sugar != God" is false. Surely you can see that? It's definitionally true! (that God==sugar) So if you make rediculous statements that are patently false as part of your support, well... yeah.

.... except that you don't get to define God as a bowl of sugar.

When you introduce a new term, you can of course define it however you like.

When you co-opt an existing term with an existing meaning, any definition you offer must be compatible with the existing meaning. To do otherwise is to commit "Humpty-Dumptyism."

I've already granted that limitation on the definition of God to satisfy you. I've stated, that if you like, we can limit ourselves to considering definitions of God which are not contengent on the existance or non-existance of other objects. I've even pointed out that most common definitions of God already have that characteristic.

That's not sufficient "to satisfy" Piggy. You've stated that "we can limit ourselves to considering definitions of God which are not contengent on the existance or non-existance of other objects" -- but there are lots of non-contingent things which are nevertheless not God. (The number 7, for example.) Or perhaps there aren't -- perhaps either the number 7 is contingent (upon the number 6?) or perhaps the number 7 is God -- but you will need to establish this, either by direct proof or by offering a clearer definition.

Piggy's request, if you recall, was "If you do not provide a definition of God (a definition which includes those qualities which sufficiently distinguish God from all things which are not God) then step 2 is impossible, and your proof fails." Noncontingency may be one such property, but it is hardly sufficient.

No, no. You don't get to get away with that. The Strong Atheist position isn't "we can disprove the existance of a God." It's "we can disprove the existance of all Gods." So, if you disproved the existance of one specifically defined you wouldn't have achieved that objective.

Piggy has already done so, by case analysis. "I've already presented the strong atheist position. GOD (the uber-concept) is so incoherent that no meaningful statements can adhere to it. Sub-theories must either be contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or redundant, on the grounds that God either does not interact with our universe (empty) or interacts in ways consistent with natural law (redundant) or interacts in ways not consistent with natural law (contrary to fact)."

 

[3point14]

This is actually easy to resolve.

One of the things that you must know to know everything is whether or not you know everything. (That is, after all, a thing to know.) If you don't know if you know everything, then you would, in fact, know that you don't know everything. (I posited this MUCH earlier in this thread.)

Now, suppose that you believe that you know everything including that you know that you know everything. You could still be wrong. So, what? You'd be wrong.

Aaron

This is actually easy to resolve.

One of the things that you must know to know everything is whether or not you know everything. (That is, after all, a thing to know.) If you don't know if you know everything, then you would, in fact, know that you don't know everything. (I posited this MUCH earlier in this thread.)

Now, suppose that you believe that you know everything including that you know that you know everything. You could still be wrong. So, what? You'd be wrong.

Aaron

Thanks for that - I must admit, I didn't read the whole thread as it sounded like a daft question in the first place.

(So, would there be any way to differentiate 'knowing everything' from 'believing you knew everything'?)

 

[Piggy]

You really are getting dense, aren't you? How many times must I tell you that I'm referring to the definition from the Ontological Argument, not the Ontological Argument itself? Can you at least try to make that distinction?

Yes, I know. I can show that for this definition of God, claims to potential existence are invalid.

 

[Piggy]

If you define God as a bowl of sugar than the statement "sugar != God" is false. Surely you can see that? It's definitionally true! (that God==sugar)

This is why I say you're stuck in nonsenseland.

There is no such thing as "definitional truth" when it comes to asking questions about reality.

If you define God as a bowl of sugar, you're in nonsenseland, because nothing that follows will have any bearing on reality. It will all be nonsense.

Sure, you can go making up bogus definitions all day, and playing around in the imaginary (contrary to fact) spaces that they describe. But such exercises have absolutely zero to say about the world we live in.

Strong atheism does not hold that it's impossible to dream up imaginary worlds in which God is real. Strong atheism holds that God is not real in actuality.

You cannot disprove strong atheism by making statements about unreal worlds where God can be a bowl of sugar.

 

[Piggy]

I've already granted that limitation on the definition of God to satisfy you. I've stated, that if you like, we can limit ourselves to considering definitions of God which are not contengent on the existance or non-existance of other objects. I've even pointed out that most common definitions of God already have that characteristic.

This is not a proper definition of God. It is not sufficient to distinguish God from all things which are not God.

What you're trying to get away with here is the equivalent of saying "I'm not telling you what God is, so you can't disprove it." The problem with this approach is that if there is no definition of God, then there can be no claim that any such entity might exist, as it has no qualities.

No, no. You don't get to get away with that. The Strong Atheist position isn't "we can disprove the existance of a God." It's "we can disprove the existance of all Gods." So, if you disproved the existance of one specifically defined you wouldn't have achieved that objective.

Get away with what? If you read my paragraph which you cite here, you'll notice that it has nothing at all to do with any claim that disproving one god disproves all gods.

What I'm pointing out to you is that if you fail to define God in any way, you're not making a claim. No claim, then nothing to refute.

And actually, the strong atheist position is neither of those. The strong atheist position is that we know enough about the world to state that God doesn't exist.

I've already explained why this is the true. And drikitten and I have both explained why your claim that you can't deny God without examining everything in the universe is bogus.

 

[Almo]

Someone said yes! Well, 30% said yes. TELL THE REST OF US!

 

[HeavyAaron]

Someone said yes! Well, 30% said yes. TELL THE REST OF US!

That could take a while.

Aaron

 

[Zygar]

Someone said yes! Well, 30% said yes. TELL THE REST OF US!

Sorry. Couldn't help it. No Planet X option.