Proof of Strong Atheism

[Apathia]

Sorry, I'm not allowed. If I did that, it would indeed be a straw man. Remember, I'm the one who made the strong atheistic claim. One potentially real God shoots me down.

Ok, now onto supper, and then I'll summarize the support for the claim that we know enough now to say that God isn't real.

You are wise to have nothing to do with Gods made of straw or stone.

 

[Piggy]

The Proof

We know enough now about the world to say without reservation that God is not real.

By this I don’t mean that God is merely “unproven”. I mean that God doesn’t exist.

This does not mean that God cannot be imagined. It does not mean that the concept of God does not exist, or that alternative realities cannot be imagined in which God could exist, or that the concept of God cannot be a symbol for something else which exists.

It means that God does not exist, with reference to the actual, non-imaginary, non-hypothetical world – the world we live in.

When we ask whether a thing is real, we are not asking a question about the thing. We are asking a question about the world. If we ask whether unicorns are real, we must first decide what we mean by “unicorn” (“a one-horned terrestrial equine which grants wishes if captured” will do nicely) – but it is not sufficient to determine what is meant by the term. We must then look at the world, and determine if such a thing is found, if it is not found, or if we can’t tell one way or the other. The question of a unicorn’s actual existence cannot be answered merely by studying the definition of a unicorn. (This would seem self-evident, but in the case of God, it is a truth which must continually be brought into the spotlight.)

Given what we know about the world, it would seem that the God concept is clearly overdue for the dust bin. Here are its most significant failures:

1. The idea has its origins in myth and superstition. Unlike other potentially verifiable entities whose existence has been posited by the human imagination (such as black holes) it was not derived as a necessary consequence of verified models of the world. Rather, it was derived from models of the world which have since been overturned – models of the world inhabited by intelligent creators, angels shining in the heavens, sentient beings which cause weather and disease and other natural phenomena. The world-view which engendered God has been debunked.

2. There is no valid evidence of God.

3. The concept of God is incoherent. The category “god” in its broadest sense (which I will render as GOD here, to avoid confusion) allows an infinite variety of entities – such as YHVH (and Baal), Hephaestus, the deistic First Cause, Krishna, animistic spirits, Osiris, Buddhist suchness, the objects of ineffable mystic experience, new age universal energy, and so forth – which may be mutually exclusive. These various Gods/gods may have created the universe or not, may have taken corporeal form or not, may be capable of taking corporeal form or not, may be currently believed in or not, may be exclusive or not, may interact with our world or not, may be loving or not, may answer prayers or not, and so on.

4. As rational inquiry and naturalistic models of the world have advanced, God has retreated. In all cases where the 2 have clashed, God has never won. The stars are not a heavenly host of angels. Divine creation myths are false. Prayer does not influence the events of the world. Consciousness is mapped to the activity of the brain. Everything which God was once supposed to have done has turned out to be a function of natural forces, or a trick of the mind.

5. The rational/naturalistic model of the universe is able to account for the origins and persistence of God concepts. The human brain is a relentless pattern seeker, and will impose pattern where there is none rather than be without it. The human brain generates feelings of purpose and meaning. People whose brains do not adequately perform this function have very difficult lives, and many do not survive to old age. The human brain seeks out human qualities and motivations – we even speak in human terms often when discussing non-human things, such as speaking of what a plant “wants” or what a computer “thinks”. Human beings have a deep desire, even a need, to be loved and valued, especially by parental figures. Given these facts, it would be strange if the human mind did not have a tendency to perceive a higher intelligence ordering the world.

6. As rational inquiry has advanced, theories of God have had to continually reshape themselves in order to avoid outright contradiction with known fact (although these contrary-to-fact conceptions of God are still around, as evidenced by the fundamentalist Christian movement in the US). This is not the sort of revision which valid theories – such as Darwinian evolution – undergo, in which valid questions are answered yet the core theory is confirmed. Rather, it’s the kind of revision which bogus theories – such as geocentrism – undergo, in which the core features are jerry-rigged or replaced in order to avoid fatal contradiction with fact.


I can think of no other theory which has not been discarded as false at this point.

A theory which was generated from now-debunked assumptions, which is not required by any validated models of reality, which lacks any valid evidence whatsoever, which has lost every testable challenge, which has no agreed-upon core qualities, which has required reworking at each validation of competing theories, whose most prominent functions have been replaced by other entities (such as natural forces) or exposed as illusory, and whose very persistence is explained perfectly well by the prevailing model of human psychology… this is no theory at all.

It is perfectly reasonable to discard the concept at this point. It doesn’t work. It has no merit – in fact, it does not even have any substance.

And yet, the claim is made that the theory cannot be discarded.

The justification for this claim is that it is possible that one of the sub-theories under the larger umbrella of the GOD concept could be said to correspond to something which may possibly be real.

Now, this claim, by itself, is not a claim at all. Unless a particular God-theory is identified as a candidate for describing an entity which might possibly be real, there is no way to evaluate, much less test, this notion.

And yet, there appears to be no valid option for any of these sub-theories.

Dead theories of god – such as Zeus – are no longer credited by the theistic community. It is unreasonable to expect anyone else to grant them the potential for existence.

Traditional theories of God – such as the creator God of Genesis 1-2 – are contradicted by confirmed observation. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone grant them the potential for existence.

Anecdotal theories of God – that is, claims based on miracles, intuitions, personal experiences and testimonies, and the like – lack valid evidence, and are explained perfectly well by the verified naturalistic paradigm. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone concede that they must be potentially real.

Transcendent theories of God – which propose beings said to exist in hypothetical realities, absent any clear notion of how these relate to non-hypothetical reality – are unanchored concepts (see issues 1-6 above) said to exist in imagined worlds. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone accept them as in any way “real”.

When these options are eliminated, the only choice left is to posit a God which is indistinguishable from the impersonal forces of nature as described by science. And such a conception of God is not only antithetical to mainstream views of God, it also renders God redundant, and therefore dispensable.

So what is left?

Nothing.

As I said, we know enough now about the world to state without reservation that God is not real.

 

[Meadmaker]

This definition merely reproduces the fatal plasticity of the uber-concept.

It also defines God in terms of human concepts, not in terms of phenomenal reality.

And it allows God to be merely the brute forces of nature.

So what's your point?


(For those who don't recognize my proposed definition, it's from Saint Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. I think Piggy has offered us an ontological argument for the non-existence of God.)

It seems to me that your argument depends on a definition of God in terms of human concepts. You are demanding a definition, written by humans, and then saying that since you find no satisfactory definition, God does not exist. You're taking the limitation of humans' ability to define, and saying it's a limitation on God.

Any "proof" that in any way relies on human ability, to define, to conceive, or to anything else, is no proof at all.

I much prefer the Buddha's argument for why we shouldn't worry about whether God exists or what He wants, but his argument is for weak atheism, not strong atheism.

 

[Apathia]

We know enough now about the world to say without reservation that God is not real.

By this I don’t mean that God is merely “unproven”. I mean that God doesn’t exist.

This does not mean that God cannot be imagined. It does not mean that the concept of God does not exist, or that alternative realities cannot be imagined in which God could exist, or that the concept of God cannot be a symbol for something else which exists.

Piggy,

Are you sure you have doubled bolted the back door?
You have crushed the popular folk God under your heel, But there are theologians and mystics who aren't attached to the "Concept of God" but see it as a symbol of Transcendance, Subjectivity, the Ground of Being, the Tao, the Buddha Nature, and other designations of the Ineffable.
There are number of different words here from different traditions, but the attitude of the mystics in each of them is that they point to the same reality.
The word "God" is used meaningfully in this collection as it attempts to capture one of the facets of Transcendance: the Transpersonal.

The Procrustan out here would be to deny that any of these words had any meaning or pointed to any reality. Since their meaningfulness arises within our belief that our self-conscoiuness and subjective experiencing is real, numerous people have set out to uproot it right there. Self-consciouness simply doesn't exist and corresponds to no real experience, therefore all this mystical stuff is a load of dingo's kidneys. You might want to take that tack. I'm not keen on it myself. It denies too much.

But you will want to be able to keep the camel from getting its nose through the door of the tent. For example, once the camel can say the word "God" can signify something real, then it might want to start attaching other stuff to it, like saying that what is merely Being, also in some way is an individual being. In other words, get Theism into the tent. Of course I'm tallking as if it were a slippery slope. A fallacy.

Another troublesome tact would be to deny any reality to anything that can't be weighed, measured, quantified, described and addressed by Scientific Inquiry. You'd need to sleep in your lab coat, but you would have a place to draw the line and keep the camel out.

 

[Piggy]

I have a proposed subtheory that I would like you to analyze with your arguments. Some of you might recognize this proposed subtheory, from St. Anselm.

God is an entity, greater than which nothing can be conceived.

This definition merely reproduces the fatal plasticity of the uber-concept.

It also defines God in terms of human concepts, not in terms of phenomenal reality.

And it allows God to be merely the brute forces of nature.

So what's your point?

My point is, that you apparently want me to seriously consider this definition as describing some God which might possibly be said to actually exist.

Yet the definition is so vague and plastic that it could accomodate any number of mutually exclusive entities. Therefore, it reproduces the same problems we have with the larger GOD concept. No core qualities. No way to see if it could exist or not. There's no "there" there.

It defines God entirely in terms of human concepts, with no reference at all to phenomenal reality. Whatever our "greatest" concept is (whatever that might mean), that's God. As soon as we're able to think up something greater, then God is something different. That's nonsense. And it's hopelessly vague. What is "great", btw?

If we can't think up anything greater than the forces of nature, then God becomes redundant and dispensible, and something other than what mainstream believers conceive it to be -- in fact, a thing which they vehemently deny is God.

Plus, it avoids the entire question, when you consider it closely. Suppose the greatest thing I can conceive is a kind of multi-universal Santa Claus. Is such a thing real? Who knows? And who cares, because every person on the planet might have a different "greatest" conceivable thing.

It's a non-definition, a definition of no thing in particular, a non-concept.

I think Piggy has offered us an ontological argument for the non-existence of God.

Nope. Ontology, as has been remarked by another poster on this board, is a pantload.

It seems to me that your argument depends on a definition of God in terms of human concepts. You are demanding a definition, written by humans, and then saying that since you find no satisfactory definition, God does not exist. You're taking the limitation of humans' ability to define, and saying it's a limitation on God.

Here's the bottom line. If you can't even define the thing, you have no right to demand that anyone else accept it as potentially real.

Any "proof" that in any way relies on human ability, to define, to conceive, or to anything else, is no proof at all.

This is, essentially, an admission that you have no clue what this thing is which you claim exists.

 

[Piggy]

You have crushed the popular folk God under your heel, But there are theologians and mystics who aren't attached to the "Concept of God" but see it as a symbol of Transcendance, Subjectivity, the Ground of Being, the Tao, the Buddha Nature, and other designations of the Ineffable.

As I said, I'm not claiming that "God" can't be a mere symbol for something else which might exist.

But the question at hand is not whether God is a symbol for something that is real, but rather whether God itself is real.

Anything -- real or imagined -- can be a symbol. To say it's a symbol is trivial.

 

[Apathia]

As I said, I'm not claiming that "God" can't be a mere symbol for something else which might exist.

But the question at hand is not whether God is a symbol for something that is real, but rather whether God itself is real.

Anything -- real or imagined -- can be a symbol. To say it's a symbol is trivial.

All of those terms cited are themselves symbols and designations. When words are given the exclusive substance, you get what A.N. Whitehead called the "Fallacy of Misplaced Concretness," or what is sometimes called "Spirtual Materialism."

"God" as an individual autocratic despotic being will eventually pass away into the mists of folklore, but not in our lifetime. How about a million years? In the meantime, we can only be responsible for our own right and clear thinking.

 

[Piggy]

All of those terms cited are themselves symbols and designations. When words are given the exclusive substance, you get what A.N. Whitehead called the "Fallacy of Misplaced Concretness," or what is sometimes called "Spirtual Materialism."

I can't discern your intention here. Yes, language is a symbol system. What do you conclude from that, relative to this discussion? I can't tell from the above.

"God" as an individual autocratic despotic being will eventually pass away into the mists of folklore, but not in our lifetime. How about a million years? In the meantime, we can only be responsible for our own right and clear thinking.

First, I don't know that belief in God will ever pass away. I think if we erased all memory of God or gods and destroyed all scripture and reference to religion, the week wouldn't be out before people had dreamed it up again. Our brains are built in such a way that a tendency toward religious thinking is hard-wired.

And sure, we're responsible for our own right-thinking. But there's also an argument to be made that we have a responsibility to express ourselves on important matters in the face of widespread falsity and illogic. For instance, I'm glad so many people are willing to not simply ignore the WTC CTs, because by ignoring them we increase the risk of others falling into delusion.

 

[chriswl]

Actually, that's my position, too.

Sampling bits of this and that God from the buffet is meaningless play.

If someone wants to claim that a God exists, we need to agree on a stipulative definition, and examine that entity and what we know about reality to see if the 2 are compatible.

But then someone else will come along claiming that God exists but he will have a slightly different definition and you'll have to do it all over again. And there will be no end to this. If there is even one definition that makes sense, so the argument goes, we cannot reject the existence of God. And there may well be one such definition out there.

What I wanted to stress is that we are not just coming up with a definition. I think we should come up with the definition. Not the definition that is accepted by all of humanity - there clearly is no such thing. But the definition of the word God as used in our culture. The thing that the average person in our part of the world (or on an English-speaking Internet forum) would assume you meant if you just asked him whether he believed in God without any further qualification. Because this is the God that I mean when I type, without further qualification, that God does not exist, on an English speaking Internet forum.

And I can say to people like Beth and Hyparxis that they are talking about a God that I am not addressing, an academic, theologian's God. God as a philosopher's jargon word. Their definitions would not be recognised by most people and would in fact be vehemently rejected by the vast majority of self-professed believers in God (e.g. the belief that God is merely symbolic would be taken as a rejection of the existence of God).

 

[chriswl]

Good! Somebody please do it [define God]? Piggy?
Then it will all be over, because I'm confident that this defined, set in stone, deity will not exist!

Well, in my original post, I came up with the following:

A god is a being who is worthy of worship.

Let me try and justify this by expanding on what the definition includes and what it excludes.

Obviously not all supernatural beings are gods. Ghosts, goblins, elves, pixies and miscellaneous spirits and demons are not gods because no one worships them or suggests that we should do so. Technologically advanced aliens may be able to compel us to perform acts of worship, should they so desire but we wouldn't consider them "worthy" of worship merely on account of their power. This would even apply to a creator of our universe - the fact that he had the power to create us does not alone make him worthy of worship. Saintly or brilliant individuals may earn our respect and admiration but not our worship. The natural world inspires awe and perhaps feelings that could be called spiritual. A pantheist could be said to worship this but this falls outside most people's useage of the word god - my definition excludes it by the requirement that a god is a "being", i.e. a sentient being which the physical world is not.

So, I can say for myself quite clearly that God does not exist because I don't accept that there is anything that, even in principle, could deserve worship. The kind of groveling assumption of inferiority implied by the act of worship is never justified. Therefore there is nothing deserving the title god, just as there is nothing deserving the title "rightful king of America".

 

[Piggy]

But then someone else will come along claiming that God exists but he will have a slightly different definition and you'll have to do it all over again. And there will be no end to this.

Point taken. Hopefully, the reasoning provided in the long post just above will adequately address this issue.

Given our current state of knowledge, and the current state of GOD theory, there can be no proposed definition which is not dead, traditional, anecdotal, transcendent, or redundant. And it is not reasonable to demand that we grant any of these the status of potential reality.

And certainly it is unreasonable to make a totally unsupported claim that some unspecified (or future) definition might describe something real.

That being the case, we're ready to close the book on God.

If anyone wants to stop us, it is their obligation to trot out a description of some real God (other than, say, Eric Clapton).

 

[Vox Humana]

How is this not the definition of a strawman? You construct a definition of God, then demonstrate your construct to be incoherent.

But this is not what's happening here.

It has been proposed that we know enough now to say that God isn't real.

It will only take one definition of God which obliges us to concede that the entity thus described could possibly be extant, and the proposition is dead on the spot.

However, God-theorists are in a bind. If they propose old-school definitions of God (y'know, like the one that claymated human beings and made the universe in 7 days) modern science will blow them out of the water. If they propose deistic or new age or transcendental definitions, God's existence becomes equal to its nonexistence, or God becomes equivalent to natural forces and laws. If they strike a middle ground by proposing an anecdotal God -- whatever it is doing all the stuff that believers say God is doing -- then the evidence doesn't pass muster, and we run into the same fatal problem as GOD theory has, with adherents disagreeing with each other.

If there is another option, I certainly don't know what it is.

But in any case, it is the proponents of God's reality who are providing the definitions. There is no straw man.

Piggy,

First, my quoted response was directed to chriswl, who was indeed suggesting that we provide the definition:

I don't agree with Piggy on this. I think we must be clear what we mean by God if we are going to discuss God's existence. If some people define God in a totally different way then that's no concern of mine. They are talking about something else.

That being said...

It seems, based on this post, that your position has become that you will hold it impossible that God might exists until a God-theory that meets your above criteria is posited. I submit that the provisional nature of this position logically precludes the possibility of a proof, which by nature settles the matter for all time, with no provision for modification upon future arguments.

 

[Apathia]

And I can say to people like Beth and Hyparxis that they are talking about a God that I am not addressing, an academic, theologian's God. God as a philosopher's jargon word. Their definitions would not be recognised by most people and would in fact be vehemently rejected by the vast majority of self-professed believers in God (e.g. the belief that God is merely symbolic would be taken as a rejection of the existence of God).

Oh yes, not only do they not recognized this as their God, but they condemn it as an heretical position. Folk belief insists that God is a person, and theologies that say that the Holy isn't an individual being are not welcome. So, most of what I say isn't relevant to the topic at hand, except for a camel's nose.

Piggy has done a good job grinding his heel into Theism. I like your comments about God requiring grovelling as well.
I agree on the place for clear refutations of popular superstious beliefs.
Educating this stuff out of people isn't an easy quest. Your upcoming generation will go theistic just to assert their seperation from their parents.
And if you try social means, it just goes underground. Preaching it is counter productive.

 

[Vox Humana]

Piggy, the points proffered here are an assortment of arguments that may be relevant to the debunking of particular God-theories. They can't be used to generally prove the non-existence of God.

I'll do my best to take each in turn.

We know enough now about the world to say without reservation that God is not real.

[snip]

Given what we know about the world, it would seem that the God concept is clearly overdue for the dust bin. Here are its most significant failures:

1. The idea has its origins in myth and superstition. Unlike other potentially verifiable entities whose existence has been posited by the human imagination (such as black holes) it was not derived as a necessary consequence of verified models of the world. Rather, it was derived from models of the world which have since been overturned – models of the world inhabited by intelligent creators, angels shining in the heavens, sentient beings which cause weather and disease and other natural phenomena. The world-view which engendered God has been debunked.

Begs the question. If God does not exist, then the God-theories would originate from myth and superstition. If God does exist, the myths & superstitions may originate from him.

2. There is no valid evidence of God.

Argument from ignorance. Absense of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.

3. The concept of God is incoherent. The category “god” in its broadest sense (which I will render as GOD here, to avoid confusion) allows an infinite variety of entities – such as YHVH (and Baal), Hephaestus, the deistic First Cause, Krishna, animistic spirits, Osiris, Buddhist suchness, the objects of ineffable mystic experience, new age universal energy, and so forth – which may be mutually exclusive. These various Gods/gods may have created the universe or not, may have taken corporeal form or not, may be capable of taking corporeal form or not, may be currently believed in or not, may be exclusive or not, may interact with our world or not, may be loving or not, may answer prayers or not, and so on.

Illogical. Demonstrating the incoherence of the uber-concept of God does not speak to the coherence of any one particular concept of God.

4. As rational inquiry and naturalistic models of the world have advanced, God has retreated. In all cases where the 2 have clashed, God has never won. The stars are not a heavenly host of angels. Divine creation myths are false. Prayer does not influence the events of the world. Consciousness is mapped to the activity of the brain. Everything which God was once supposed to have done has turned out to be a function of natural forces, or a trick of the mind.

Extrapolation. Just because God's on a losing streak, one may not conclude that he will never win one.
Argument from ignorance. Having no evidence of the power of prayer does not mean that prayer has no power.

5. The rational/naturalistic model of the universe is able to account for the origins and persistence of God concepts. The human brain is a relentless pattern seeker, and will impose pattern where there is none rather than be without it. The human brain generates feelings of purpose and meaning. People whose brains do not adequately perform this function have very difficult lives, and many do not survive to old age. The human brain seeks out human qualities and motivations – we even speak in human terms often when discussing non-human things, such as speaking of what a plant “wants” or what a computer “thinks”. Human beings have a deep desire, even a need, to be loved and valued, especially by parental figures. Given these facts, it would be strange if the human mind did not have a tendency to perceive a higher intelligence ordering the world.

Lack of proof. Presentation of an alternate theory of the genesis of the God-theory does not refute the competing theories.

6. As rational inquiry has advanced, theories of God have had to continually reshape themselves in order to avoid outright contradiction with known fact (although these contrary-to-fact conceptions of God are still around, as evidenced by the fundamentalist Christian movement in the US). This is not the sort of revision which valid theories – such as Darwinian evolution – undergo, in which valid questions are answered yet the core theory is confirmed. Rather, it’s the kind of revision which bogus theories – such as geocentrism – undergo, in which the core features are jerry-rigged or replaced in order to avoid fatal contradiction with fact.

Ad hominem. calling a theory bogus does not make it so.
Overgeneralization. Only applies to a subset of God-theories.

I can think of no other theory which has not been discarded as false at this point.

Argument from ignorance.

A theory which was generated from now-debunked assumptions, which is not required by any validated models of reality, which lacks any valid evidence whatsoever, which has lost every testable challenge, which has no agreed-upon core qualities, which has required reworking at each validation of competing theories, whose most prominent functions have been replaced by other entities (such as natural forces) or exposed as illusory, and whose very persistence is explained perfectly well by the prevailing model of human psychology… this is no theory at all.

You can say all of the above about life on other planets; yet would you say that this proves that ET life does not exist?

Also, you seem to have gone back to debunking the uber-concept - talking of the theory, as opposed to all theories. I don't think you can do this; as others have said, you must take each theory separately.

It is perfectly reasonable to discard the concept at this point. It doesn’t work. It has no merit – in fact, it does not even have any substance.

In what sense? From a practical standpoint the God-theory does not inform my life - the idea that God has not been proven impossible bears no impact on my day-to-day decisions; I live as though there is no God. I have discarded the concept as a practical matter.

Philosophically, scientifically, and intellectually I don't think you can say that it is 'impossible that God exists.' Within the purview of these arenas I don't think that there's any justification for making such a strong statement.

And yet, the claim is made that the theory cannot be discarded.

The justification for this claim is that it is possible that one of the sub-theories under the larger umbrella of the GOD concept could be said to correspond to something which may possibly be real.

Now, this claim, by itself, is not a claim at all. Unless a particular God-theory is identified as a candidate for describing an entity which might possibly be real, there is no way to evaluate, much less test, this notion.

And yet, there appears to be no valid option for any of these sub-theories.

Argument from ignorance.

Dead theories of god – such as Zeus – are no longer credited by the theistic community. It is unreasonable to expect anyone else to grant them the potential for existence.

Agreed.

Traditional theories of God – such as the creator God of Genesis 1-2 – are contradicted by confirmed observation. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone grant them the potential for existence.

Agreed.

Anecdotal theories of God – that is, claims based on miracles, intuitions, personal experiences and testimonies, and the like – lack valid evidence, and are explained perfectly well by the verified naturalistic paradigm. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone concede that they must be potentially real.

Disagree.

Just because a valid alternate theory exists does not in itself invalidate a God-theory. For example, a claimant's inability to prove an intuition came from God does not prove that it didn't. The fact that one may reasonably explain the intuition as a result of normal psychological processes is not proof positive of that interpretation.

Transcendent theories of God – which propose beings said to exist in hypothetical realities, absent any clear notion of how these relate to non-hypothetical reality – are unanchored concepts (see issues 1-6 above) said to exist in imagined worlds. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone accept them as in any way “real”.

Piggy, this looks like a straw man. Of course hypothetical realities existing in imagined worlds are not 'real'. I suspect you haven't accurately represented mainstream Trancendent God-theories, though I will admit to being out of my element here.

When these options are eliminated, the only choice left is to posit a God which is indistinguishable from the impersonal forces of nature as described by science. And such a conception of God is not only antithetical to mainstream views of God, it also renders God redundant, and therefore dispensable.

Redundant as a practical matter, Piggy. Occam's razor can be used to ontologically dispense with this type of God-theory except in the case where the God-theory itself is being investigated; thus it can't be used to disprove the theory outright.

So what is left?

Nothing.

As I said, we know enough now about the world to state without reservation that God is not real.

What you have eloquently stated above certainly reinforces the position of weak atheism as I've seen it defined - "I don't believe in God." You have left me without a doubt (not that I had any to begin with) that this position is fully rational. I will likely use all of these arguments to defend my position in the future.

However, it still seems to be inadequate as proof of the non-existence of God. You imply such yourself when you make the statement

I can think of no other theory which has not been discarded as false at this point.

A proof cannot logically contain a statement such as this. What you have presented is the theory that God doesn't exist. Your theory is almost certainly correct.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Vox Humana,

Without getting into a defense of Piggy's arguments, I'll venture to posit that it appears to me that you have misunderstood some of his arguments and line of reasoning. I expect Piggy will respond to your points himself much more eloquently and well considered than I could, so I'll leave him to it.

However, there is one important point of yours where I believe you are definitely wrong. Absense of evidence is indeed evidence of absense. It is, however not proof of absense. It is rational and reasonable to state that exuclifraquarklies do not exist, simply because there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of exuclifraquarklies, just as the total absence of evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC using C4 coated rebar is evidence that there was no C4 coated rebar in WTC.

 

[Vox Humana]

Vox Humana,

Without getting into a defense of Piggy's arguments, I'll venture to posit that it appears to me that you have misunderstood some of his arguments and line of reasoning. I expect Piggy will respond to your points himself much more eloquently and well considered than I could, so I'll leave him to it.

However, there is one important point of yours where I believe you are definitely wrong. Absense of evidence is indeed evidence of absense. It is, however not proof of absense. It is rational and reasonable to state that exuclifraquarklies do not exist, simply because there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of exuclifraquarklies, just as the total absence of evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC using C4 coated rebar is evidence that there was no C4 coated rebar in WTC.

Anders,

I have chosen my words poorly; it is true that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence in many instances. Since my argument is an attempted refutation of Piggy's proof of God's non-existance, I think it would have worked just as well to say "absence of evidence is not proof of absence." Does this make my point, or am I still in error?

The instances where absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence is when a claim necessitates the existence of evidence. This may be used to refute some particular God-theories (e.g. fundamental Christianity's insistence on the literal translation of the flood, where we would see geological evidence of such an event,) but is not a general refutation of all religions, as not all religions make testable claims.

To deal with your first example, if someone were to suggest to me the existence of 'exuclifraquarklies', it would behoove him to prove their existence before I would believe in them. However, I don't see how I could prove positively that 'exuclifraquarklies' do not exist, except in the event that the description of 'exuclifraquarklies' is logically incoherent, or in the event that their definition necessitates the existence of detectable phenomena which are not found to be extant. I don't see how this is a problem, however, since I will behave as though they don't exist until such a time that they are proven to exist. Do you disagree?

 

[Piggy]

First, my quoted response was directed to chriswl, who was indeed suggesting that we provide the definition:

I think we must be clear what we mean by God if we are going to discuss God's existence. If some people define God in a totally different way then that's no concern of mine. They are talking about something else.

I see. I didn't take chriswl to be suggesting that the definition not be provided by the claimant. I took him to mean that we must have a definition, and once this is done, then other definitions become irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But I was probably reading into that. Thanks.

 

[Piggy]

It seems, based on this post, that your position has become that you will hold it impossible that God might exists until a God-theory that meets your above criteria is posited.

I've posted a lot of stuff. What exactly are you referring to as the "criteria"? I think this is a crucial point, so I want to be sure I'm understanding you. Thanks.

 

[Vox Humana]

It seems, based on this post, that your position has become that you will hold it impossible that God might exists until a God-theory that meets your above criteria is posited.

I've posted a lot of stuff. What exactly are you referring to as the "criteria"? I think this is a crucial point, so I want to be sure I'm understanding you. Thanks.

Piggy,

Please allow me to retract my claim with respect to the posting in question. Upon further reading, I think I see the direction you were going, and as such my criticism was invalid.

FYI, I was referring to the following post:

But this is not what's happening here.

It has been proposed that we know enough now to say that God isn't real.

It will only take one definition of God which obliges us to concede that the entity thus described could possibly be extant, and the proposition is dead on the spot.

However, God-theorists are in a bind. If they propose old-school definitions of God (y'know, like the one that claymated human beings and made the universe in 7 days) modern science will blow them out of the water. If they propose deistic or new age or transcendental definitions, God's existence becomes equal to its nonexistence, or God becomes equivalent to natural forces and laws. If they strike a middle ground by proposing an anecdotal God -- whatever it is doing all the stuff that believers say God is doing -- then the evidence doesn't pass muster, and we run into the same fatal problem as GOD theory has, with adherents disagreeing with each other.

If there is another option, I certainly don't know what it is.

But in any case, it is the proponents of God's reality who are providing the definitions. There is no straw man.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, the points proffered here are an assortment of arguments that may be relevant to the debunking of particular God-theories. They can't be used to generally prove the non-existence of God.

I'll do my best to take each in turn.

In doing so, you attempt to deny the forest by examining each tree.

Of course if you isolate each part of the argument and examine it without reference to the others, you're going to conclude that none of them is sufficient, especially if you take them out of the larger context as you do here.

So let's try to examine your post in context....

1. The idea has its origins in myth and superstition. Unlike other potentially verifiable entities whose existence has been posited by the human imagination (such as black holes) it was not derived as a necessary consequence of verified models of the world. Rather, it was derived from models of the world which have since been overturned – models of the world inhabited by intelligent creators, angels shining in the heavens, sentient beings which cause weather and disease and other natural phenomena. The world-view which engendered God has been debunked.

Begs the question. If God does not exist, then the God-theories would originate from myth and superstition. If God does exist, the myths & superstitions may originate from him.

The relevance of point 1 is that the concept of God is not derived from any requirements of any verified models of reality.

Contrast this with black holes. These were originally imagined because our models of gravitation and mass implied them. As our models became more complete, they became a necessary feature.

So it is reasonable to demand that we accept black holes as potentially real -- we must admit that it's possible that there are some out there.

This is not proof that there is no God. But it is not offered as the proof. It is listed as one of the most significant faults of GOD theory.

And since God is an unanchored concept, it is significant.

(I won't belabor the circularity of the "God created the myths about God" argument, because that feature is not particularly important, but I will stress that there are explanations for these myths which fit perfectly well with accepted naturalistic theory, so to posit the unsupported God-theory as an alternative is redundant and unproductive.)

2. There is no valid evidence of God.

Argument from ignorance. Absense of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.

Your objection would only be relevant if I were offering point 2 as my proof. I am not.

Yet when we examine this concept, it is crucial that we recognize that the concept lacks any evidentiary support. For me to ignore this point would be inexcusible. It must be mentioned.

3. The concept of God is incoherent. The category “god” in its broadest sense (which I will render as GOD here, to avoid confusion) allows an infinite variety of entities – such as YHVH (and Baal), Hephaestus, the deistic First Cause, Krishna, animistic spirits, Osiris, Buddhist suchness, the objects of ineffable mystic experience, new age universal energy, and so forth – which may be mutually exclusive. These various Gods/gods may have created the universe or not, may have taken corporeal form or not, may be capable of taking corporeal form or not, may be currently believed in or not, may be exclusive or not, may interact with our world or not, may be loving or not, may answer prayers or not, and so on.

Illogical. Demonstrating the incoherence of the uber-concept of God does not speak to the coherence of any one particular concept of God.

Yes, I know. And my post was perfectly clear on that point.

Yet we must recognize the incoherence of GOD. We cannot proceed logically if we do not.

4. As rational inquiry and naturalistic models of the world have advanced, God has retreated. In all cases where the 2 have clashed, God has never won. The stars are not a heavenly host of angels. Divine creation myths are false. Prayer does not influence the events of the world. Consciousness is mapped to the activity of the brain. Everything which God was once supposed to have done has turned out to be a function of natural forces, or a trick of the mind.

Extrapolation. Just because God's on a losing streak, one may not conclude that he will never win one.
Argument from ignorance. Having no evidence of the power of prayer does not mean that prayer has no power.

Regarding prayer, we do in fact have evidence that prayer has no power, except to comfort and calm the one who prays, in the same way that guided imagery and other sorts of mental exercises do. Many experiments have been done on intercessory prayer and other similar types of prayer, including TM. The only one that showed an effect was a study which revealed that heart patients who knew that others were praying for them had a greater incidence of complications -- perhaps because of a type of performance anxiety.

The fact that God has lost every test is significant. It is also significant that these tests struck at vital principles of the traditional concept, leading to the jerry-rigging, gutting, and overhauling we've seen over the centuries.

5. The rational/naturalistic model of the universe is able to account for the origins and persistence of God concepts. The human brain is a relentless pattern seeker, and will impose pattern where there is none rather than be without it. The human brain generates feelings of purpose and meaning. People whose brains do not adequately perform this function have very difficult lives, and many do not survive to old age. The human brain seeks out human qualities and motivations – we even speak in human terms often when discussing non-human things, such as speaking of what a plant “wants” or what a computer “thinks”. Human beings have a deep desire, even a need, to be loved and valued, especially by parental figures. Given these facts, it would be strange if the human mind did not have a tendency to perceive a higher intelligence ordering the world.

Lack of proof. Presentation of an alternate theory of the genesis of the God-theory does not refute the competing theories.

It does when the alternate theories fit with confirmed models of reality, while the God-based theory lacks any support whatsoever. If the alternate theory were also totally unsupported, just ideas in someone's head, then it would be equivalent with the God-based hypothesis. But these qualities of the human mind are well established experimentally.

6. As rational inquiry has advanced, theories of God have had to continually reshape themselves in order to avoid outright contradiction with known fact (although these contrary-to-fact conceptions of God are still around, as evidenced by the fundamentalist Christian movement in the US). This is not the sort of revision which valid theories – such as Darwinian evolution – undergo, in which valid questions are answered yet the core theory is confirmed. Rather, it’s the kind of revision which bogus theories – such as geocentrism – undergo, in which the core features are jerry-rigged or replaced in order to avoid fatal contradiction with fact.

Ad hominem. calling a theory bogus does not make it so.
Overgeneralization. Only applies to a subset of God-theories.

Uh... there ain't no hominem here.

Now, you're right that traditional theories of God still survive. But their inability to change has merely rendered them contrary to observed fact.

When we examine the history of religious thought, we find a continual retreat from once-central qualities of God in order to avoid outright contradiction with newly established truths.

(I'm reminded here of Ezekiel's invention of the ancient equivalent of the Holy Ghost after the destruction of the First Temple.)

I can think of no other theory which has not been discarded as false at this point.

Argument from ignorance.

It would be preferable here if you pointed out a counter-example.

There is good reason why notions which have all these strikes against them are thrown out of the game.

A theory which was generated from now-debunked assumptions, which is not required by any validated models of reality, which lacks any valid evidence whatsoever, which has lost every testable challenge, which has no agreed-upon core qualities, which has required reworking at each validation of competing theories, whose most prominent functions have been replaced by other entities (such as natural forces) or exposed as illusory, and whose very persistence is explained perfectly well by the prevailing model of human psychology… this is no theory at all.

You can say all of the above about life on other planets; yet would you say that this proves that ET life does not exist?

No, you cannot say all this about life on other planets.

The theory of life on other planets did not arise until we understood that there are other planets. By that time, we had a basic understanding of terrestrial biology. It was reasonable to conclude that life elsewhere may be possible. This theory did not arise from debunked assumptions, but from valid ones, and was a reasonable conjecture derived from these valid models.

ET life has lost no testable challenges. It has a well-defined set of core qualities which everyone agrees on, even if there is a lot of debate over the details. There has been no need to gut or jerry-rig the concept.

It is perfectly reasonable to posit that life -- even intelligent life -- may be possible elsewhere. The 2 concepts are not at all comparable, and I think the fact that you make this comparison demonstrates how poorly you've considered my argument, and the subject in general.

Also, you seem to have gone back to debunking the uber-concept - talking of the theory, as opposed to all theories. I don't think you can do this; as others have said, you must take each theory separately.

Again you reveal that you have not read my post with any care whatsoever. I can't "go back" to the GOD concept at this point, because we have not left it. It is important -- in fact, necessary -- to first demonstrate why GOD theory fails. Not only because that is the natural place to begin, but also to establish certain flaws which any sub-theory must be careful not to reproduce.

It is perfectly reasonable to discard the concept at this point. It doesn’t work. It has no merit – in fact, it does not even have any substance.

In what sense? From a practical standpoint the God-theory does not inform my life - the idea that God has not been proven impossible bears no impact on my day-to-day decisions; I live as though there is no God. I have discarded the concept as a practical matter.

Philosophically, scientifically, and intellectually I don't think you can say that it is 'impossible that God exists.' Within the purview of these arenas I don't think that there's any justification for making such a strong statement.

Pick your poison.

It is reasonable to discard GOD with reference to the question at hand: Can this thing be meaningfully said to exist?

Have you forgotten that this is the issue?

GOD theory has no merit and makes no sense. It cannot be meaningfully claimed to correspond to something actual.

And yet, the claim is made that the theory cannot be discarded.

The justification for this claim is that it is possible that one of the sub-theories under the larger umbrella of the GOD concept could be said to correspond to something which may possibly be real.

Now, this claim, by itself, is not a claim at all. Unless a particular God-theory is identified as a candidate for describing an entity which might possibly be real, there is no way to evaluate, much less test, this notion.

And yet, there appears to be no valid option for any of these sub-theories.

Argument from ignorance.

Please don't interrupt.

As I was saying....

Dead theories of god – such as Zeus – are no longer credited by the theistic community. It is unreasonable to expect anyone else to grant them the potential for existence.

Agreed.

Traditional theories of God – such as the creator God of Genesis 1-2 – are contradicted by confirmed observation. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone grant them the potential for existence.

Agreed.

Anecdotal theories of God – that is, claims based on miracles, intuitions, personal experiences and testimonies, and the like – lack valid evidence, and are explained perfectly well by the verified naturalistic paradigm. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone concede that they must be potentially real.

Disagree.

Just because a valid alternate theory exists does not in itself invalidate a God-theory. For example, a claimant's inability to prove an intuition came from God does not prove that it didn't. The fact that one may reasonably explain the intuition as a result of normal psychological processes is not proof positive of that interpretation.

Nor does it need to be.

When 2 theories are proposed to explain a phenomenon, and one theory fits with established and verified models of reality, and another lacks any support whatsoever, it is unreasonable to ask that the unsupported theory be preferred.

Transcendent theories of God – which propose beings said to exist in hypothetical realities, absent any clear notion of how these relate to non-hypothetical reality – are unanchored concepts (see issues 1-6 above) said to exist in imagined worlds. It is unreasonable to demand that anyone accept them as in any way “real”.

Piggy, this looks like a straw man. Of course hypothetical realities existing in imagined worlds are not 'real'. I suspect you haven't accurately represented mainstream Trancendent God-theories, though I will admit to being out of my element here.

Transcendent theories, by definition, require hypothetical realities. In fact, some of these realities are defined so weakly as to be inherently unknowable and indescribable.

When these options are eliminated, the only choice left is to posit a God which is indistinguishable from the impersonal forces of nature as described by science. And such a conception of God is not only antithetical to mainstream views of God, it also renders God redundant, and therefore dispensable.

Redundant as a practical matter, Piggy. Occam's razor can be used to ontologically dispense with this type of God-theory except in the case where the God-theory itself is being investigated; thus it can't be used to disprove the theory outright.

I mean redundant in the sense that it is non-different from what is contained in the naturalistic model. Occam's razor does not apply to this type of redundancy, because in this case, God adds nothing at all to the model, so the model is not complexified.

A redundant God is no God at all.

So what is left?

Nothing.

As I said, we know enough now about the world to state without reservation that God is not real.

What you have eloquently stated above certainly reinforces the position of weak atheism as I've seen it defined - "I don't believe in God." You have left me without a doubt (not that I had any to begin with) that this position is fully rational. I will likely use all of these arguments to defend my position in the future.

However, it still seems to be inadequate as proof of the non-existence of God. You imply such yourself when you make the statement

I can think of no other theory which has not been discarded as false at this point.

A proof cannot logically contain a statement such as this. What you have presented is the theory that God doesn't exist. Your theory is almost certainly correct.

Cannot contain a statement like that? Cannot? Why not?

Remember, this is not a logician's proof, any more than it's a mathematician's or scientist's proof.

But that said, there is another angle to the proof that I'd like to elaborate on, because I feel I haven't adequately dealt with it in my previous post.

But that will have to wait til tomorrow b/c I have to get to bed.