Proof of Strong Atheism

[Vox Humana]

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.

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

Because a proof, as I understand it, can't be provisional. It most certainly can't depend on whether the author, at some point in the future, thinks of a theory that invalidates it, which is a provision your statement implies. A proof settles a matter, once and for all, with no allowance for future consideration.

If you change the above statement to:

There can be no coherent God-theory that this proof doesn't refute.​

then this criticism goes away.

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

What kind of proof is it then? Perhaps we have different conceptions of the word.

 

[Piggy]

Because a proof, as I understand it, can't be provisional. It most certainly can't depend on whether the author, at some point in the future, thinks of a theory that invalidates it, which is a provision your statement implies. A proof settles a matter, once and for all, with no allowance for future consideration.

Thanks for the clarification.

What kind of proof is it then? Perhaps we have different conceptions of the word.

It's a rational argument. And it's delivered rhetorically.

By "rhetorically" I don't mean what the term "rhetoric" has commonly come to mean. I mean that it's an appeal to reason in non-specialized language. It's an argument for a general audience.

So, by the same token, when I use the term "logic" above, I don't mean formal logic, which is its own discipline.

For example, if I say to someone at work, "We shouldn't do it that way because Mr. X doesn't trust those test results you're basing your decision on, and he shoots down everything based on them no matter what it is, so we'll have to find a different justification or try something else, otherwise we're probably wasting our time", that's a rational rhetorical argument.

Rhetorical arguments can rise to the level of proof, but they are not barred from containing statements, analogies, and other elements that you'd never find in formal logic proof, or a math proof, or a scientific theory.

They often contain series of evidentiary observations which add up to a single conclusion, disallowing other conclusions.

The point of my remark about not being able to think of any other theory that hasn't been discarded at that stage is simply to underscore the significance of all the previous strikes against GOD when considered together.

It also invites everyone else to consider their own experience -- and if someone can think of a counter-example, that moves the debate along and also educates me.

 

[Piggy]

Btw, I know that many science/math/logic types have a gut reaction against rational arguments framed rhetorically.

But actually, rational rhetorical arguments are the type we use most.

In fact, we're more likely to see scientific deductions and logical proofs used as part of a rational rhetorical argument than in isolation.

For an example of a rhetorical proof with embedded science, logic, and math, see the conclusive arguments against WTC conspiracy theory.

In those cases, the science, the math, and the hard logic are combined with a softer sort of logic (e.g., even if Bush had the motives and goals ascribed to him by CTers, it defies reason to believe that anyone would have proposed such a risky and elaborate scheme to achieve them, or if anyone had, that it would have been approved and implemented) in a larger rational rhetorical argument which demonstrates conclusively that Loose Change style theories are simply not reasonable and may be rejected without reservation.

 

[Piggy]

Hello?

Beuller?

Well, it looks as though interest in this thread has died.

I did want to post a bit more on what I perceive to be a gap in my logic, related to a point chriswl raised earlier, but if no one's still following then there's not much point.

Oh well. Funny, usually there's a lot of sound and fury over this topic.

I hope some folks were interested in my point of view and that it wasn't a waste of time. Fwiw, the people on this board have helped me immensely to clarify and concretize my own thoughts on the matter.

Thanks, everybody.

 

[Vox Humana]

Hello?

Beuller?

Well, it looks as though interest in this thread has died.

I did want to post a bit more on what I perceive to be a gap in my logic, related to a point chriswl raised earlier, but if no one's still following then there's not much point.

Oh well. Funny, usually there's a lot of sound and fury over this topic.

I hope some folks were interested in my point of view and that it wasn't a waste of time. Fwiw, the people on this board have helped me immensely to clarify and concretize my own thoughts on the matter.

Thanks, everybody.

Sorry I'm late... Piggy, thank you for a stimulating debate, where I have certainly received more than I given. You have very effectivley defended your position, and I applaud you for your efforts.

I will agree with you on two classes of God-theory; the first being the traditional representation of God where he is reported to have performed a feat or feats that would have logically resulted in the creation of evidence. These theories seem to have universally discounted (to my knowledge.)

The second class of refuted theory is the non-interventionist God-theory, like Deism, where God supposedly winds it up and watches it go. While this may not be refuted directly, I think one can successfully argue that the position is logically incoherent; even if a God such as this did exist there would be no logically tenable way for the believer to know of his existence, since the knowledge would require the believer to have an interaction with said God, but the God is defined as being non-interactive. You got me on that one.

A class of God-theory that I'm still not sure you've dealt with adequately is the case of a God that interacts with mankind on subtle levels; the God who whispers in your ear, or comes to you in a dream. I'm not convinced that because there is a naturalistic theory of why this might happen it necessarily proves that the supernatural explanation is invalid. It certainly is clear to me which way to bet, but I don't think it rises to the level of proof.

 

[Piggy]

A class of God-theory that I'm still not sure you've dealt with adequately is the case of a God that interacts with mankind on subtle levels; the God who whispers in your ear, or comes to you in a dream. I'm not convinced that because there is a naturalistic theory of why this might happen it necessarily proves that the supernatural explanation is invalid. It certainly is clear to me which way to bet, but I don't think it rises to the level of proof.

If you'd care to continue discussing this point, I'd be happy to continue the thread, even if it's just you and me, even if in the end we agree to disagree. But not tonight. It's past my bed time already. Let me know.

-Piggy.

 

[Vox Humana]

If you'd care to continue discussing this point, I'd be happy to continue the thread, even if it's just you and me, even if in the end we agree to disagree. But not tonight. It's past my bed time already. Let me know.

-Piggy.

Thanks, I would like to hear your thoughts on this if you can spare the time tomorrow.

 

[stamenflicker]

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.

Well imagine that.

1) A claim is made that the theory has no merit.
2) While evidence reveals that the theory cannot be discarded.

Even you can't discard it, as evidenced by your post.

Flick

 

[Piggy]

Well imagine that.

1) A claim is made that the theory has no merit.
2) While evidence reveals that the theory cannot be discarded.

Even you can't discard it, as evidenced by your post.

Huh?

What evidence?

GOD is out the window. The notion is so incoherent that it has no core qualities. Adios. (Pardon the pun.)

A claim is made by theists, however, that there exists a sub-theory which does cohere.

chireeeep.... chireeeep.... chireeeep....

No one has ponied up with it. There is no evidence supporting this empty claim. God has not been salvaged.

Btw, if by "your post" you're referencing this...

I did want to post a bit more on what I perceive to be a gap in my logic, related to a point chriswl raised earlier

... what I mean is that I glossed over the point too quickly. I think it requires further explanation.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, it looks as though interest in this thread has died.

I'm still following . You're very effectively arguing for my own position, which I've half-heartedly engaged with in other threads. I don't have much to add.

It's persuasive - definitive, even - to me that we are born without religious beliefs. We are presented with them bit by bit, any of which we can choose to accept or not. This generally starts in very early childhood, when the default response is to accept what you're told. Reasoning (mostly spurious) is only applied later and based on already accepted religious predicates. If each bit of religion is looked at in the light of reason no religious construct gets off the ground.

Nowhere in the observed universe or human history is there any signal of a supernatural influence. Religion answers questions that aren't asked in any objective sense.

Philosophy is guilty of the same much of the time.

 

[Piggy]

Before posting my follow-up, I'd like to see if andyandy or Q-Source care to join from the Dawkins thread.

If they don't post today, then we'll proceed.

Essentially, I'd like to take up 2 questions.

First, the issue of deistic or transcendent definitions of God, and whether these must remain merely "undisproved".

Second, whether the categories of subtheories I've proposed (dead, traditional, anecdotal, transcendent, redundant) are really all the options that are open. And as a corollary, whether there are other methods of demonstrating that no valid options are open for sub-theories of GOD without examining each and every one.

Specifically, it might be interesting to discuss a very few either/or propositions (God must be either this or that, relative to a small number of essential qualities) and see if any of these lead to a no-win situation.

 

[Beleth]

Okay, I'll try to resurrect this... I hope that I am not repeating anything but I probably am.

I don't see how defining God as "the sole creator and ruler of the universe" admitting an near-infinite nuber of specific gods (Yahweh, Zeus, etc.) is at all fatal. I can make shadow puppets on the wall with my hands. I can make shapes that look like a bird, and a spider, and a rabbit, and all sorts of things. Many attributes of birds and spiders are mutually exclusive. Does that mean that my hands don't really exist?

I also take exception to the logic that says that if a thing's existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, then that thing does not exist. There's a reason I keep harping on Mare Moscoviense (the largest mare on the far side of the Moon) in discussions like this; for most of human history, its existence was indistinguishable from its nonexistence, and yet it existed then and it exists today.

Just because something is transcendental does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means that the thing it transcends isn't aware of it. I submit that all created things are transcended by their creators. A pot has no awareness of the potter. It should be unsurprising that we as inhabitants of the universe have no awareness of whatever might have created the universe.

I have been concentrating on the "creator" aspect and not the "ruler" aspect because, as you said in the OP, "ruler" is ill-defined. I tend to think that what we know about the universe can lead us to conclude that the universe has no ruler. I don't think we can say the same thing about the universe having no creator.

 

[Beleth]

Essentially, I'd like to take up 2 questions.

First, the issue of deistic or transcendent definitions of God, and whether these must remain merely "undisproved".

From a scientific viewpoint, I'd say they have to remain undisproved by definition.

Second, whether the categories of subtheories I've proposed (dead, traditional, anecdotal, transcendent, redundant) are really all the options that are open.

Hmmm... where would a "God of the gaps" fit in? A God that, say, willingly moves every single particle in a way consistent with QM?

 

[Piggy]

A God that, say, willingly moves every single particle in a way consistent with QM?

Redundant. Equivalent to the forces of nature (plus someone's mental ideation).

The question is whether the notion in your head of a "willing" being, which exists in a nowhere-everywhere, actually obliges anyone to proclaim that this undefined being could be in any way "real".

And yes, I'm going to insist that "real" be different from "not real". I'm going to insist that "exists" be different from "doesn't exist".

If we remove the condition that words (and concepts) must be distinguishable from their opposites/negatives, then all sense and meaning falls apart. It then becomes OK to assert that a rock is a tree -- it's merely a tree in a way in which trees are not trees.

To accept your definition, I must make nonsense of all definitions.

That is unreasonable.

If I accept your redundant God as "real", then I have to accept cosmic ether as "real".

 

[Piggy]

From a scientific viewpoint, I'd say they have to remain undisproved by definition.

Why do you demand a scientific viewpoint regarding an unscientific claim?

 

[Piggy]

I don't see how defining God as "the sole creator and ruler of the universe" admitting an near-infinite nuber of specific gods (Yahweh, Zeus, etc.) is at all fatal. I can make shadow puppets on the wall with my hands. I can make shapes that look like a bird, and a spider, and a rabbit, and all sorts of things. Many attributes of birds and spiders are mutually exclusive. Does that mean that my hands don't really exist?

There is a reasonable theory which describes very accurately how your hands can manifest these various shapes. In fact, once understood, it is undeniable.

There is no coherent theory which describes how GOD can be Zeus, YHVH, universal energy, Odin, Krishna, suchness, and the being I encountered during an acid trip in the Ocala National Forest during a Rainbow Gathering.

 

[Piggy]

I also take exception to the logic that says that if a thing's existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, then that thing does not exist. There's a reason I keep harping on Mare Moscoviense (the largest mare on the far side of the Moon) in discussions like this; for most of human history, its existence was indistinguishable from its nonexistence, and yet it existed then and it exists today.

Regarding the Mare Moscoviense, the example is irrelevant, because if anyone had proposed the existence of a large crater on the far side of the moon a couple of centuries ago, then everyone would have agreed that we'd just have to wait and see. In fact, given the condition of the near side of the moon, it would seem logical that something like that was highly probable.

This is like the ET counter-argument offered previously. It is not comparable to GOD/God theory in the least.

The existence of the MM is indeed distinguishable from its nonexistence. We are not talking here about whether we have the tools to measure something. We are talking about whether the thing's existence per se is defined in such a way as to be non-different from its non-existence.

The far side of the moon is not hypothetical. Transcendent or subtle realities are. Craters are not unanchored concepts. God is.

A crater on the far side of the moon is a perfectly rational and reasonable proposition which fits perfectly well with verified models of reality.

A transcendent God is an imagined entity in a hypothetical world.

And it is not reasonable to demand that everyone grant potential reality to an imagined entity in an imagined space.

 

[Piggy]

Just because something is transcendental does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means that the thing it transcends isn't aware of it. I submit that all created things are transcended by their creators. A pot has no awareness of the potter. It should be unsurprising that we as inhabitants of the universe have no awareness of whatever might have created the universe.

A pot has no awareness of anything. You can't seriously compare the perceptive abilities of a pot to those of human beings. After all, we have calculated the speed of light and determined that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Pots haven't even unionized.

Now, that said, there certainly is no doubt that we reach a singularity when we look back toward the very early universe.

Yet efforts are being made to meaningfully describe the forces giving rise to our world.

The problem with transcendent God theory, however, is that it is not even a coherent concept. It is an I-don't-know-what in an I-don't-know-where. It is not anchored to any verified observations of anything.

Therefore, no meaningful statements can be made regarding its existence or non-existence. There's no "there" there. It's an undetectable dog. An invisible pink unicorn in an undetectable forest.

 

[Piggy]

I have been concentrating on the "creator" aspect and not the "ruler" aspect because, as you said in the OP, "ruler" is ill-defined. I tend to think that what we know about the universe can lead us to conclude that the universe has no ruler. I don't think we can say the same thing about the universe having no creator.

Well, claims of "there exists a creator" merely replicate the fatal plasticity of GOD. And if brute forces are the creator, then God is redundant, and is something which the vast majority of theists vehemently deny is God.

 

[Beleth]

Why do you demand a scientific viewpoint regarding an unscientific claim?

I'm not demanding it; you are. "We know enough now about the universe to state without reservation that God is not real" is necessarily from a scientific viewpoint. Everything we know about the universe has been gained through the scientific process.

A pot has no awareness of anything.

Exactly my point. A created thing is evidently lower on the awareness scale than the thing which created it.

The problem with transcendent God theory, however, is that it is not even a coherent concept. It is an I-don't-know-what in an I-don't-know-where. It is not anchored to any verified observations of anything.

Actually it's worse than that; it's an I-can't-know-what in an I-can't-know-where. But again, unless you are demanding a scientific viewpoint, it can't be disproven. And your last sentence shows, again, that you are demanding a scientific viewpoint.

Regarding the Mare Moscoviense, the example is irrelevant, because if anyone had proposed the existence of a large crater on the far side of the moon a couple of centuries ago, then everyone would have agreed that we'd just have to wait and see. In fact, given the condition of the near side of the moon, it would seem logical that something like that was highly probable.

(MM is not a crater. Maria are the absence of craters.)

Given the condition of the near side of the moon, what we see on the far side of the moon is highly unexpected. MM, the largest far-side mare by a great degree, is tiny compared to any of the near-side mares. And in the same vein that the people of the past would have agreed that we would just have to wait and see, perhaps all we have to do is wait and see if God will show up some day.

Just because something is irrelevant, or that we currently don't have the means to observe it, doesn't mean we can conclude that it definitively does not exist.

Well, claims of "there exists a creator" merely replicate the fatal plasticity of GOD. And if brute forces are the creator, then God is redundant, and is something which the vast majority of theists vehemently deny is God.

Does it matter what the vast majority of theists believe? Is the existence of God decided by committee? There is an element of argumentum ad populum that runs throughout your thesis, Piggy, that I have to admit I find uncharacteristic of the high quality of your posts.

I really enjoy the lack of semantic quibbling that this thread has sustained so far, but I feel obligated to say that "creator" has an overtone of willfulness that "brute forces" does not have.