Proof of Strong Atheism

[quixotecoyote]

If an agnostic position is that a general concept of god is incoherent then how on earth does is "make no sense to be agnostic about god?" Surely it does make sense to be agnostic - ie. you are accepting that general concepts of god are meaningless - and thus general proofs for hard atheism are equally meaningless.

And if an agnostic believed that the moon was made of cheese, it would make perfect sense to say "agnostics believe the moon is made of cheese."

Where on earth do you get the definition that agnostic=one who believes that the conept of god is incoherent and meaningless?

All the definitions I've seen are either that they are unsure of god's existance or that they believe that knowledge is unattainable. Nowhere until now have I seen anyone claim that agnosticism is believing the concept of god is prima facie garbage.

 

[andyandy]

And if an agnostic believed that the moon was made of cheese, it would make perfect sense to say "agnostics believe the moon is made of cheese."

Where on earth do you get the definition that agnostic=one who believes that the conept of god is incoherent and meaningless?

All the definitions I've seen are either that they are unsure of god's existance or that they believe that knowledge is unattainable. Nowhere until now have I seen anyone claim that agnosticism is believing the concept of god is prima facie garbage.

Ignosticism is generally considered to be a subset of agnosticism. God is unknown or unknowable, (or even known or disproved) for specific clearly defined, narrow and subjective values of "god" and "existance" but any general objective, all-encompassing definition for "god" and "existance" is incoherent and meaningless. It is based on the question of "how can we say whether or not God exists when there is no meaningful definition of 'God' to evaluate?" Without a rigid determination of what "God" is, the question of whether one exists is meaningless and irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. Therefore Piggy's post is an excellent example of the argument for ignosticism.



http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/quanda/qa4/q69d01.html

 

[robinson]

P: This is a waste of time.

GT: Now you’re just being closed-minded.

HAHAHA! Thanks Piggy, that was fookin great.

 

[Piggy]

i do wonder if you actually understand agnosticism, or if you just are happy to consistently misrepresent it.......

If an agnostic position is that a general concept of god is incoherent then how on earth does is "make no sense to be agnostic about god?" Surely it does make sense to be agnostic - ie. you are accepting that general concepts of god are meaningless - and thus general proofs for hard atheism are equally meaningless.

this has been said by numerous posters on numerous occasions, and yet you perpetuate with the same fallacious logic.

Agnosticism means "I don't know" or "It can't be known".

Agnosticism does not mean "You're talking gibberish".

My stated position -- we know enough now to say without reservation that God is not real -- is certainly not an agnostic position. The "we know enough now" bit should clue you in.

And you can't shoehorn me into agnosticism by claiming that some piece of my reasoning allegedly overlaps with agnostic beliefs.

 

[Piggy]

Ignosticism is generally considered to be a subset of agnosticism. God is unknown or unknowable, (or even known or disproved) for specific clearly defined, narrow and subjective values of "god" and "existance" but any general objective, all-encompassing definition for "god" and "existance" is incoherent and meaningless. It is based on the question of "how can we say whether or not God exists when there is no meaningful definition of 'God' to evaluate?" Without a rigid determination of what "God" is, the question of whether one exists is meaningless and irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. Therefore Piggy's post is an excellent example of the argument for ignosticism.



http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/quanda/qa4/q69d01.html

It is immaterial to me whether philosophers dream up terms like "ignosticism".

I have clearly stated my position -- we know enough now to say without reservation that God is not real.

That's strong atheism.

If people want to hatch up other terms for it, that's their business. But it doesn't change the fact that my position is strong atheism.

 

[chriswl]

Ignosticism is generally considered to be a subset of agnosticism. God is unknown or unknowable, (or even known or disproved) for specific clearly defined, narrow and subjective values of "god" and "existance" but any general objective, all-encompassing definition for "god" and "existance" is incoherent and meaningless. It is based on the question of "how can we say whether or not God exists when there is no meaningful definition of 'God' to evaluate?" Without a rigid determination of what "God" is, the question of whether one exists is meaningless and irrelevant, and not worthy of consideration. Therefore Piggy's post is an excellent example of the argument for ignosticism.

OK, so why did you claim that this is what agnosticism was? It's clearly not what most agnostics believe.

Furthermore I'd disgree that "ignosticism" should be considered a subset of agnosticism. I think its a subset of hard atheism: for an ignostic, the claim that "God exists" can never be a correct claim because the word God has no referrent. The existence of God is ruled out on the grounds of incoherence.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Really? What are they?

Well, many modern conceptions fo the Christian God only have him operating in areas that modern science doesn't really understand well, like influencing peopl's thoughts and feelings and only operating in other areas when no one is looking. That would seem to fit the definition of a god that theoretically ought to be detectable, but is currently outside our abilities. As the workings of the human brain are further explored, this could change. Until scientific knowledge is complete, we can always ascribe God powers that onyl operate in whatever area we don't understand.

Not that Wikipedia ever solves anything, but according to Wikipedia, Ignosticism is considered a subset of agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

 

[andyandy]

OK, so why did you claim that this is what agnosticism was? It's clearly not what most agnostics believe..

i said an agnostic position - which it is. I did not claim it was the only tenet of an agnostic position. It is however a fundamental part of a refutation of any attempts to talk in general terms of god. It is a natural extension of a position that holds that god is unknown or unknowable as integral to this position is a recognition of the incompleteness of "god" as a term of description.

Furthermore I'd disgree that "ignosticism" should be considered a subset of agnosticism. I think its a subset of hard atheism: for an ignostic, the claim that "God exists" can never be a correct claim because the word God has no referrent. The existence of God is ruled out on the grounds of incoherence

The existance of god is not ruled out on a subjective level, - merely it holds that any attempts to provide a general solution to the question of god's existance is incoherent and meaningless.

 

[andyandy]

And you can't shoehorn me into agnosticism by claiming that some piece of my reasoning allegedly overlaps with agnostic beliefs.

i can try

 

[andyandy]

It is immaterial to me whether philosophers dream up terms like "ignosticism".

I have clearly stated my position -- we know enough now to say without reservation that God is not real.

That's strong atheism.

If people want to hatch up other terms for it, that's their business. But it doesn't change the fact that my position is strong atheism.

so we can both conclude that a general argument for god is incoherent - but whilst you have that as part of a hard-atheist argument, i'll have it as part of an agnostic argument

 

[chriswl]

The existance of god is not ruled out on a subjective level.

That doesn't make any sense. The existance or non-existance of something is a fact about how the world actually is. That would even be true if you were an idealist and the world was all mind. You can't have "subjective existance".

To say God exists on a "subjective level" is simply to say that some people believe that God exists. No hard atheist disputes this.

 

[Piggy]

so we can both conclude that a general argument for god is incoherent - but whilst you have that as part of a hard-atheist argument, i'll have it as part of an agnostic argument

Sure, why not.

 

[Piggy]

Well, many modern conceptions fo the Christian God only have him operating in areas that modern science doesn't really understand well, like influencing peopl's thoughts and feelings and only operating in other areas when no one is looking. That would seem to fit the definition of a god that theoretically ought to be detectable, but is currently outside our abilities. As the workings of the human brain are further explored, this could change. Until scientific knowledge is complete, we can always ascribe God powers that onyl operate in whatever area we don't understand.

This is the "someday my prince will come" fallacy. I don't have the time to respond fully right now, will catch up this evening. Thanks, an interesting proposal, and one that's commonly made.

 

[andyandy]

That doesn't make any sense. The existance or non-existance of something is a fact about how the world actually is. That would even be true if you were an idealist and the world was all mind. You can't have "subjective existance".
To say God exists on a "subjective level" is simply to say that some people believe that God exists. No hard atheist disputes this.

When i said that the existence of god is not ruled out on a subjective level i was referring to the fact that God is unknown or unknowable, (or even known or disproved) for specific clearly defined, narrow and subjective values of "god" and "existence." These values can be attributed on a subjective level - but any attempts to map this particular subjective interpretation to a general interpretation can not succeed.

I admit that this sentence was a little ambiguous. Your reply does however illustrate the complexities of answering "does god exist" - as it depends on how you defined existence as well as how you define god. If you define god as existing in the minds of those that believe in him, then that would very much be a existence bourne out of the subjective.

 

[Darat]

Well, many modern conceptions fo the Christian God only have him operating in areas that modern science doesn't really understand well,

...snip...

Which modern conceptions? As far as I know (for instance) the Roman Catholic Church hasn't changed its conception of God.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Actually the RCC is a somewhat good example. Look at their eventual acceptance of Galileo. Things that were once very important theological points now really have no bearing on God. Or for instance, their current position that evolution happened, but God guided that. As science advances, you can always move God up alevel to whatever science hasn't explained to avoid contradicting it. This is assuming, of course, that science can never explain everything, which is probably accurate. This is the entire God of the Gaps idea, though most people who subscribe to this will deny it. Methodists are probably a better example. I haven't heard them claim God does much except love (which of course isn't empirically verifiable) in quite a while.

 

[chriswl]

If you define god as existing in the minds of those that believe in him, then that would very much be a existence bourne out of the subjective.

Of course we can say that, in a sense, gods exist in the minds of their believers. But this renders the whole question of god's existence utterly uninteresting - gods must exist in this way, this is completely uncontroversial. No one who asks or ponders the question of gods existence can mean "does the idea of god exist in people's minds?" No one would ask such a trivial question. And using the magic word "subjective" doesn't change any of this.

You're playing around with the definition of the word "existence" just to keep the possibility of gods existence open by any means necessary. Why do agnostics do this? Why do they fight dirty on behalf of gods that they don't believe in? I'd really like to know.

 

[andyandy]

Of course we can say that, in a sense, gods exist in the minds of their believers. But this renders the whole question of god's existence utterly uninteresting - gods must exist in this way, this is completely uncontroversial. No one who asks or ponders the question of gods existence can mean "does the idea of god exist in people's minds?" No one would ask such a trivial question. And using the magic word "subjective" doesn't change any of this.

You're playing around with the definition of the word "existence" just to keep the possibility of gods existence open by any means necessary. Why do agnostics do this? Why do they fight dirty on behalf of gods that they don't believe in? I'd really like to know.

Existence is certainly something which deserves discussion when asking "does god exist?" To talk about it is not to "fight dirty."
I think that your question exposes what seems to be the fundamental motivation of those who adopt hard-atheist arguments - ie. confrontation - a fight against gods. And therefore anyone who presents an argument against hard-atheism is viewed almost automatically as fighting on behalf of gods - or an apologist, guilty of not confronting those who fight on behalf of gods. But it's a rather simplistic viewpoint which seeks to sweep aside up all arguments in a "with us or against us" mentality - and it does nothing for the hard-atheist cause.

 

[Piggy]

I think that your question exposes what seems to be the fundamental motivation of those who adopt hard-atheist arguments - ie. confrontation - a fight against gods.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Listen, I don't want to burst your bubble here, but there ain't no gods to fight against. That's what atheism means.

That's like saying that people who don't believe in Santa Claus are in a fight with Santa Claus.

And therefore anyone who presents an argument against hard-atheism is viewed almost automatically as fighting on behalf of gods - or an apologist, guilty of not confronting those who fight on behalf of gods. But it's a rather simplistic viewpoint which seeks to sweep aside up all arguments in a "with us or against us" mentality - and it does nothing for the hard-atheist cause.

It's not a matter of with us or against us.

It's a matter of what's true.

I don't go around picking fights about the non-existence of God. I work at a Xian company. If I did that, I'd be fired.

But in certain forums, it is appropriate to have these discussions.

And unfortunately, there is a persistent, naive meme which holds that God must be possible because it cannot be disproven.

But this is not actually the case.

And just because some people care to point that out, this is no cause to go around accusing them (us) of "sweeping aside all arguments" (a truly astounding claim) or of being with-us-or-against-us fanatics.

 

[Piggy]

Ok, back to something meaningful....

Well, many modern conceptions of the Christian God only have him operating in areas that modern science doesn't really understand well, like influencing people's thoughts and feelings and only operating in other areas when no one is looking. That would seem to fit the definition of a god that theoretically ought to be detectable, but is currently outside our abilities. As the workings of the human brain are further explored, this could change. Until scientific knowledge is complete, we can always ascribe God powers that only operate in whatever area we don't understand.

Actually, the basics of "influencing people's thoughts and feelings" is well enough understood to make some meaningful observations which are fatal to God-theory.

Our thoughts and emotions arise from the activity of the brain, and the extended nervous system. This model has been empirically verified through every means devised to test it. There is no other competing model.

Therefore, our thoughts and feelings always have a material/energetic state associated with them.

In order to influence this material/energetic state, there must be an input (e.g., light hitting my eyes, sound waves striking my ear, chemicals entering my digestive system or blood).

For God to have the ability to influence our thoughts and feelings, it would have to interact with us, to expend energy. Which means that God would have to be local (though not necessarily exclusively local), and at least possess potential energy in some form.

This presents 2 basic problems.

First, we now have terrestrial instruments sensitive enough to detect the CMB. Yet we have not detected anything beyond the known stuff of earthly life and matter which would possess the potential energy to influence our thoughts and feelings.

And if God has this potential energy locally, then because E=MC^2, we must conclude that it would be possible to convert some of God's energy into matter, so you could have a half gram of God in an urn on your bookcase. Yet this idea is repugnant to mainstream notions of God.

As for the proposals that (1) we can't currently detect God, or (2) we can't deny God until we know everything about everything....

The first proposal only becomes relevant when we have some definite notion of what we're talking about. Otherwise, we're left asking "can't currently detect what?"

The second proposal is simply untrue. Entities are defined by their qualities. Once we know these qualities, we only need to know enough to consider them. I cannot imagine (and have never seen proposed) a quality which would require omniscience to consider.