Generic failures in arguments for the nonexistence God

Philosophy of Religion
505

What kind of difference are we looking for? As far as I can tell there’s suffering. Do we now go with a good God or a bimoral/evil deity? We’re eye-to-eye on that, referencing your first post.

The human condition has been described as many things but if I’m correct the majority view is that we’re flung into the world. Contrast that to what some consider a fictional pourquoi story - God and us, his children.

The more I look at the universe, the less convinced I am that there’s something benevolent going on ~ NDT

The God of the OT is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it. A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak. A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, capriciously malevolent bully ~ RD

What do the above eloquent words allude to?

506

Here’s my issue. Once one invokes “beyond our comprehension,” the jig is up. Does one prove an expression that is "beyond our comprehension " ? Does something “beyond our comprehension” explain something else ?

Not saying you, but I see this move in some theists. They are invested in demonstrated how warranted their beliefs are but will alternative appeals to science with gestures toward the “incomprehensible.” To me this looks like an identity crisis, an incoherent pose. Very human and forgivable, but undecided.

Is “God” just a metaphysical puzzle piece ? Approaching God in terms of longwinded intricate arguments strikes me as lukewarm religion, religion dying into more metaphysics, mere “Truth”-purveying, the quest for Infinite Verbal Correctitude. Basically it dies into spiritual physics, where the goal is to “know deep cosmic facts” that the unwashed will never enjoy.

It’s not easy to mix Socrates and Saint Paul.

I think you implied you were an atheist ?

We might pragmatically investigate belief itself. To me belief is best understood as the shape of what we do, primarily non-verbally. So it’s not primarily a verbal “vote.” Talk is too cheap. How does Joe “live” his belief or disbelief in God ?

For instance, “not believing” in Santa Clause is less a calculation than a way of living in the world. Do I live like free stuff will arrive from a jolly fat immortal in a red suit ? No. Do I live like hellfire or harps will greet my “soul” when this body fails ? No.

507

There are many unknowns in the world e.g. can binary star systems support habitable planets? God is one of them. I simplify, hopefully not to the point of losing all meaning, the situation in the following way.

Theism (mainly Christianity) and science has at least 1k years of history together. There were tragedies (Giordano Bruno), near-tragedies (Galileo) and joyful moments: Averroes (Unum Veritas) \to Maimonides (Guide for the perplexed) \to Thomas Aquinas. With the last of this triad it was no longer anti-Christian to study the sciences. Fr. Georges Lematrie (BBT) was a product of Thomism. The Popes have been supportive of the Thomist doctrine of science and religion instead of science or religion. To me science is in danger of transforming into scientism and science has been utterly silent about morality. Science works in a mind-boggling way and religion does not, in an equally mind-boggling way. However there were times when they seem to converge e.g. the BBT and the creation accounts of Christianity. In a way theism is a scientific claim, positing an unknown force/energy operating in the universe and the existence of (a) cryptid(s).

God as a metaphysical puzzle piece is in accord with my quote above.

Epistemology is a complex field but to cancel billions of theists from the calculus appears to be madness.

1 Like
508

I mentioned something like this above. I find it reasonable (though very uncommon) to think of God as an empirical object, a creature in the world with us. This is part of what many already believe. Feuerbach saw the huge gulf between the personal God who hears prayers and the philosopher’s God, who solves a puzzle.

But it’s fair to understand the personal God as doing both. “The world was created by a kind father for the benefit of humans. Therefore suffering is not so bad as it seems. We can push through. It all makes sense in ways we don’t yet understand.”

Your “force/energy” sounds maybe like a mix of both ? Presumably this force is “good” and “on our side” and deserving of admiration ?

I sometimes think of what God meant to Bach. Then there are fascinating thinkers like Nicholas of Cusa. The concept of God is extremely rich. Some theists are far more sophisticated intellectually than many an atheist. I am sure of that. Yet I am basically an atheist. I might use “God” in the fashion of Emerson, or I might use “God” as a name for reality. I don’t feel any hatred for religion or theism. I think religious traditions tend to include highly valuable stuff. Really I don’t think religion is at its best in the metaphysical mode. But I feel the same way about philosophy. Belief is not primarily words or claims. It’s a way of living with one’s entire flesh. Maybe J. S. Bach’s “thoughts” on God are to be looked for in his music, etc. Maybe Hendrix is the kind of theologian some of us can learn from. Or maybe Richie Havens found the holy name:

509

Yes, I suppose we must approach from many angles. Some of these have yielded much in various dimensions. I’m mostly focused on the OOO-God. The definition is 3-part and each of the 3 is clear. This is the God which (strong) atheism denies and for good reasons: PoS, poor design, etc.. but they don’t actually furnish the decisive argument or the smoking gun either. They rely on a fallacy viz. argumentum ad ignorantiam (you haven’t proven God exists and so God doesn’t exist). Did you read the post where I mention kangaroos, creatures I had no evidence for as a child. Had I concluded they don’t exist I would’ve been wrong.

510

Strawman again. Given that theism is not true (makes unproven truth-claims), it is more reasonable to disbelieve than to believe theism’s claims. “God” is not the issue, just claims about “God”.

511

We’re going around in circles. :+1:

512

Again: We do not make positive claims about gods or God (and therefore do not bear a burden of proof). We reject, or disbelieve, any unproven claims about gods or God. We are reasoned atheists.

1 Like
513

I’d argue the atheist side against OOO in semantic terms. To me it’s like a round square. It’s not an empirical hypothesis in the first place. I also think the appearence/reality distinction ( if the reality is “Objective Reality”) is tacitly a version of God, something like the faded residue of a once passionate theism.

To me belief is primarily enacted as the “shape” of non-verbal conduct. So it’s not like a game of “Chess” where all we care about is words that are supposed to “mirror” a hidden “True” reality. My objection to “truth” ( as deep property) is basically the same as my objection to the OOO-God. To me it’s all non-empirical “nonsense.” Not “pure nonsense.” Certainly feelings are involved. There is some kind of signification. But it’s way too blurry for my taste.

514

Yes there are concerns about God’s attributes and whether they’re free of paradoxes but the matter is resolved by examining the Epicurean trilemma. There are people who say God’s not omnipotent or that he’s not omniscient or that he’s not omnibenevolent. Some consider this to be too destructive to theism. It’s to toe the Humean line: Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call him God? This is a misunderstanding of God.

God’s a hypothesis and while it may not be at par with (say) scientific or a mechanic’s hypothesis it is one. Like any hypothesis about reality it’s empirical i.e. it’s falsifiable. However that doesn’t mean it’s falsified. If it were then why are there theists?

I think what I wrote above should prompt you to rethink your conclusion that theism is nonsense. Life’s full of nonsense and yet they are e.g. light is a wave and a particle. :grinning_face:

1 Like
515

Personally I don’t think in terms of “true” or “false.” I’d say instead that empirical claims are subject to embarrassment or negative feedback. As philosophers of science have noted long before me, we can always blame the failure of a prediction on some other piece of our system of beliefs.

Generally an empirical claim directs us to expect this perception rather than that one, this measurement rather than that one. I don’t see how an OOO-God allows for this.

With respect to the bolded question, the scientific management of belief is the exception rather than the rule. And then what people even mean by “God” varies. Many sophisticated theists would disagree with you, I think, that theism is an empirical hypothesis.

I respect some manifestations of theism, so I am not an anti-theist. But I am skeptical about “metaphysical” theism. If God is “only a thesis,” then that’s just another speculative theory. Then argument tacitly becomes the God of God, because the concern shifts to making a case, and away from the meaning of the thesis in the first place.

How is this theism performed ? For instance, is homophobia justified in terms of the OT ? Is the OT taken to be written by God in the first place ? Is the OOO more of a global God, detached from any particular tradition ? All this stuff matters. Is there an afterlife ? If so, why should one believe that ? The more vague God is, the more easily defended, at least in political terms. But what exactly is being defended ?

Let’s say Joe is a theist. He is sure that God exists. But he knows nothing definite about God. Is Joe kinder to people now ? More arrogant ? Less arrogant ? Does Joe give money to widows and orphans ? What does belief in God do with the body ? I’d even say that belief is primarily what the body does, and the mouth here is part of that but not the focus.

Do you know the work of Whitman or Emerson ? Great stuff. My view, expressed metaphorically, is that every existence is a “face” of “God.” This is one version among many of the “God == Reality” approach. You might say that I am only naming reality with this word “God.” And I agree. But I see reality as nothing hidden “behind” experience. Reality is there as the shared world that we are in the middle of making sense of. Post-Hegelian Christian-influenced thought might be called “visionary humanism.” Metaphorically speaking, it understands the “incarnation” to be total, so that God is only mortal flesh in the world. From this POV, we ourselves are each little pieces of God. But this God is not complete, not perfect, not devoid of evil. The “God” is something like the historical process itself, that comes to understand itself as such in a gradual intensification of time-binding self-consciousness. I might choose the early work of Feuerbach as the best source on this.

516

Yes, we’re free to ignore truth/falsehood. It’s quite common to do so. For example questions, suggestions, commands are neither true nor false.

Why isn’t God an empirical claim? See here

You’re at liberty to believe and do as you please, but that doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist. Nor does it prove that God does.

1 Like
517

I suppose there’s no harm in discussing Leonhard Euler’s proof of God.

x = \frac{a + b^n}{n}. Hence God exists! Reply. Euler was speaking to Diderot

I’ve graphed the equation using a = 1, b = 2 and n as the variable. The values for a and b are arbitrary. Euler didn’t say which of the 3 were variables and which were constants. I’ve also marked the region between -1 and +1 and a local minimum on the graph

Euler
Euler855×639 32.5 KB

Behavior of the equation

  1. Between -1 and 0 the graph approaches - \infty
  2. Between 0 and +1 the graph goes off to + \infty
  3. Beyond -1 the graph asymptotes to 0
  4. Beyond +1 the graph shoots off to + \infty

It’s basically a hyperbola that’s suffering from b^n, which overwhelms the hyperbola’s asymptotic behavior as n \to \infty. It’s a hyperbola-exponentiation hybrid

A hyperbola :backhand_index_pointing_down:

Hyperbola
Hyperbola621×679 18.2 KB

The graphs were made with Desmos Graphing Calculator

518

I agree. But I don’t think of “proof” in a quasi-mathematical sense.

I’m not young enough to think that I am going to talk people into or out of belief in God.

519

And that’s all we’re saying. You’ve failed to show us your truth-maker, ergo we don’t believe your claim. ‘Agnosticism’ (re: theism, “pastry-in-the-fridge”) does not obtain. Case closed. :upside_down_face:

520

That may not be specific enough a criticism to matter. The claims are God exists and God doesn’t exist. If there’s another claim you have to state it so that we can discuss it.

Regarding my pastry example, you have to show there’s no pastry. Do you expect me to believe there’s no pastry without you showing me there’s no pastry?

521

Proof is what it is. Any book on logic will clarify any doubts you have. There’s no problem if you want to do something different.

Your earlier statement makes your last point quite intriguing.

1 Like
522

From my POV, you are tacitly projecting a questionable “metaphysicks” on a mere formalism. A serious study of mathematics by a philosopher doesn’t quash doubts. It inspires them. I’m probably not the ideal victim of “vague appeals to math and logic.”

What do you make of Turing’s especially elegant proof in his famous paper that there is no algorithm for deciding whether a Turing machine is circle-free ?

How do you make senes of the proof that p^2 = 2q^2 has no solutions in the positive integers ? What is it exactly ( or less inexactly) to find this proof convincing ?

Or — an apparently “easier” question — what is the “total real world meaning” of P \implies Q ? Or do you think the mere symbols radiate an Immediate Deep Cosmic Truth ?

My last point is connected to what I’d call “emotional intelligence” of “psychological realism.” In other words, people aren’t calculators. People cling to their beliefs. This happens even in physics and math, though less conspicuously. In philosophy, it is vivid. This is why outsiders sometimes say that philosophy doesn’t make progress. They expect philosophers to arrive at a consensus. But this is just part of the monological prejudice that some philosophers —not most of them — escape.

523

The question wasn’t for me, but I’ll bite.

Most atheists aren’t motivated to convince theists to abandon their beliefs, at least in my experience. But this is a philosophy forum. Typically those introducing entities are expected to make a case for them.

“Did you know that a 7-eyed spider-like entity from Neptune named Morff rules our planet ? Prove otherwise !”

This becomes easier to understand if you think of belief in visceral terms. Humans cooperate “physically” or “materially” with their bodies in the world. Joe wants Sally to spent time and energy on this project rather than that one. If people were just bags of words, then verbal beliefs wouldn’t matter enough to be worth discussing and comparing in the first place.

As Popper put, we let our theories do our dying for us. That is science. A theory that we won’t allow to die, no matter what, is not empirical, not scientific. The scientific personality identities with a second-order tradition of belief management, a meta-belief about how beliefs should be managed — and not with a particular first-order belief.

524

Strawman. We do not claim “God doesn’t exist”. We claim theism is not true, therefore we don’t believe its unproven claims.