I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[bilby]

If the thread title was "I think we can make the positive claim that the Moon is not made of cheese", would we have all these posts trying to explain that such a claim is unsupportable?

Why is it that as soon as people (even many atheists) see the word 'God', their brains switch off, and they start looking for excuses to believe crazy nonsense?

Because it is a positive claim on the basis of not actually observing anything.

We have been to the moon, seen the stuff it is made of and it is not "cheese". We have "produced" the moon.

"Exactly zero" it an excuse to believe crazy nonsense. No absolutely unsupportable statement, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, is acceptable in a truly informed and enlightened world view.

I will say exactly zero things I cannot support with reason. "There exactly are zero gods" cannot ever be supported by reason. Therefore I shall not say it.

"Or more" is for the same reason that limit notation is used: the caveat is important.

Ahh, got it.

So if we said that the Moon isn't a core of cheese overlayed by several hundred meters of regolith and rocky material, you would argue that this claim is unsupportable, as it is a positive claim based on not actually observing anything.

And that wouldn't be batshit crazy.

The fact is that we haven't been to the interior of the moon, yet we are completely justified in saying that it's not cheese, because that's a claim that has no basis, no evidence, and contradicts what we do know with confidence about the universe.

Likewise gods. Religions do make testable claims, and where these claims contradict our knowledge, they invariably fail their tests. Mathematical proof isn't possible, but as that's also true of all our knowledge outside the field of pure mathematics, it's a pointless objection.

It remains the case that gods are less plausible than lunar stilton deposits, because we do at least have hard evidence that cheese exists.

It's therefore still a mystery in need of explanation, why people who unquestioningly accept that the suggestion that "the Moon is made of cheese" is crazy and stupid, get all defensive when we suggest the same thing about the even less plausible suggestion "gods exist".

 

[Jarhyn]

So if we said that the Moon isn't a core of cheese overlayed by several hundred meters of regolith and rocky material, you would argue that this claim is unsupportable, as it is a positive claim based on not actually observing anything

No, I wouldn't. Because you have yet to show me any mechanism by which a planetary body could be made of cheese in any regard short of there being a very large cow somewhere, or proving that we are in a simulation, which you have also failed to produce (since you don't believe we are, and to be frank, I hope we are not!).

I have seen with my own eyes a contained universe existing created by a creator, so I certainly know it's possible for universes to be nested, and that the existence of intelligent life in a universe fairly well guarantees the existence of simulated universes inside it, eventually.

The question really is if such can happen ex nihlo, which we also assume they may.

Hence zero or more.

I'm a materialist, through and through!

I just acknowledge the nonzero chance that our material is hosted on a different platform. It doesn't mean I put any weight on it nor that anyone should, but you're never going to find out if you don't consider the question of what might be looked for so to know.

More, the consideration brings one to a much more liberating realization from any of the bullshit of "god" discussions:

It doesn't matter if a god created this, of the form that has been observed to create nested universes. There is no guarantee that such is ethical, enlightened, or even good, as there are no guarantees that we are such, as we dabble at doing so, and this could be a mere dabbling, as amazing as it is from our perspective.

That's what accepting a perspective in theory of "or more" gives you.

It takes you to "'or more' doesn't matter to anything that we ought care about with regards to how we treat each other".

It's a pretty powerful statement.

 

[AdamWho]

It looks like the best rebuttles devolve into "We cannot really know anything... facts, evidence, and scientific theory need not apply"


Basically solipsism-lite

 

[steve_bank]

There is demonstrated science to show that cheese at the center of planet is not possible.

There is demonstrated science to show what happens when you jump off a building what will happen.

There is demonstrated science that says no matter how hard you flap your arms you will not fly.

There is no science that says a god or ghosts for that matter can not exist. That is what gives the purveyors pseudoscience license to make claims.

 

[bilby]

There is demonstrated science to show that cheese at the center of planet is not possible.

There is demonstrated science to show what happens when you jump off a building what will happen.

There is demonstrated science that says no matter how hard you flap your arms you will not fly.

Yes.

There is no science that says a god or ghosts for that matter can not exist.

No.

There's plenty, and of similar strength to that which you accept above.

That is what gives the purveyors pseudoscience license to make claims.

No, that is just your ignorance of modern physics.

 

[AdamWho]

It is pretty interesting why many place gods and ghosts in a different category when it comes to evidence.

They are treated like Platonic Ideas rather than actual, testable claims about how the universe works.

Seriously, we can make strong testable claims about objects on the other side of the universe but when it comes to
made-up magical beings we have to get all philosophical about how we cannot really know anything...

 

[Jarhyn]

There is demonstrated science to show that cheese at the center of planet is not possible.

There is demonstrated science to show what happens when you jump off a building what will happen.

There is demonstrated science that says no matter how hard you flap your arms you will not fly.

Yes.

There is no science that says a god or ghosts for that matter can not exist.

No.

There's plenty, and of similar strength to that which you accept above.

That is what gives the purveyors pseudoscience license to make claims.

No, that is just your ignorance of modern physics.

So, as we've demonstrated, A physics MAY host other physics. We've done it. We're doing it. We do it because we are insane and absurd and delight in absurdities as such.

Physics, and all the math that describes it, allows that to happen, and observably.

We watch it happening. I watch it happening and I'll admit, I do feel a little guilty for what I did to all the "horses", "crabs" and "goblins". I'm on the fence about the "elves".

This CAN be such an absurdity. Your incredulity doesn't impact that all.

But moreover, I take it as an educational tool. If I'm right about some things, I'm going to have consequences I have to exist with. It's ironic that I expect the far more likely outcome in a universe than a god dying for our sins is a god dying for his own, for having made this exist in this way. Not for our forgiveness but for his own.

I expect that whether it is such an absurdity is moot. Imagine this:

In the next time our cosmology goes pop into something that has a physics, that physics is going to look at what popped to cause it, and will eventually figure out how to launch a particular number of simulations, one of which may actually be the first moments of their universe.

The most fucked up part? That's our universe right there. Assuming that physics is more spatially dimensional than this one, anyway. It'll be interesting.

So it'll potentially be caused identically, even in the march of time of our own cosmology.

Because while that isn't how every infinite normal series comes to contain a recursive copy of it's first digits in some form, it's definitely a possibility for why this one does, or might.

It's all just so delightfully ridiculously absurd!

The universe is an infinite series of unique moments that might even manage to contain a copy of the formula that defines it so that it becomes recursively simulated.

The issue between "gods" and "ghosts" here is also an interesting one.

There are observed structures here in our universe where ONE person makes a whole universe.

Universes with multi-user access are common, too, but they wouldn't have "gods" so much, and the "players" would be fairly obvious in that case. It wouldn't be easy to hide supercausal events, and they would be visible all over. There might be a "god" of such, but in the event of that, it doesn't really make much sense.

If you're a player of something like that and you "die" you aren't going to still be in it, you're going to be out there in the super-physics and the simulation is going to be paused or whatever.

There just no 'ghost' to interact with unless we're talking brain-in-jar, or someone designing something that is a ghost in a simulated universe and that's also pretty dumb; as has been pointed out many times, ghosts INSIDE the physics would be physically observable.

To that end, we can safely ignore "ghosts" at least on the basis that there's no physical mechanism for them*, nor reason for there ever to be*, nor necessity of them for our existence to make sense.

Creator gods can't be ignored so easily on account of observed contained physics allowing "extra-physical" forms of interaction through volatile field manipulation.

*The only caveat to these is that there are physical mechanisms for the things people call "ghosts" and for "hauntings" and even "curses", as well as ways ghosts could exist IFF we were in a simulation owing to bug effects but this is not the thread for that. This is the thread about "gods".

 

[AdamWho]

Creator gods can't be ignored so easily on account of observed contained physics allowing "extra-physical" forms of interaction through volatile field manipulation.

You keep acting as if fictional characters are real.

Not being able to tell the difference between fiction and reality is one of the greatest sources of suffering in the world.

 

[Jarhyn]

Creator gods can't be ignored so easily on account of observed contained physics allowing "extra-physical" forms of interaction through volatile field manipulation.

You keep acting as if fictional characters are real.

Not being able to tell the difference between fiction and reality is one of the greatest sources of suffering in the world.

So aside from your ad-hom, you haven't actually answered anything here. you keep acting as if you can gain an iota more of certainty than is available to you.

The square root of -1 is "fictional" too, and yet it's still a useful mechanism for understanding various physical and mathematical systems.

At any rate, its up to you to prove it's "fictional" but you can't. If I wanted to prove "greater than zero" I would be in the same boat, but I don't care to prove "greater than zero". All I care about is the mechanics of relationship between "physical instantiations" in general.

Indeed, the reality says "there are zero or more gods", and apparently says nothing else more on the matter.

The furthest you get, and really the most you need is "Regardless of 'zero or more', however many there are, including if zero, they have zero impact or leverage on 'how we ought treat each other'".

Unless you trivially define "god" as "that from which we derive how we ought treat each other", but as I've stated, that's just math on physics, with no thinking entities required except to derive it from what unquestionably merely "is".

 

[steve_bank]

The battle of metaphysical whits has begun. Let the best man, woman, or other win.

 

[TomC]

While atheists in general have the unassailable neutral position of "I do not believe a god exists because of insufficient evidence", I think we can make significantly strong statements about gods.

Some gods are so incoherently defined and logically inconsistent that they cannot logically exist as defined. For example, the Omni-gods which is all powerful, all knowing and all loving have this contradiction. This contradiction has been well understood by Greek philosophers as early as 500 BCE. Apologists understand that this is a contradiction too and have redefined their gods to be maximally powerful as to not fall into contradiction. The Bible god falls into this category.

Other gods are more carefully defined and/or not logically impossible.

My claim is that we understand the laws of physics sufficiently well to rule-out the existence of large classes of possible gods.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Common criticisms of this point are as follows

1. "But we don't know everything". This is irrelevant because we don't need to know everything when we understand the boundaries of the possible. I don't need to know the number of grains of sand on a beach to know that it is a large but finite number...

2. "But god can break the rules". If such a god operates in the physical world, then we would see results of such a god. We don't see any god operating but many many examples of no god acting in the world on any level.

3. "But god is the physical laws of the universe". A redefinition of god into 'the physical laws' is just a version of deism and equivalent to a non-existent god.

4. Clark's Third Law "Any sufficient technology will be seen as magic". This is a literary rule-of-thumb not a physical law. It also makes a unfalsifiable claim that has no evidence. No matter what technology a god might be using, it will be based in physical law... not magic. And we typically don't refer to advanced technological beings as being gods.... although we have yet to see any evidence for such beings existing outside of fiction.

***

My claim is: The bible god absolutely doesn't exist and our understanding of physical law is sufficient to rule out the existence of anything we would label gods.

The only real problem I have with your OP is the big distinction between the title and the last, bolded, paragraph.

I totally agree that the gods* of the Bible look entirely like fictional characters. They're primitive images created by primitive people. "Bumbling sky king with superpowers" is an incoherent and implausible image of God.

But that's not the same as "nothing like gods". Humans making "positive claims" about that which cannot be known at this time is hubris.

For most of human history, everyone knew that creation was a huge, solid, flattish plane. It was overtopped by a blue dome, and a relatively small sun scooted across the sky every day. This is obviously not true. The earth is a tiny speck, hurtling through the void, kept in orbit around the sun by gravity.


Ancient people weren't stupid. They were primitive. Their methods and tools were insufficient to grasp the reality. I see no reason to believe that modern people have what it takes to understand reality either.

So making positive claims about ultimate nature of reality looks like flat earth creationism to me.
Tom

ETA ~* I say gods because even the Bible contains many Gods. Genesis God, Exodus God, and New Testament God are profoundly different characters.~

 

[Jarhyn]

Bumbling sky king with superpowers

Hey now, I resemble that remark as relates to certain (simulated) universes.

I guess the bigger point I like hammering on is really that such an entity can, contra the facial descriptions in the Bible (but absolutely according to the actual conduct described thereof), be called "bumbling", and that can be what we get.

It's entirely possible maybe even probable, for a simulation to have more ethically developed organisms than the host reality.

Also, conceptualizations of omnipotence and omniscience of such are harshly and starkly limited by their intelligence, which unlike their power to stop time of simulations and look stuff up or change things is not guaranteed as "unlimited".

They might be able to answer any trivia about any moment, but wouldn't know you had a cheeseburger for lunch without stopping and looking it up, which may be an inordinate amount of effort.

 

[AdamWho]

The only real problem I have with your OP is the big distinction between the title and the last, bolded, paragraph.

My claim is: The bible god absolutely doesn't exist and our understanding of physical law is sufficient to rule out the existence of anything we would label gods.

So making positive claims about ultimate nature of reality looks like flat earth creationism to me.

That is too strong of a statement.

We certainly can make well-supported, positive claims about the nature of reality and such claims are not equivalent to flat earth creationism.

But lets assume good intent on your part.

The claim is: once you rule-out logically impossible gods and "equivalent to non-existent gods", the remaining "possible gods" are technological in nature and we would not label them as "gods".

 

[Jarhyn]

We certainly can make well-supported provably unsupportable positive claims about the nature metaphysics of reality and such claims are not absolutely equivalent to flat earth creationism

There you go.

Regardless of whether you wish to label the creator of a simulation a "god" is not up to you. It is the very definition of "a creator god" by most religions and you don't have enough leverage over a planetary population over what utterance they attach to a specific concept.

It even gets omniscience and omnipotence if it isn't wholely incompetent.

It just isn't necessarily competent.

And it just isn't necessary.

"Gods" being unnecessary is more important to philosophy and thought in general than there being zero of them.

It is only important if you're the sort of person to bow and scrape just because a "creator of the universe" tells you to.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is pretty interesting why many place gods and ghosts in a different category when it comes to evidence.

They are treated like Platonic Ideas rather than actual, testable claims about how the universe works.

Seriously, we can make strong testable claims about objects on the other side of the universe but when it comes to
made-up magical beings we have to get all philosophical about how we cannot really know anything...

God claims and magic claims are the same claims. Can we know that magic isn't real? Yes. Therefore we can also know that gods aren't real.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is pretty interesting why many place gods and ghosts in a different category when it comes to evidence.

They are treated like Platonic Ideas rather than actual, testable claims about how the universe works.

Seriously, we can make strong testable claims about objects on the other side of the universe but when it comes to
made-up magical beings we have to get all philosophical about how we cannot really know anything...

God claims and magic claims are the same claims. Can we know that magic isn't real? Yes. Therefore we can also know that gods aren't real.

God claims are claims that the universe is a simulation and has a creator, exactly when that claim is "there is a god".

To which one can say "produce the god, then. Show me super-causality, show me a concrete causal adjacency."

If you want to discuss which claims people make by saying "it's magic" I'll tell you what I tell Meta: not the thread for it and if you want a thread for it start one. Maybe something equally ridiculous as this thread title, even!

At any rate, claims about things that you haven't tried to understand seems a little facile.

In many ways, most claims people make ABOUT "god metaphysics" and ABOUT magic ARE equally nonsensical.

Included in the set of nonsensical claims are "there are exactly zero" and "there are more than zero" and "they are necessarily benevolent" and "this specific one is" and of magic "magic works by 'outsider quantum bullshit action'" and "the things people call magic and spirits do not reference real phenomena explained of observed physical principles".

Sometimes for people who experience "spirits", the observed physical principle is "someone has structures of the brain which allow hallucinatory experiences to be perceived as if they were made of atoms and particles rather than such merely being simulated as if such by a neural cluster, and so are thought of incorrectly as real external beings until the person can learn to discern they are not."

It's not quite that bad for most, but that's an example.

But for others, I assure you there are a few real things being done and all the weird chanting and bell ringing and sword carrying, even if the people doing those things would describe the action of effect differently than I would.

I certainly know the actions of effect I propose are sufficient for the extent of effects I observe.

If you want more, start a thread.

 

[abaddon]

Regardless of whether you wish to label the creator of a simulation a "god" is not up to you.

Yes it is. There's nothing more to it than goofing around with words.

It is the very definition of "a creator god" by most religions...

No it isn't. By "a creator god" they mean the source, the origination, of the entirety of existence. The so-called "creator" of a simulation is by definition an imitator.

Here's from a Christian site:

Genesis 1:1 says that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That means that, before Genesis 1:1, there existed no heavens and no earth.

(from here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Creator-God.html)

In some creation tales, the god has some material at hand but it's formless. So these myths are less about "from nothing" and more about "from chaos" but the same basic point applies: the gods are not imitators.

Simulation is imitation.

simulation (n.)
mid-14c., "a false show, false profession," from Old French simulation "pretence" and directly from Latin simulationem (nominative simulatio) "an imitating, feigning, false show, hypocrisy," noun of action from past participle stem of simulare "imitate," from stem of similis "like, resembling, of the same kind"

(from here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/simulation)

 

[AdamWho]

Recapping again:

Apparently, even on skeptic forums, imaginary entities hold a special place when it comes to evidence for existence.

We all knew humans have a long history of pretending imaginary things exist (religion) and to rationalize this delusion humans have built whole branches of philosophy (see: metaphysics, theology) attempting to explain why imaginary things are real.

Because it has been systematized, it is intellectually justified to pretend imaginary things are real... even to the point that it is seen as being un-intellectual and uniformed to point out this absurdity.... CAN'T YOU SEE THE KINGS FINE ROBES YOU DOLT!!!

 

[Jarhyn]

More, that not even those claims made against specific imaginary entities render actually true modal statements about their class of entity false, one of which being "there are zero or more".

Nobody here is claiming imaginary things are real. We are just pointing out one of those imaginary things, an imagination of nonsense in the truest form, is that reality has somehow rendered "there are zero" true.

The only true statement requires the whole "there are zero or more".

I have explained a number of times in the free will threads over in "other PD", the "or more" is inconsequential as to our ethics, the "zero" being in the construct means that no conceptualization is itself accurate or remotely trustworthy.

Even universes created by gods may be created by gods who are themselves ignorant of the game theory behind ethics, who are ignorant of the physics of the world they create as much as it's denizens. The creator of a universe can quite literally be the dumbest thing in that world, as far as the critters of that world are concerned.

I'm talking about an actual class of observed entity, something that humans have observed humans doing, and being.

At any rate, I'm going to trend towards intellectual honesty and away from intellectual bias. I will say "there are zero or more, there may be zero; we ought operate as if there are zero; if we find out 'more', maybe the answer is to figure out how to make that number 'zero, because we killed it."

 

[Kylie]

While atheists in general have the unassailable neutral position of "I do not believe a god exists because of insufficient evidence", I think we can make significantly strong statements about gods.

Some gods are so incoherently defined and logically inconsistent that they cannot logically exist as defined. For example, the Omni-gods which is all powerful, all knowing and all loving have this contradiction. This contradiction has been well understood by Greek philosophers as early as 500 BCE. Apologists understand that this is a contradiction too and have redefined their gods to be maximally powerful as to not fall into contradiction. The Bible god falls into this category.

Other gods are more carefully defined and/or not logically impossible.

My claim is that we understand the laws of physics sufficiently well to rule-out the existence of large classes of possible gods.

Sean Carrol notes "The laws of physics for everyday life are completely understood". This statement is while shocking is not controversial to people who understand physics. And there simply is no room within the gaps of our knowledge for any god-like thing to exist.

Common criticisms of this point are as follows

1. "But we don't know everything". This is irrelevant because we don't need to know everything when we understand the boundaries of the possible. I don't need to know the number of grains of sand on a beach to know that it is a large but finite number...

2. "But god can break the rules". If such a god operates in the physical world, then we would see results of such a god. We don't see any god operating but many many examples of no god acting in the world on any level.

3. "But god is the physical laws of the universe". A redefinition of god into 'the physical laws' is just a version of deism and equivalent to a non-existent god.

4. Clark's Third Law "Any sufficient technology will be seen as magic". This is a literary rule-of-thumb not a physical law. It also makes a unfalsifiable claim that has no evidence. No matter what technology a god might be using, it will be based in physical law... not magic. And we typically don't refer to advanced technological beings as being gods.... although we have yet to see any evidence for such beings existing outside of fiction.

***

My claim is: The bible god absolutely doesn't exist and our understanding of physical law is sufficient to rule out the existence of anything we would label gods.

I would agree that for any specific version of God it is conceivable that we can disprove it, but that doesn't mean that we can say for sure that no entity that would be seen as a God does not exist.