I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[Jobar]

There are of course the born into religions type cultures but... you have to also consider e.g. case by case former atheists /agnostics who have become theists , and for what reasons they did so.

Learner, back in the nineties a fellow named Steve Locks did a great deal of research on philosophically informed atheists or agnostics who later became believers, of whatever sort. See Asymmetry of Conversion for his work.

He found that extremely few people who demonstrated understanding of the arguments for atheism or agnosticism ever took up any form of religious faith. And none of those few could ever give logical arguments for their change of heart; it was always emotionally driven, not a matter of reasoning. OTOH, there are great numbers of priests, theologians, and committed believers from all faiths and walks of life who have become unbelievers due to the force of the rational arguments against belief in God, or gods. I am one; many here will say the same.

From another site on this asymmetry:

Brian Holtz is a bit more specific in his "Atheist Deconversion" pages; he looks for conversion provoked by force of reason, without any influence from

example or pressure from parents, professors, or any authority figure;
desire for fellowship with some religious person or social group;
desire to rebel against parents, professors, or any authority figure;
negative personal experience with anti-religious people or institutions;
distaste for the historical or distant actions of anti-religious people or institutions;
distaste for the evils that might be mitigated by belief in god(s);
emotional dissatisfaction with the logical implications of atheism;
personal injustice or victimhood;
personal misfortune such as disability, injury, illness, or the misfortune of a loved one;
personal failure or crisis related to substance abuse, gambling, guilty conscience, imprisonment, etc.;
personal dissatisfaction with one's social, romantic, or vocational circumstances;
desire to reform (or excuse) one's morality or behavior;
desire for hope in divine reward.

He continues by analyzing such self-proclaimed ex-atheists as A.S.A. Jones, Josh McDowell, and Lee Strobel, finding some of those factors at work.

I note that I've personally seen people who switched from unbeliever to believer- until they were put on medications which effectively helped them deal with mental illnesses of one sort or another, who then went back to atheism. (Not that I'm saying religious belief is in itself a mental illness, but it can result from such illness, definitely.)

 

[Bomb#20]

If that's what you mean by "God" then you are not talking about the Biblical Christian God. A thing cannot create itself -- that would be a contradiction in terms -- and the God in the Bible is alive.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”​

- Matthew 16:15-16

Then as Atrib has indicated in his previous post .. its must be my lack of articulation or wording. (as usual)

Created life ... what did I mean? the life I'm talking about is: "organic" physical life-forms of a material universe. As its written ; life exists as an afterlife too.

Hypothetically, let's suppose next year the warp-drive is invented, in two years NASA sends a mission to Alpha Centauri, in three years Virgin Galactic actually goes literally galactic, in four years the fares drop down to your vacation price range, and in five years you take a cruise to Arcturus. There, you meet an ancient race of long-lived inorganic silicon-based life forms. One of the aliens explains to you that four billion years ago, their ancestors determined that our newly forming solar system would never become suitable for silicon-based life, and, abhorring the wastefulness of lifeless star systems, one of their scientists -- in point of fact, his own mother -- invented DNA, constructed a self-reproducing cell, and obtained authorization from the galactic environmental protection agency to set it free on the primordial Earth.

Hypothetically, how would you react to this knowledge? Would you say "Wow! Your mother was THE Creator of organic physical life-forms of a material universe. You are the Son of God! I shall worship you!"?

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

A "god" is anything that wants to be worshiped and deserves to be. Worship is immoral. Therefore gods do not exist.

The aspect of God wanting to be worshipped did not start from the beginning in Genesis until man started to worship other gods , as often noted for example when God said HE was a jealous God , but for our good reason and benefit (imo from the biblical sense).

So your biblical God is subject to being modified by human action? Which version of Him do you worship? The original Being who didn't want to be worshiped, or the degraded-by-jealousy Being who doesn't deserve to be? Either way, He doesn't qualify as a god.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus:
Sorry I didn't fully read your initial post. I see you are defining what you mean by "proof". You also talk about "evidence". I would have preferred you just talk about "evidence" rather than "proof". I didn't like you saying you CAN prove and others CAN prove that God does or doesn't exist. I'd rather you said people THINK they have proof.
edit: I see you call a series of premises and a conclusion a "proof". That sounds reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Nature_of_relevant_proofs_and_arguments
Here they tend to call them "arguments" rather than "proofs" of God's existence.

The problem that I was trying to address is that the real argument is never just the conclusion that God exists, does not exist, or cannot be proven either way. It is almost always over hidden assumptions that are so far down the logic chain that people never address them. If I believe that there is no spiritual plane of existence beyond physical reality, i.e. I reject Cartesian dualism, then that limits the kinds of arguments you could bring to bear to change my mind about the nonexistence of spiritual deities. It is pointless for us to debate a god's existence, if there is no logical scaffolding on which to hang him/her/it. When I said that I can mount an argument to prove that God does not exist--a belief that I am quite convinced of--I can do that. The proof would sound fairly trivial and superficial to a theist, but that is because the interesting part of the proof is buried inside the premises. That is why atheists and theists seldom seem to get anywhere and end up talking past each other. Arguments don't change people's minds. Theists invariably have to have accepted other fundamental changes to their belief system before they reach the point where God evaporates in a puff of logic. Otherwise, their own logical processes tend to maintain their conviction that God exists, no matter how many times atheists insist that they are being irrational.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Copernicus:
Sorry I didn't fully read your initial post. I see you are defining what you mean by "proof". You also talk about "evidence". I would have preferred you just talk about "evidence" rather than "proof". I didn't like you saying you CAN prove and others CAN prove that God does or doesn't exist. I'd rather you said people THINK they have proof.
edit: I see you call a series of premises and a conclusion a "proof". That sounds reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Nature_of_relevant_proofs_and_arguments
Here they tend to call them "arguments" rather than "proofs" of God's existence.

The problem that I was trying to address is that the real argument is never just the conclusion that God exists, does not exist, or cannot be proven either way. It is almost always over hidden assumptions that are so far down the logic chain that people never address them. If I believe that there is no spiritual plane of existence beyond physical reality, i.e. I reject Cartesian dualism, then that limits the kinds of arguments you could bring to bear to change my mind about the nonexistence of spiritual deities. It is pointless for us to debate a god's existence, if there is no logical scaffolding on which to hang him/her/it. When I said that I can mount an argument to prove that God does not exist--a belief that I am quite convinced of--I can do that. The proof would sound fairly trivial and superficial to a theist, but that is because the interesting part of the proof is buried inside the premises. That is why atheists and theists seldom seem to get anywhere and end up talking past each other. Arguments don't change people's minds. Theists invariably have to have accepted other fundamental changes to their belief system before they reach the point where God evaporates in a puff of logic. Otherwise, their own logical processes tend to maintain their conviction that God exists, no matter how many times atheists insist that they are being irrational.

Indeed. I think the word is ontology.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If that's what you mean by "God" then you are not talking about the Biblical Christian God. A thing cannot create itself -- that would be a contradiction in terms -- and the God in the Bible is alive.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”​

- Matthew 16:15-16

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

A "god" is anything that wants to be worshiped and deserves to be. Worship is immoral. Therefore gods do not exist.

Then as Atrib has indicated in his previous post .. its must be my lack of articulation or wording. (as usual)

Created life ... what did I mean? the life I'm talking about is: "organic" physical life-forms of a material universe. As its written ; life exists as an afterlife too.

The aspect of God wanting to be worshipped did not start from the beginning in Genesis until man started to worship other gods , as often noted for example when God said HE was a jealous God , but for our good reason and benefit (imo from the biblical sense).

Okay, so you are apparently implying that wanting to be worshiped is not a necessary condition for something to be a god. No problem. Here's an easy modification of Bomb#20's definition and argument:

A "god" is anything that deserves to be worshiped. Worship is immoral. Thus, no thing, agent, substance, etc., deserves to be worshiped. Therefore, gods do not exist.

 

[Copernicus]

...A "god" is anything that wants to be worshiped and deserves to be. Worship is immoral. Therefore gods do not exist.

Then as Atrib has indicated in his previous post .. its must be my lack of articulation or wording. (as usual)

Created life ... what did I mean? the life I'm talking about is: "organic" physical life-forms of a material universe. As its written ; life exists as an afterlife too.

The aspect of God wanting to be worshipped did not start from the beginning in Genesis until man started to worship other gods , as often noted for example when God said HE was a jealous God , but for our good reason and benefit (imo from the biblical sense).

Okay, so you are apparently implying that wanting to be worshiped is not a necessary condition for something to be a god. No problem. Here's an easy modification of Bomb#20's definition and argument:

A "god" is anything that deserves to be worshiped. Worship is immoral. Thus, no thing, agent, substance, etc., deserves to be worshiped. Therefore, gods do not exist.

Arguing over a definition of "God" that does not actually represent a reasonable definition of the concept satisfies no one except for the person who made up the definition. Scholasticism went the additional step of trying to incorporate God's very existence into the definition, and Bomb's casual attempt tries to employ the same trick in reverse. One cannot define something into existence or nonexistence. Gods either exist or they do not. That is an empirical claim that is subject to physical investigation, since existence has physical consequences.

The meaning of the word "God" does not depend on the wishes of the person using that word. Like any other word in the language, people use it as a conventional means of expressing a concept that is shared within a community of speakers, so its meaning can be investigated by examining usage of the word in that community. Worship or "worthiness of worship" is certainly associated with the beings referred to as gods, but so are a lot of other properties. Gods are also usually thought to be spiritual entities that do not necessarily need physical bodies to exist. In the minds of believers, existence can be of two types--spiritual or physical. Gods are also able to create physical reality and to control it, just as human beings are thought to control their own physical bodies through spiritual control. That is, gods are supernatural beings. Gods also typically have a lot of other properties associated with them, and every one of those properties entails beliefs that theists and non-theists can disagree on.

If an atheist tries to argue against belief in gods, that person implies acceptance--perhaps just for argument's sake--of a great many of the attributes that we conventionally associated with gods. The problem is that those concessions often don't get aired, so many of the assumptions that support the atheist's argument go unchallenged, as do many of those that support the theist's side.

One of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, was something of a theist, although he was a very nuanced one. He seemed to have a view similar to the one I've been espousing here:

A proof of God’s existence ought really to be something by means of which one could convince oneself that God exists. But I think that what believers who have furnished such proofs have wanted to do is give their ‘belief’ an intellectual analysis and foundation, although they themselves would never have come to believe as a result of such proofs. Perhaps one could ‘convince someone that God exists’ by means of a certain kind of upbringing, by shaping his life in such a way.

Life can educate one to a belief in God. And experiences too are what bring this about; but I don’t mean visions and other forms of sense experience which show us the ‘existence of this being’, but, e.g., sufferings of various sorts. These neither show us God in the way a sense impression shows us an object, nor do they give rise to conjectures about him. Experiences, thoughts, — life can force this concept on us.

It strikes me that a religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although it’s belief, it’s really a way of living, or a way of assessing life. It’s passionately seizing hold of this interpretation. Instruction in religious faith, therefore, would have to take the form of a portrayal, a description, of that system of reference, while at the same time being an appeal to conscience. And this combination would have to result in the pupil himself, of his own accord, passionately taking hold of the system of reference. It would be as though someone were first to let me see the hopelessness of my situation and then show me the means of my rescue until, of my own accord, or not at any rate led to it by my instructor, I ran to it and grasped it.

Suppose someone said: ‘What do you believe, Wittgenstein? Are you a sceptic? Do you know whether you will survive death?’ I would really, this is a fact, say ‘I can’t say. I don’t know’, because I haven’t any clear idea what I am saying when I am saying, ‘I don’t cease to exist.’

(See Wittgenstein on God and Belief)

 

[bilby]

The physics of the human scale - larger than atoms, smaller than the solar system - is now completely understood.

There are no unknown or undetectable forces, fields, or particles that influence or could possibly influence humans. We know that the known forces, fields and particles cannot carry the information necessary for any hypothetical 'spiritual' realm to influence, or be influenced by, a physical human body or brain.

It's therefore impossible for human experience, thought, personality or life to exist in the absence of a functioning human brain; Or for gods to influence humans via non-physical means.

Human knowledge has closed the last of the gaps. Gods have been shown to be purely an imaginary construct; A fiction that exists only in our brains, passed from brain to brain by means of language. No other mechanism is possible that could have remained undetected.

It's over. That most people don't understand this, is just an indictment of our education systems. We know how to put a man on the moon. We know that gods are impossible. But most people don't have clue one how to put a man on the moon. Human knowledge is not shared by most humans. So lots of people believe nonsensical things.

But belief in gods remains as misinformed as moon landing denial. Agnosticism is no better. If you don't know that there are no gods, you are insufficiently educated to be entitled to an opinion; Just as, if you say you don't know whether or not Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, you demonstrate a lack of education in the subject that renders you unfit to opine upon it.

People HATE being told that their cherished beliefs are due to pure ignorance; But the solution for such people is learning and education, not for everyone to reassure them that their conclusions founded in ignorance are (contrary to the facts) worthy of consideration and respect.

It's over. Religion is dead. It just hasn't stopped twitching yet.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Arguing over a definition of "God" that does not actually represent a reasonable definition of the concept satisfies no one for the person who made up the definition.

First, it is a reasonable definition of the concept as used by some theists.

Second, different people mean different things by the word "God". It is even frequent for the same person to mean different things in different arguments, often without realizing it.

Third, even a definition that does not represent a reasonable definition of the concept can be useful for showing non-existence, as long as the definition captures a necessary condition built in the concept.
A modification of the argument in that regard would be:

Anything that is a god is worthy of worship. Worship is immoral. Thus, no thing, agent, substance, etc., deserves to be worshiped. Therefore, gods do not exist.

That argument does not require that "worthy of worship" fully capture the concept of "god", or "God", or whatever, but rather, that it captures a necessary condition. Most theists philosophers will agree that that is at least a necessary condition. Some will surely agree that it is sufficient. And perhaps - though I'm not sure about this - most will agree it is sufficient.

Scholasticism went the additional step of trying to incorporate God's very existence into the definition, and Bomb's casual attempt tries to employ the same trick in reverse.

Let me cite William Lane Craig, a theist philosopher famous and celebrated among Christians.


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med.../paul-moser-and-the-hiddenness-of-god-part-1/

If a being is not worthy of worship then however powerful it is, eternal, omnipresent, it is not God if it is not worthy of worship. I think he is absolutely right in thinking that God is conceptually required to be a being which, if it exists, is worthy of worship.

This is not a trick.
Alright, they would not say that God, conceptually, is required to want to be worshipped. They will likely hold that God has no wants, except when incarnated, etc.. But as I pointed out, the wanting condition is not required for the argument.

Granted, you might say Craig is mistaken about the meaning of the word "God". I think that depends on the context of usage, but going for a rather frequent usage, he is correct. But moreover, sometimes philosophers just define what they will argue for (thankfully, because otherwise, it would be a mess in the case of "God", but anyway). For example:

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. Now the YouTube atheist might protest, “But how do you know God has those properties?” The question is misplaced. “God” has been stipulated to be the person, if any, referred to by that description. The real question is whether there is anything answering to that description, that is to say, does such a person exist? The whole burden of Swinburne’s natural theology is to present arguments that there is such a person. You can reject his arguments, but there’s no disputing the meaningfulness of his claim.

One cannot define something into existence or nonexistence. Gods either exist or they do not. That is an empirical claim that is subject to physical investigation, since existence has physical consequences.

One can assess whether something that satisfies a certain concept exists by analyzing the concept, or making moral assessments, or empirical investigation, or a combination of those, depending on the specifics of the case.

The meaning of the word "God" does not depend on the wishes of the person using that word.

If it is used in the concept of an argument for the existence of God, sure.

Like any other word in the language, people use it as a conventional means of expressing a concept that is shared within a community of speakers, so its meaning can be investigated by examining usage of the word in that community.

Sure, and different speakers mean different things in the case of "God", often talk past each other, even often the same speaker means different things at different times, equivocates, etc., and so on. But oftentimes, theists cite and rely upon arguments like Craig's, etc., so their definitions hold. But a very common usage seems to require that God be worthy of worship, so the target is correct.

Worship or "worthiness of worship" is certainly associated with the beings referred to as gods, but so are a lot of other properties.

A conceptually necessary condition is all one needs for Bomb#20's argument (though in some contexts, I would argue it's sufficient too).

In any event, Bomb#20's argument was a reply to Lion IRC's

I get tired too.
Tired of atheists who are adamant that something doesn't exist - they just can't say what it is they don't believe in.

So, in that context, it is up to the person replying to say what it is they do not believe in.

 

[Jobar]

Human knowledge is not shared by most humans. So lots of people believe nonsensical things.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-cPo1wqxD8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Copernicus]

First, it is a reasonable definition of the concept as used by some theists.

Not necessarily. How theists actually use a word like "God" does not always conform to their ideal of how the word ought to be used. We have arguments about that all the time in a forum like this. God is omnipotent yet vulnerable. God is omniscient yet always needing to test people to see how they will behave. God loves everyone but sends sinners to eternal torment. Even when the definitions don't lead to cognitive dissonance of that sort, they don't necessarily accurately reflect what people believe.

Second, different people mean different things by the word "God". It is even frequent for the same person to mean different things in different arguments, often without realizing it.

That's true, but completely irrelevant. We are interested in common usage, not idiosyncratic usage.

Third, even a definition that does not represent a reasonable definition of the concept can be useful for showing non-existence, as long as the definition captures a necessary condition built in the concept.

I have no idea what criteria you think renders a definition reasonable, so I can't stipulate to that. Moreover, I consider the expressions "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" misleading when it comes to word meanings. Meanings are very complex networks of associated concepts in which the associations can be strong or weak. Just about every attribute or component of a word meaning can be cancelled out in different conversational contexts. So it is hard to identify any component of meaning that is absolutely necessary in every instance of usage. If all you are saying here is that concepts strongly associated with the word can be useful, and I agree to that. Just bear in mind that all words have some range of ambiguity and a certain amount of vagueness associated with them.

A modification of the argument in that regard would be:

Anything that is a god is worthy of worship. Worship is immoral. Thus, no thing, agent, substance, etc., deserves to be worshiped. Therefore, gods do not exist.

This argument is wrong on so many levels. Basically, it is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The mere declaration that a subjective value judgment such as "worthy of worship" is a necessary property of an entity does not actually make it a necessary property. We can obviously conceive of gods that aren't worthy of worship but are nevertheless worshiped by some people. All you are saying here is that your made-up definition serves as a means of distinguishing "true gods" from "false gods". So the real argument comes down to whether that definition is realistic, and I don't think it is. You might as well define a "true dog" as a four-legged canine and then declare an animal not to be a "true dog" because it lost one of its legs in an accident. That kind of procrustean logic isn't very convincing. Most dogs have four legs, but not every dog does.

That argument does not require that "worthy of worship" fully capture the concept of "god", or "God", or whatever, but rather, that it captures a necessary condition. Most theists philosophers will agree that that is at least a necessary condition. Some will surely agree that it is sufficient. And perhaps - though I'm not sure about this - most will agree it is sufficient.

Arguments based on popularity and authority are not very compelling. In any case, "worthy of worship" is not necessary to consider a putative being a "god". One can conceive of gods that are not worthy or worship or are not even worshiped. There could be such a thing as a god that nobody has ever heard of and that would therefore not be worshiped. Such a god might or might not be worthy of worship, but it could be a god in all other respects.

Let me cite William Lane Craig, a theist philosopher famous and celebrated among Christians.


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med.../paul-moser-and-the-hiddenness-of-god-part-1/

I suppose that it is too late to stop you. This is someone talking about his concept of "God", not gods in general. And I don't really care how much Christians admire and respect William Lane Craig. He is not an authority on linguistic usage. All he is doing here is advocating for some ideal regarding one individual god. In principle, there could be a creator god that is malevolent or indifferent towards humans. That would violate Craig's ideal for the name "God", but it would do nothing to prevent others from using that name. So I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of discussing Craig's religious ideals. They don't interest me, and they don't seem relevant to this discussion. All I will concede is that 'worship' is an important type of human behavior that we normally associate with gods. That does not mean that all gods are necessarily worshiped or worthy of worship.

One cannot define something into existence or nonexistence. Gods either exist or they do not. That is an empirical claim that is subject to physical investigation, since existence has physical consequences.

One can assess whether something that satisfies a certain concept exists by analyzing the concept, or making moral assessments, or empirical investigation, or a combination of those, depending on the specifics of the case.

That's true. But let me point out that one cannot define something into existence or nonexistence. I can define a unicorn. Whether or not unicorns exist is not part of the meaning or definition. The word can be used to refer to fictional unicorns as well as real ones, should one happen to encounter a real unicorn. Similarly, whether or not gods exist is not part of the meaning of the word "god".

The meaning of the word "God" does not depend on the wishes of the person using that word.

If it is used in the concept of an argument for the existence of God, sure.

But the word "God"--even the proper name--is not used that way. Christians who ask you whether you believe in the existence of God are not asking you whether you believe in the "God that exists", as opposed to a god by that name that doesn't exist. They are asking you whether you believe that an entity by that name exists. The concept is a purely hypothetical concept in that usage.

Like any other word in the language, people use it as a conventional means of expressing a concept that is shared within a community of speakers, so its meaning can be investigated by examining usage of the word in that community.

Sure, and different speakers mean different things in the case of "God", often talk past each other, even often the same speaker means different things at different times, equivocates, etc., and so on. But oftentimes, theists cite and rely upon arguments like Craig's, etc., so their definitions hold. But a very common usage seems to require that God be worthy of worship, so the target is correct.

I have put the part of your argument in boldface that stands out to me as utterly wrong. We do not have to accept Craig's definition, especially if it does not reflect his actual usage. That said, I'm not even conceding here that you have characterized Craig properly, if you think that God's actual existence is inherent in his definition of "God". It seemed to me that he was only claiming that the "God" concept was like the "unicorn" concept. There can be gods and unicorns that don't exist. He just doesn't wish to use the proper name "God" to refer to an entity with divine powers that is not worthy of worship. Such an entity would be a god unworthy of worship--e.g. Satan or Loki. You can pick up any Marvel comic book and find such gods talked about all the time.

 

[angelo]

What amazes me is the way some otherwise intelligent people who are reasonable in most argument, but completely lose all sense of rationality when challenged about their god beliefs.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is frustrating arguing with theists. Their supposed revelations make claims that turn out logically to be self contradictory and obviously false. But logic does not work with them. The supposed proofs of their God from hordes of theologians do not work. Again, puzzles, paradoxes and contradictions.

No matter how many theologians one examines, and their claims, and how none of these claims work one can demonstrate, Christians will not accept that atheists are examining the swarms of varying God claims made, and pointing out these do not work. We get vague screeches of atheist attacking strawmen. No.

In the end, many theists play the God is inscrutable mystery card. God is inscrutable, mysterious, incomprehensible, and no matter how much evidence we see from collapsing God claims we can demonstrate, it does no good when logic and reason are abandoned, replaced by bluster and this incomprehensible God of the gaps.

 

[angelo]

The worst ones are the so called "born again" xtians. One may as well point out the myriad of impossibilities and sheer magical thinking to a pink and grey galah.

 

[bilby]

Reason and logic depend upon everyone involved understanding that contradictions indicate error; That a belief that entails contradictions is indisputably false.

But theists simply abandon that principle.

A theist might claim that god is incomprehensible and mysterious, but simultaneously the same theist believes that he knows what god wants of him, and what the consequences will be of obeying or disobeying those rules.

Gods are a mess of contradictions, and theists either don't care, or refuse to accept these contradictions; God is omniscient, but two sentences later, omniscience is forgotten as god grants men free will, and is surprised, disappointed, or angered by what they do with it - as though he hasn't always known.

There's literally no arguing with someone who rejects the fundamental rules of reasoning and logic.

Theists think about gods only with their endocrine systems. Their brains are out of the loop as soon as god is the topic of conversation.

 

[Lion IRC]

It is frustrating arguing with theists. Their supposed revelations make claims that turn out logically to be self contradictory and obviously false.

I think your frustration stems from your own inability to persuade them.
Maybe try something other than foot stamping, hand waving and special pleading

But logic does not work with them. The supposed proofs of their God from hordes of theologians do not work. Again, puzzles, paradoxes and contradictions.

I am not aware of any contradictions or paradoxes.
I realise you think omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive but you emphatically refuse to allow any theological definition of omniscience which IS compatible. So you are author of your own frustration.

No matter how many theologians one examines, and their claims, and how none of these claims work one can demonstrate, Christians will not accept that atheists are examining the swarms of varying God claims made, and pointing out these do not work.

Perhaps you should extend some charity to those theologians and admit they they themselves don't find any internal inconsistencies in what they claim and think is sound theology.
Again, you should have the intellectual good manners to concede there's a difference between;
a) I don't agree with your definition of omniscience
b) I can't win the argument if I use your definition of omniscience

We get vague screeches of atheist attacking strawmen.

Oh, if only it was merely a case of saying "I don't hold that view about what omniscience entails"
You don't attack a straw man, you insist that I secretly know my strawman is an epic fail because there's only one permissible definition of how God 'knows' what He knows. You equate God's knowledge with tinnitus - as if it were some forced, inescapable noise in the midst of which God can't selectively set His mind to any separate thing.

In the end, many theists play the God is inscrutable mystery card. God is inscrutable, mysterious, incomprehensible,

Nope. That's YOU.
You're the one telling theists like me that WE don't know.
Your the one saying God is inscrutable - because allegedly, there's no evidence.
You refuse me my definition of omniscience then whine about theists appealing to mystery.

and no matter how much evidence we see from collapsing God claims we can demonstrate, it does no good when logic and reason are abandoned, replaced by bluster and this incomprehensible God of the gaps.

God of the gaps?
What a fitting way to end a monologue post about how you can't reason with theists because their arguments are all so wrong, wrong, wrong, and they can't be taught, and they're not as smart as atheists, and they won't see the obvious errors in their own logic, and they drank the koolaid, and blah blah blah (yawn)

How about multiverse of the gaps? How about quantum vacuum of the gaps? How about Dark Energy of the gaps? How about universes spontaneously popping into existence as a workaround to avoid the God Conclusion?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How about multiverse of the gaps? How about quantum vacuum of the gaps? How about Dark Energy of the gaps? How about universes spontaneously popping into existence as a workaround to avoid the God Conclusion?

You clearly do not understand the process by which scientists arrived at the conclusion dark energy exists. It didn't come out of thin air. Not to mention that the multiverse idea is still a hypothesis, and scientists will readily admit that. Stop straw manning. As long as you continue to do that you will not understand the positions you are arguing against. Also why do consistently gloss over the fact that scientists aren't using polytheism as their starting point either?

 

[angelo]

From a scientist iv'e long admired. Perhaps one of his better known works would have to be........." The God Delusion."

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/06/the-improbability-of-god/

 

[Bomb#20]

Arguing over a definition of "God" that does not actually represent a reasonable definition of the concept satisfies no one except for the person who made up the definition.

But it was a reasonable definition; your dismissal of it was unreasonable. You're rejecting it, ultimately, because it doesn't look like the definitions you're familiar with. That's because it's an operational definition instead of a theoretical definition. It focuses on the functional role alleged gods play in believers' worldviews, instead of focusing on the specific characteristics believers allege. The specific characteristics they allege vary wildly from religion to religion and are typically incoherent anyway, so extracting a usable definition of "god" from those is an exercise in futility. But show me a religion whose believers worship a god they think doesn't want to worshiped or one they think doesn't deserve to be.

Scholasticism went the additional step of trying to incorporate God's very existence into the definition, and Bomb's casual attempt tries to employ the same trick in reverse. One cannot define something into existence or nonexistence.

If you'll pardon the expression, oh for the love of God! I did nothing of the sort. Where the bejesus do you imagine you see nonexistence included in my definition?

The Christian God satisfies my definition -- according to Christians He wants to be worshiped and deserves to be. Therefore if you can show my definition includes nonexistence then that means you have a proof of the non-existence of the Christian God. Share.

Gods either exist or they do not. That is an empirical claim that is subject to physical investigation, since existence has physical consequences.

Let us keep that in mind.

The meaning of the word "God" does not depend on the wishes of the person using that word.

So who said it did?

Like any other word in the language, people use it as a conventional means of expressing a concept that is shared within a community of speakers, so its meaning can be investigated by examining usage of the word in that community. Worship or "worthiness of worship" is certainly associated with the beings referred to as gods, but so are a lot of other properties. Gods are also usually thought to be spiritual entities that do not necessarily need physical bodies to exist. In the minds of believers, existence can be of two types--spiritual or physical.

Well then, how do you figure a claim that some spiritual entity without a physical body exists has physical consequences? What physical consequence does spiritual existence have?

In any event, you're limiting "god" to the objects of worship of a limited range or religions. Consider the many religions in which people worshiped the sun, or the sky, or the Earth. "do not necessarily need physical bodies to exist" does not belong in any general definition of "god".

Gods are also able to create physical reality and to control it, just as human beings are thought to control their own physical bodies through spiritual control. That is, gods are supernatural beings.

You appear to be proposing that a better definition of "god" than mine would specify those characteristics. Well then, Mr. Industrial Grade Linguist, when you investigate by examining usage of the words in our community, what do the terms "physical reality" and "supernatural" mean?

Gods also typically have a lot of other properties associated with them, and every one of those properties entails beliefs that theists and non-theists can disagree on.

Certainly; but Lion IRC didn't challenge me to disprove his god's properties. He challenged me to say what it is I don't believe in. I disbelieve all alleged gods, not just his gods and gods that are allegedly similar to his. So I gave him a broad definition in order to include all of them.

If an atheist tries to argue against belief in gods, that person implies acceptance--perhaps just for argument's sake--of a great many of the attributes that we conventionally associated with gods.

Which attributes?

When I argue that the Aztec belief in the sun-god was wrong, that doesn't mean I'm accepting for argument's sake that the sun-god doesn't necessarily need a physical body.

A modification of the argument in that regard would be:
Anything that is a god is worthy of worship. Worship is immoral. Thus, no thing, agent, substance, etc., deserves to be worshiped. Therefore, gods do not exist.

This argument is wrong on so many levels. Basically, it is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

It's nothing of the sort. If it were a NTS argument then a believer would reject it because he thought his god didn't need to be worthy of worship. The believer actually rejects it because he denies that worship is immoral and thinks his god is worthy of worship.

The mere declaration that a subjective value judgment such as "worthy of worship" is a necessary property of an entity does not actually make it a necessary property.

In the first place, you appear to be taking for granted that "worthy of worship" is a subjective value judgment.

And in the second place, what's your point? Nobody claimed my definition was correct merely because I declared it so. You can make that same content-free attack on anything anybody says. If I say the sky is blue you could say "The mere declaration that the sky is blue does not actually make it blue." with equal effect. It doesn't qualify as a reason to doubt the sky's blueness.

If you think my definition is wrong, show me a religion that says its gods don't want to be worshiped or don't deserve to be; or else show me some additional criterion for godhood that every god of every religion satisfies.

We can obviously conceive of gods that aren't worthy of worship but are nevertheless worshiped by some people.

So? The worshipers think they're worthy of worship.

All you are saying here is that your made-up definition serves as a means of distinguishing "true gods" from "false gods".

All definitions are made up. If you think you can make one up that captures common usage better than mine, share.

So the real argument comes down to whether that definition is realistic, and I don't think it is. You might as well define a "true dog" as a four-legged canine and then declare an animal not to be a "true dog" because it lost one of its legs in an accident.

Bad analogy. The dispute over dog-hood would be about whether a three-legged animal can be a dog, not about whether it has the "has four legs" property. The dispute over YHWH's god-hood would be about whether it has the "deserves worship" property, not about whether an undeserving-of-worship being can be a god.

Arguments based on popularity and authority are not very compelling.

Says the guy who wrote: "Like any other word in the language, people use it as a conventional means of expressing a concept that is shared within a community of speakers, so its meaning can be investigated by examining usage of the word in that community." That's an argument based on popularity and authority.

In any case, "worthy of worship" is not necessary to consider a putative being a "god". One can conceive of gods that are not worthy or worship

You are assuming your conclusion as a premise. Based on what criterion for godhood do you claim some hypothetical being you can conceive of that's unworthy of worship is a god?

or are not even worshiped.

But nobody proposed "is worshiped" as part of the criterion. Hinduism has 33 million gods. I suspect the vast majority are not specifically worshiped by anyone.

But let me point out that one cannot define something into existence or nonexistence.

When you say that, you are not "pointing it out". What you are doing is insinuating that AM and I were trying to define something into existence or nonexistence. Don't make such insinuations. You don't have a substantive reason to think we were.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not necessarily. How theists actually use a word like "God" does not always conform to their ideal of how the word ought to be used. We have arguments about that all the time in a forum like this. God is omnipotent yet vulnerable. God is omniscient yet always needing to test people to see how they will behave. God loves everyone but sends sinners to eternal torment. Even when the definitions don't lead to cognitive dissonance of that sort, they don't necessarily accurately reflect what people believe.

Of course, how theists actually use a word like "God" does not always conform to their ideal of how the word ought to be used. As I said, often the same theists uses the word very differently in different contexts, or even in the same without realizing it. But regardless, given how theists - specifically, philosophically informed theists - use the words in the context of some of their arguments, it seems like a reasonably close match.

Second, different people mean different things by the word "God". It is even frequent for the same person to mean different things in different arguments, often without realizing it.

That's true, but completely irrelevant. We are interested in common usage, not idiosyncratic usage.

It is relevant, because I was talking about common usage. I don't think there is such thing as a unique common usage of the word "God", or even "god". It's all over the place.

Third, even a definition that does not represent a reasonable definition of the concept can be useful for showing non-existence, as long as the definition captures a necessary condition built in the concept.

I have no idea what criteria you think renders a definition reasonable, so I can't stipulate to that. Moreover, I consider the expressions "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" misleading when it comes to word meanings. Meanings are very complex networks of associated concepts in which the associations can be strong or weak. Just about every attribute or component of a word meaning can be cancelled out in different conversational contexts. So it is hard to identify any component of meaning that is absolutely necessary in every instance of usage. If all you are saying here is that concepts strongly associated with the word can be useful, and I agree to that. Just bear in mind that all words have some range of ambiguity and a certain amount of vagueness associated with them.

First, you brought up the concept of "reasonable definition".
Second, what I said above does not depend on what I consider to be a reasonable definition. Any definition that captures a necessary condition built in the concept is potentially useful to show nonexistence - as long as one can show that there is nothing that fulfils that condition, that's that.

Third, I disagree with you about word's meaning. For example, a necessary condition for an agent to be God in the usage of nearly all people is that the entity be more powerful than a human being (that's trivially clear). But also, a necessary condition in much of the usage (the actual usage, not only the definitions they provide) of nearly all Christian philosophers is that the agent be morally perfect. And most Christian philosophers would also require that the entity be omniscient and omnipotent, at least in a weak form of omniscience. This often extends to the usage of Christians who are philosophically informed to a considerably degree, even if not professional philosophers.

Fourth, the condition that the agent be worthy of worship covers much of the actual usage of many theists including much of the usage of Christian philosophers, so it is a pretty good target.

This argument is wrong on so many levels. Basically, it is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The mere declaration that a subjective value judgment such as "worthy of worship" is a necessary property of an entity does not actually make it a necessary property.

That is not a subjective value judgment, but a moral assessment. Other than that, yes, of course the mere declaration does nothing, but it is a necessary property in much of the usage of many theists, in my experience. So, we disagree. But remember, Bomb#20 was replying to Lion IRC's post demanding that atheists explained what it was they did not believe in.

We can obviously conceive of gods that aren't worthy of worship but are nevertheless worshiped by some people.

I cannot, in one of the many usages of "God" that are pretty common and not limited to one or two people, because that's part of their usage.

All you are saying here is that your made-up definition serves as a means of distinguishing "true gods" from "false gods". So the real argument comes down to whether that definition is realistic, and I don't think it is. You might as well define a "true dog" as a four-legged canine and then declare an animal not to be a "true dog" because it lost one of its legs in an accident. That kind of procrustean logic isn't very convincing. Most dogs have four legs, but not every dog does.

Sure, we just disagree about usage. By the way, that's not my definition of "God". It's a modification of Bomb#20's, weakening the condition. I already explained my definition in another post (i.e., God is an omnimax agent). It's not meant to capture all usages of "God", but necessary conditions in the usage of most theist philosophers and many other theists. That is the target. Let me put it this way: were they to conclude that there is no omnimax agent, they would grant that God does not exist, or else they would be inconsistent.

Arguments based on popularity and authority are not very compelling.

It is when you argue against their claims and arguments, where they use that condition.

In any case, "worthy of worship" is not necessary to consider a putative being a "god". One can conceive of gods that are not worthy or worship or are not even worshiped.

Not worshiped, sure, but that's not the point. Not worthy of worship, that depends on the usage of "god", but not in one of the many usages of "God" that are pretty common and not limited to one or two people, because that's part of their usage. Look at philosophers.

There could be such a thing as a god that nobody has ever heard of and that would therefore not be worshiped. Such a god might or might not be worthy of worship, but it could be a god in all other respects.

I was talking about God, not about a god. I don't know what the latter is. I do know what God would be, in some of the usages of many people, including most philosophers - or at least, close enough to target it.

This is someone talking about his concept of "God", not gods in general.

But I was not. The word "God" is frequently used to mean one among several different things. But "god" is just far more ambiguous still. If you're talking about gods in general, I ask "what's a god?". Regardless, Bomb#20 was talking about non-capitalized "god", but gave a definition, and explained what he did not believe in, addressing Lion's question.

And I don't really care how much Christians admire and respect William Lane Craig. He is not an authority on linguistic usage.

That is true, and I actually considered that later in the post you're replying to. But to the extent that they use his arguments and that they incorporate his usage of the word (in which he assumes it's part of the concept) in their own arguments (directly or by citing his, or those of other philosophers), that creates a reasonably good target as well.

All he is doing here is advocating for some ideal regarding one individual god. In principle, there could be a creator god that is malevolent or indifferent towards humans.

That would definitely not be God, in the usage of "God" of nearly all theist philosophers, and philosophically informed Christians.

That would violate Craig's ideal for the name "God", but it would do nothing to prevent others from using that name.

Certainly. But then, Bomb#20 did not mean to target those potential usages. Neither did I.

That's true. But let me point out that one cannot define something into existence or nonexistence. I can define a unicorn. Whether or not unicorns exist is not part of the meaning or definition. The word can be used to refer to fictional unicorns as well as real ones, should one happen to encounter a real unicorn. Similarly, whether or not gods exist is not part of the meaning of the word "god".

But then your point does not work as an objection to Bomb#20's argument. He did not introduce existence or nonexistence in the definition.

But the word "God"--even the proper name--is not used that way. Christians who ask you whether you believe in the existence of God are not asking you whether you believe in the "God that exists", as opposed to a god by that name that doesn't exist. They are asking you whether you believe that an entity by that name exists. The concept is a purely hypothetical concept in that usage.

First, it is used that way in the context of arguments for the existence of God (e.g., Swinburne's, which I already mentioned). Many Christians use those arguments to support their beliefs and claims that God exists, making a counterargument using those definitions a fair way of going about that.
Second, actually, when they ask you, it depends on the Christian what they mean by "God". Some are asking about the biblical creator (i.e., "God" names whatever person (if any) is picked by the biblical description). Others are asking about an omnimax agent, etc.

I have put the part of your argument in boldface that stands out to me as utterly wrong. We do not have to accept Craig's definition, especially if it does not reflect his actual usage. That said, I'm not even conceding here that you have characterized Craig properly, if you think that God's actual existence is inherent in his definition of "God". It seemed to me that he was only claiming that the "God" concept was like the "unicorn" concept. There can be gods and unicorns that don't exist. He just doesn't wish to use the proper name "God" to refer to an entity with divine powers that is not worthy of worship. Such an entity would be a god unworthy of worship--e.g. Satan or Loki. You can pick up any Marvel comic book and find such gods talked about all the time.

Actually, I was not characterizing Craig's position in that manner. I never said anything about including existence in the definition. You did that in our exchange, attributing it apparently to Bomb#20, and now to me attributing it to Craig. What Craig was saying was that in the common usage of "God", being worthy of worship was part of the concept, not that existing was part of the concept.

Now, as it turns out, there is a pretty good case to be made that Craig thinks necessary existence (though weirdly, not existence) is also built into the concept of "God" (at least, when he is making some arguments; his concept seems to change in different contexts, even if he would deny that), but I don't need to make that case. I was talking about being worthy of worship, not about existence.

 

[atrib]

I think your frustration stems from your own inability to persuade them.
Maybe try something other than foot stamping, hand waving and special pleading



I am not aware of any contradictions or paradoxes.
I realise you think omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive but you emphatically refuse to allow any theological definition of omniscience which IS compatible. So you are author of your own frustration.

No matter how many theologians one examines, and their claims, and how none of these claims work one can demonstrate, Christians will not accept that atheists are examining the swarms of varying God claims made, and pointing out these do not work.

Perhaps you should extend some charity to those theologians and admit they they themselves don't find any internal inconsistencies in what they claim and think is sound theology.
Again, you should have the intellectual good manners to concede there's a difference between;
a) I don't agree with your definition of omniscience
b) I can't win the argument if I use your definition of omniscience

We get vague screeches of atheist attacking strawmen.

Oh, if only it was merely a case of saying "I don't hold that view about what omniscience entails"
You don't attack a straw man, you insist that I secretly know my strawman is an epic fail because there's only one permissible definition of how God 'knows' what He knows. You equate God's knowledge with tinnitus - as if it were some forced, inescapable noise in the midst of which God can't selectively set His mind to any separate thing.

In the end, many theists play the God is inscrutable mystery card. God is inscrutable, mysterious, incomprehensible,

Nope. That's YOU.
You're the one telling theists like me that WE don't know.
Your the one saying God is inscrutable - because allegedly, there's no evidence.
You refuse me my definition of omniscience then whine about theists appealing to mystery.

and no matter how much evidence we see from collapsing God claims we can demonstrate, it does no good when logic and reason are abandoned, replaced by bluster and this incomprehensible God of the gaps.

God of the gaps?
What a fitting way to end a monologue post about how you can't reason with theists because their arguments are all so wrong, wrong, wrong, and they can't be taught, and they're not as smart as atheists, and they won't see the obvious errors in their own logic, and they drank the koolaid, and blah blah blah (yawn)

How about multiverse of the gaps? How about quantum vacuum of the gaps? How about Dark Energy of the gaps? How about universes spontaneously popping into existence as a workaround to avoid the God Conclusion?

There are several significant falsehoods in your post and I don't have the time to address them all now. So I will start with a particularly blatant lie and move on to others as time permits.

LION IRC: I am not aware of any contradictions or paradoxes.
I realise you think omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive but you emphatically refuse to allow any theological definition of omniscience which IS compatible. So you are author of your own frustration.

Even allowing your definition of omniscience does not remove the contradictions. This was discussed at length in another thread, so let me refresh your memory. This was your attempt to define god's omniscience:

I say that God is entirely free to selectively know whatever He wants. And He is able to create beings with spontaneous free will - God can literally (if He wants) not know what free choice they will make.

And I really don't feel like arguing with Wikipedia.
If you don't like my definition of omniscience that fair enough.
But how about you have the intellectual grit to acknowledge that my definition DOES get around the alleged paradox you cling to.

And this was my response:

For the sake of argument let us assume that Biblegod only chooses to "maintain consciousness about" certain things at certain times, just to shut the door on that nonsense, and say:

Biblegod has the ability to know what the future is with 100 percent accuracy, which would mean that the future is set in stone and cannot be changed. Because otherwise, what he chooses to know about the future today could be different from what he might choose to know about the future tomorrow, or whenever he chooses to "maintain consciousness about" the future. Do you understand what I am saying?

Note that I said "has the ability to know", having accepted your claim that Biblegod only "maintains consciousness about" certain things and not everything.

Even assuming your definition of omniscience is correct, which it is not, god's ability to perfectly know the future, should he choose to, turns your god and all of us humans into robots. You did not respond to this post because you had nothing to say. But now you are back, repeating your old lie that was logically demonstrated to be wrong. Old habits die hard.