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

[AdamWho]

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.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree with you. Humans, however, have such a huge capacity for imaginary invention and fiction that new ideas are constantly coming along to compete with the fiction that is gods. That gods are fiction all the way down is probably a good way to define gods in the present state of human knowledge.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't really think we can.

People mean a lot of different things with various utterances of god.

There are more intents that have been behind "gods" than there are people who have ever lived all the way back to the beginning of time.

A fair number of those utterances, perhaps every one not used as a "curse" and even then, are attempts to reference some real thing that is not well understood by the person making the utterance.

I am something "like a god" myself: I have created a universe, stepped into it as an outsider, observed it's people and legends, and gone on an occasional tear through it.

That right there makes the title of the OP a little silly, ya?

Not to mention that something 'like' the 'dark god Mammon' which has been worshipped throughout history does exist: it is an interaction between people bent on a wanton and selfish intent to hoard resources combined with a broken model of ownership which does not itself have a mechanism to resist such hoarding effectively. This interaction becomes a self-reinforcing zeitgeist that will inevitably have some members of the zeitgeist become aware of and attempt to reinforce the existence thereof, and so the whole thing is effectively self-aware. The awareness happens as a result of The Tinkerbell Effect.

This phenomena happens in various ways, and interacts with various human forms of insanity to create such self-aware processes.

That's two down. So no, we can't agree on the OP title.

I absolutely do not think such things should be considered "gods" or worshipped. We need new utterances, or to better understand older utterances a little bit more academically.

I am an atheist insofar as I do not believe any of the things people worship "as a god" are both deserving of reverence and capable of "intent", and I am not willing to ascribe to whatever nonsense and dogma people attach to such things merely because they strongly believe them, and I do not believe that concepts like "°°° created the universe" or "°°° loves us" are all three of meaningful, useful, and true at the same time.

It is my contention that we do not need and wisdom is not gained through 'holy revelation', but rather through doing work often work that makes the doer fairly crazy at times, and then casting doubt upon your knowledge in it's accuracy and completeness, and so doing more work.

But it would be just a little crazy to proclaim loudly from a mountain top that things people have been noticing strongly enough that most of history is beset with arguments over the nature of said things is entirely a figment, and it's dangerous to discount even things entirely born originally of figment any which way.

I think a far better question is "what are people really talking about, under the understanding that they don't know entirely what it is they are talking about, when they talk about 'gods'?"

 

[AdamWho]

I don't really think we can.

People mean a lot of different things with various utterances of god.

There are more intents that have been behind "gods" than there are people who have ever lived all the way back to the beginning of time.

A fair number of those utterances, perhaps every one not used as a "curse" and even then, are attempts to reference some real thing that is not well understood by the person making the utterance.

I am something "like a god" myself: I have created a universe, stepped into it as an outsider, observed it's people and legends, and gone on an occasional tear through it.

That right there makes the title of the OP a little silly, ya?

Not to mention that something 'like' the 'dark god Mammon' which has been worshipped throughout history does exist: it is an interaction between people bent on a wanton and selfish intent to hoard resources combined with a broken model of ownership which does not itself have a mechanism to resist such hoarding effectively. This interaction becomes a self-reinforcing zeitgeist that will inevitably have some members of the zeitgeist become aware of and attempt to reinforce the existence thereof, and so the whole thing is effectively self-aware. The awareness happens as a result of The Tinkerbell Effect.

This phenomena happens in various ways, and interacts with various human forms of insanity to create such self-aware processes.

That's two down. So no, we can't agree on the OP title.

I absolutely do not think such things should be considered "gods" or worshipped. We need new utterances, or to better understand older utterances a little bit more academically.

I am an atheist insofar as I do not believe any of the things people worship "as a god" are both deserving of reverence and capable of "intent", and I am not willing to ascribe to whatever nonsense and dogma people attach to such things merely because they strongly believe them, and I do not believe that concepts like "°°° created the universe" or "°°° loves us" are all three of meaningful, useful, and true at the same time.

It is my contention that we do not need and wisdom is not gained through 'holy revelation', but rather through doing work often work that makes the doer fairly crazy at times, and then casting doubt upon your knowledge in it's accuracy and completeness, and so doing more work.

But it would be just a little crazy to proclaim loudly from a mountain top that things people have been noticing strongly enough that most of history is beset with arguments over the nature of said things is entirely a figment, and it's dangerous to discount even things entirely born originally of figment any which way.

I think a far better question is "what are people really talking about, under the understanding that they don't know entirely what it is they are talking about, when they talk about 'gods'?"

What an incoherent mess. the phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind.

 

[excreationist]

I think I'm probably in a simulation and I believe in a non-obvious intelligent force....

My favourite god-related quote is from Futurama

God and the Bible - Life's Player

Is the Bible 100% true and moral? Does the supernatural exist?

www.lifesplayer.com

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

The purpose of not being obvious is so that the simulation is more immersive and more indistinguishable from base reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't really think we can.

People mean a lot of different things with various utterances of god.

There are more intents that have been behind "gods" than there are people who have ever lived all the way back to the beginning of time.

A fair number of those utterances, perhaps every one not used as a "curse" and even then, are attempts to reference some real thing that is not well understood by the person making the utterance.

I am something "like a god" myself: I have created a universe, stepped into it as an outsider, observed it's people and legends, and gone on an occasional tear through it.

That right there makes the title of the OP a little silly, ya?

Not to mention that something 'like' the 'dark god Mammon' which has been worshipped throughout history does exist: it is an interaction between people bent on a wanton and selfish intent to hoard resources combined with a broken model of ownership which does not itself have a mechanism to resist such hoarding effectively. This interaction becomes a self-reinforcing zeitgeist that will inevitably have some members of the zeitgeist become aware of and attempt to reinforce the existence thereof, and so the whole thing is effectively self-aware. The awareness happens as a result of The Tinkerbell Effect.

This phenomena happens in various ways, and interacts with various human forms of insanity to create such self-aware processes.

That's two down. So no, we can't agree on the OP title.

I absolutely do not think such things should be considered "gods" or worshipped. We need new utterances, or to better understand older utterances a little bit more academically.

I am an atheist insofar as I do not believe any of the things people worship "as a god" are both deserving of reverence and capable of "intent", and I am not willing to ascribe to whatever nonsense and dogma people attach to such things merely because they strongly believe them, and I do not believe that concepts like "°°° created the universe" or "°°° loves us" are all three of meaningful, useful, and true at the same time.

It is my contention that we do not need and wisdom is not gained through 'holy revelation', but rather through doing work often work that makes the doer fairly crazy at times, and then casting doubt upon your knowledge in it's accuracy and completeness, and so doing more work.

But it would be just a little crazy to proclaim loudly from a mountain top that things people have been noticing strongly enough that most of history is beset with arguments over the nature of said things is entirely a figment, and it's dangerous to discount even things entirely born originally of figment any which way.

I think a far better question is "what are people really talking about, under the understanding that they don't know entirely what it is they are talking about, when they talk about 'gods'?"

What an incoherent mess. the phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind.

It's always fun when a hard atheist sticks their head in sand almost as deeply as a theist.

If it is incoherent, you can surely point out what, and how, even if a small portion of it.

There are two simple claims, both of which are well described and entirely predicted within the effects of physics.

I even bolded some key bits of information so as to make clear that I am targeting "like" in your original post.

I used plain and simple English.

Do you deny the existence of human greed, or of the vulnerabilities that "money" as a concept has with respect to hoarding impulses?

Do you deny that self-awareness is possible of a process when an awareness of the process is a part of the process?

Do you deny that I can spin up a video game as the creator of it?

Do you really think that humans would spend all this time talking about specific things and spending so much time throwing understanding at it if there was not something to understand there?

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

Yours is a remarkably ignorant claim, and I'll probably end up arguing with you the same way as I do with DBT and FDI on the concept of free will and choice. Which is to say you'll probably end up being religious about what you wish didn't exist.

 

[skepticalbip]

Those who consider themselves philosophers often base their 'arguments' on redefining words to fit their argument. It always reminds me of, “When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

The 'arguments' of such people is nonsense to anyone they are 'arguing' with because the words they use are meaningless as they are used to mean nothing close to the actual accepted definition.

 

[steve_bank]

There are two issues. The first is responding to forms of alleged gods, the second is a proof either way of the existence of a god.

To me trying to prove a god exists and trying to prove a goes does not exist are flip sides of the same coin, so to speak. Neither is provable either way in any objective sense.

For me it is not a neutral position to say there is no evidence to say a god exists, I look at it the same way I would look at at a physics or engineering problem. To be objective as I see it I have to say I go by evidence and I can't say affirmatively that a god does not exist. That being said I don't walk around worrying that there may be a god.

Agnostics are IMO neutral fence sitters.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those who consider themselves philosophers often base their 'arguments' on redefining words to fit their argument. It always reminds me of, “When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

The 'arguments' of such people is nonsense to anyone they are 'arguing' with because the words they use are meaningless as they are used to mean nothing close to the actual accepted definition.

This might have value were it not for the fact the OP and title invokes "like", as in to say not only is there no thing AS they describe, but rather no thing that bears similarity to which an observation is being made even perhaps being misinterpreted or misunderstood.

It is to say "not only is it not that thing there, there is nothing there to view but a blank wall".

There is obviously something there, it's just also not "the shape of some thing operating outside known principles of existing systems of observable matter".

 

[Politesse]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

 

[skepticalbip]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol (and many others) understood the difference and mocked it.

 

[Politesse]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

 

[skepticalbip]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

Philosophy is about ideas, not word play. Internet "philosophers" prefer word play or sophism so only believe they are philosophers.

 

[Jarhyn]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

Philosophy is about ideas, not word play. Internet "philosophers" prefer word play or sophism and believe they are philosophers.

Philosophy is about discovering how ideas generalize, fit together, and operate on more basic levels. This involves a fair bit of deconstructing those words, and asking whether they are being attached to entirely coherent principles.

When they are not, it does not mean the thing the word was approaching is non-existent just that the definition needs some work. Sometimes this means a new utterance, though many of the usable utterances of English are already consumed with meanings, or to find an utterance consumed with meaning and give that meaning a good hard shove into conformity with coherence and general principles.

I am not sure what you are trying to cut towards with your rhetoric, whether it is Adam's use of a very imprecise and badly defined idea, or whether it is my offering of several things which are "like" various treatments and usages under that idea, so as to invalidate his point.

Your motive or point is unclear.

All I can offer is that there are things "like" "gods", processes and systems that are of historic usage as well as things like "gods" of the Judeo-Christian (ok, more like the Gnostic Christian) tradition of the idea, under various uses of both "like" and "god".

At least it is offered for your comfort that there is no obligation nor ethical value in worshipping such things.

 

[skepticalbip]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

Philosophy is about ideas, not word play. Internet "philosophers" prefer word play or sophism and believe they are philosophers.

Philosophy is about discovering how ideas generalize, fit together, and operate on more basic levels. This involves a fair bit of deconstructing those words, and asking whether they are being attached to entirely coherent principles.

When they are not, it does not mean the thing the word was approaching is non-existent just that the definition needs some work. Sometimes this means a new utterance, though many of the usable utterances of English are already consumed with meanings, or to find an utterance consumed with meaning and give that meaning a good hard shove into conformity with coherence and general principles.

I am not sure what you are trying to cut towards with your rhetoric, whether it is Adam's use of a very imprecise and badly defined idea, or whether it is my offering of several things which are "like" various treatments and usages under that idea, so as to invalidate his point.

Your motive or point is unclear.

All I can offer is that there are things "like" "gods", processes and systems that are of historic usage as well as things like "gods" of the Judeo-Christian (ok, more like the Gnostic Christian) tradition of the idea, under various uses of both "like" and "god".

At least it is offered for your comfort that there is no obligation nor ethical value in worshipping such things.

That is too rambling to make sense of.

If you had trouble understanding Adamwho's title then a half reasonable person should ask for clarification of what was meant by the phrase, "nothing like gods exist" before launching into an incomprehensible spiel. A more reasonable person would actually read the content of the post to see what the reasoning was that inspired the title before responding to the content itself.

 

[Politesse]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

Philosophy is about ideas, not word play. Internet "philosophers" prefer word play or sophism so only believe they are philosophers.

And we communicate ideas through words. If their definition is unclear or undefined, they are useless as a tool for evaluating thought.

 

[skepticalbip]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

Philosophy is about ideas, not word play. Internet "philosophers" prefer word play or sophism so only believe they are philosophers.

And we communicate ideas through words. If their definition is unclear or undefined, they are useless as a tool for evaluating thought.

That is why there are lexicographers. Lexicography is not philosophy.

 

[Bronzeage]

Okay, I'll play.

Suppose there is an entity which is independent of space and time, which is the creator of the universe as we observe it. This leads to three questions.

1. Could such an entity conceal evidence of their existence?
2. Could a human brain understand such an entity, as it would contain facts seen as contradictions and paradoxes.
3. Would it make any difference?

 

[Jarhyn]

actual accepted definition.

Accepted by whom, and why? If a definition is commonly contested, it is not indicative of an intelligent mind to willfully pretend that it is not. Philosophy should always carefully consider the meaning of words; the abiity to rationally reconsider even well-accepted "truths" is the very difference between philosophy and ideology.

You are conflating philosophers and philosophy with self assuming "philosophers". Lewis Carrol understood the difference and mocked it.

I do not agree. Questioning commonly held terminology is not an indication of "self-assumption", indeed quite the opposite is true. And I'm not going to take correction in philosophy from a pedophilic Victorian novelist unless he can make a coherent and rational argument in favor of his views.

Philosophy is about ideas, not word play. Internet "philosophers" prefer word play or sophism and believe they are philosophers.

Philosophy is about discovering how ideas generalize, fit together, and operate on more basic levels. This involves a fair bit of deconstructing those words, and asking whether they are being attached to entirely coherent principles.

When they are not, it does not mean the thing the word was approaching is non-existent just that the definition needs some work. Sometimes this means a new utterance, though many of the usable utterances of English are already consumed with meanings, or to find an utterance consumed with meaning and give that meaning a good hard shove into conformity with coherence and general principles.

I am not sure what you are trying to cut towards with your rhetoric, whether it is Adam's use of a very imprecise and badly defined idea, or whether it is my offering of several things which are "like" various treatments and usages under that idea, so as to invalidate his point.

Your motive or point is unclear.

All I can offer is that there are things "like" "gods", processes and systems that are of historic usage as well as things like "gods" of the Judeo-Christian (ok, more like the Gnostic Christian) tradition of the idea, under various uses of both "like" and "god".

At least it is offered for your comfort that there is no obligation nor ethical value in worshipping such things.

That is too rambling to make sense of.

If you had trouble understanding Adamwho's title then a half reasonable person should ask for clarification of what was meant by the phrase, "nothing like gods exist" before launching into an incomprehensible spiel. A more reasonable person would actually read the content of the post to see what the reasoning was that inspired the title before responding to the content itself.

Incomprehensible to you? Whatever. Politesse seemed to comprehend it just fine indicating that the comprehensibility problem is your own.

The title was an insulting piece of self-assured pomp.

As it is you are falling into some of the same traps AM often does: believing that your definitions are more important than having coherency and structure by which to form useful thoughts.

I've discussed what things exist that are "like" "gods". People when they are discussing "gods" are discussing things that are "like" the phenomena I describe, because they are naively describing those phenomena.

Okay, I'll play.

Suppose there is an entity which is independent of space and time, which is the creator of the universe as we observe it. This leads to three questions.

1. Could such an entity conceal evidence of their existence?
2. Could a human brain understand such an entity, as it would contain facts seen as contradictions and paradoxes.
3. Would it make any difference?

1: yes.
2: I don't think it would, necessarily. It just would have another layer of physics we would have to understand and describe and model our way through. It could be independent of our space and time but I maintain it must be beholden to space and time in it's own context for to even consider it "existing" at all.
3: no, not one lick or tittle as regards our ethical choices towards each other. Those are game theoretic and metaphysical, and so, assuming my answer for (2) holds, they are just as tied to that set of ethical concerns as we are. If (1) holds, it matters not-at-all. If (1) fails, then it matters a lot insofar as the question becomes how does one accomplish instantiation in the 'god's physical environment so as to interact with that 'god' and it's society directly

 

[Keith&Co.]

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 think you should have stopped at biblegod.
When i hear 'god' my mind ranges across a pretty wide spectrum. From the interactive, semi-independent hallucinations of Discworld thru the Deities and Demigods Manual, to Mr. Deity.


Star Trek characters constantly interact with omni- or at least hella-potent beings capable of making huge changes to reality. Interaction sually includes a line or two from the senior officer in the compartment about 'you're (he's/she's) no god!'

But at what level of power would it be at least conceivable to label them gods? To borrow heavily from Arthur C. Clarke, A sufficiently puissant being is indistinguishable from a deity.