The simplest refutation of theism

[DrZoidberg]

After a yoga class I found myself in a discussion with a group of people with a wide array of beliefs. None of them were traditionally religious, but they had a bunch of mystical pseudo-theistic beliefs. With my skeptical mind I did my best to pose Socratic questions and (I think) came up with the simplest, yet water-tight, refutation of anything remotely mystical.

The argument goes like this: In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

All theistic religions, to my knowledge, posit the ineffability of God. Once they've admitted this the argument is won IMHO.

So guys, is my logic solid or am I making life too easy for myself?

 

[DrZoidberg]

This btw is one step above the atheist, agnostic, theist dichotomy. Since it enters before the existence of God is even evaluated. It's a fourth category. Atheist, agnostic, theist and "who cares?". The "who cares" category is operationally identical to being an atheist.

 

[mojorising]

In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

You are not saying that God does not exist. You are saying that if he does exist but you cannot understand him then you are going to ignore him.

We are only fairly recently evolved from monkeys. If some thing as mystically supreme as a master of puppets behind the entire universe does exist then he may simply be beyond the limits of our primitive monkey cognitive grasp.

God can wriggle out of any knot you try to to tie him up in. He is the slipperiest greased monkey in the barrel.

 

[Juma]

In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

You are not saying that God does not exist. You are saying that if he does exist but you cannot understand him then you are going to ignore him.

We are only fairly recently evolved from monkeys. If some thing as mystically supreme as a master of puppets behind the entire universe does exist then he may simply be beyond the limits of our primitive monkey cognitive grasp.

God can wriggle out of any knot you try to to tie him up in. He is the slipperiest greased monkey in the barrel.

No. I dobt think he ays anything about reality but about what can be known and what it is to know something.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

You are not saying that God does not exist. You are saying that if he does exist but you cannot understand him then you are going to ignore him.

I don't think so. I think Zoidberg is not rejecting God. He's rejecting theists talking incoherently about God.
He's saying that if the theist telling him 'there is a god' cannot make his claim clear, then it's much like any other theory that's based on gibberish.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

You are not saying that God does not exist. You are saying that if he does exist but you cannot understand him then you are going to ignore him.

Yes, exactly. I equate an existing ineffable God with the unknown. An unknown existing God is functionally equivalent with a non-existing unknown God. Since we know nothing of the unknown (by definition) then it follows that belief or non-belief is an irrelevant. Atheism isn't the equivalent with not-playing tennis. It's equivalent with not-[insert random made up word].

We are only fairly recently evolved from monkeys. If some thing as mystically supreme as a master of puppets behind the entire universe does exist then he may simply be beyond the limits of our primitive monkey cognitive grasp.

I can accept this since this is equivalent with not believing in this master of puppets. Both theism and atheism (and agnosticism) become redundant labels.

God can wriggle out of any knot you try to to tie him up in. He is the slipperiest greased monkey in the barrel.

He can wriggle as best he can. As long as he/she/it remains ineffable I just won't care.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are not saying that God does not exist. You are saying that if he does exist but you cannot understand him then you are going to ignore him.

I don't think so. I think Zoidberg is not rejecting God. He's rejecting theists talking incoherently about God.
He's saying that if the theist telling him 'there is a god' cannot make his claim clear, then it's much like any other theory that's based on gibberish.

Not quite. It's not the clarity of the argument that matters. It's the claim. If the claim is that God is ineffable, then any further speculation is irrelevant.

There's two possible positions for a theist.

1) God is ineffable.
2) God is knowable*

3) From 1. If God is ineffable we can stop speculating.
4) From 2. If God is knowable we can evaluate God's existence in a lab just like we would any scientific hypothesis.

*Effable is not the antonym of ineffable. I checked.

- - - Updated - - -

What this does is that it puts a cork in the "God works in mysterious ways" or the "God of the gaps" type God (I think, if my logic holds up)

 

[PyramidHead]

Reminds me a little bit of non-cognitivism about metaphysical claims. So it goes, when people talk about things that are "ineffable", they appear to the casual observer to be making grammatically correct statements about real things, but in actuality they are just making funny noises. There may be some internal relationship between the noises that roughly corresponds to the semantics of whatever language they're speaking, but beyond that there's no relationship to anything in the tangible sphere.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Many (most?) religionists have created a circular double-out for God. His loving nature (for the in-crowd, anyway) is known by revelation. The existence of cancers, encephalitis, meteorites hitting Joel Osteen (a hypothetical), crib death, tsunamis -- that's where we must simply quail before an inscrutable deity. Your argument is fine for people who will use rationality. Religion is designed for endless end runs around rationality.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Can't remember the poster from the old days of Internet Infidels, but the refrain was, "Show me your god."

It doesn't get any more direct than that. I think that's what the OP is about.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Can't remember the poster from the old days of Internet Infidels, but the refrain was, "Show me your god."

It doesn't get any more direct than that. I think that's what the OP is about.

No, I'm not. If God is ineffable I couldn't possibly "see" God even if I was staring right up his rectum. That's what ineffable means. So showing me this type of God is pointless.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The argument is via negativa. God is so different from us, so beyond understanding that logic can gain us no understanding. God cannot be understood by the intellect. We can only say what God is not. All we can know is what God tells us by revelation, the Bible, Quran et al. Of course, some religions, such as Catholicism disagree since at least Thomas Aquinas. Of course one can argue this sort of manner about the nature of a naturalistic physical Universe, or even fairies and unicorns. Taken to its illogical conclusion, Alvin Plantinga states that even if we can offer no evidence, no proof or even solve the logical problems of theology, belief in God and Christianity is properly basic.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Many (most?) religionists have created a circular double-out for God. His loving nature (for the in-crowd, anyway) is known by revelation. The existence of cancers, encephalitis, meteorites hitting Joel Osteen (a hypothetical), crib death, tsunamis -- that's where we must simply quail before an inscrutable deity. Your argument is fine for people who will use rationality. Religion is designed for endless end runs around rationality.

The big problem for me is that revelation does tell us these things about God but in fact the universe shows us no signs of such a defined God existing.

Why is this God who allegedly is all powerful and loves us and is fair, just and merciful et al, exactly like nothing at all.

God then in the end is an exercise in empty rationalization.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Reminds me a little bit of non-cognitivism about metaphysical claims. So it goes, when people talk about things that are "ineffable", they appear to the casual observer to be making grammatically correct statements about real things, but in actuality they are just making funny noises. There may be some internal relationship between the noises that roughly corresponds to the semantics of whatever language they're speaking, but beyond that there's no relationship to anything in the tangible sphere.

Positivism's argumement..

 

[DrZoidberg]

The argument is via negativa. God is so different from us, so beyond understanding that logic can gain us no understanding. God cannot be understood by the intellect. We can only say what God is not. All we can know is what God tells us by revelation, the Bible, Quran et al. Of course, some religions, such as Catholicism disagree since at least Thomas Aquinas. Of course one can argue this sort of manner about the nature of a naturalistic physical Universe, or even fairies and unicorns. Taken to its illogical conclusion, Alvin Plantinga states that even if we can offer no evidence, no proof or even solve the logical problems of theology, belief in God and Christianity is properly basic.

How can we say what God is not? Doesn't that make God knowable? Also, only what basis can we trust a revelation from an ineffable God?

Saying that God cannot be understood with the intellect... isn't that the same thing as saying God is ineffable. Which brings us to my original point?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Many (most?) religionists have created a circular double-out for God. His loving nature (for the in-crowd, anyway) is known by revelation. The existence of cancers, encephalitis, meteorites hitting Joel Osteen (a hypothetical), crib death, tsunamis -- that's where we must simply quail before an inscrutable deity. Your argument is fine for people who will use rationality. Religion is designed for endless end runs around rationality.

The big problem for me is that revelation does tell us these things about God but in fact the universe shows us no signs of such a defined God existing.

Why is this God who allegedly is all powerful and loves us and is fair, just and merciful et al, exactly like nothing at all.

God then in the end is an exercise in empty rationalization.

While I agree with this, I fail to see how it has anything to do with the OP? My attempt here isn't to prove God's non-existence. I'm trying to prove the lack of need for such a proof.

 

[Underseer]

After a yoga class I found myself in a discussion with a group of people with a wide array of beliefs. None of them were traditionally religious, but they had a bunch of mystical pseudo-theistic beliefs. With my skeptical mind I did my best to pose Socratic questions and (I think) came up with the simplest, yet water-tight, refutation of anything remotely mystical.

The argument goes like this: In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

All theistic religions, to my knowledge, posit the ineffability of God. Once they've admitted this the argument is won IMHO.

So guys, is my logic solid or am I making life too easy for myself?

The position you are stating is igtheism or ignosticism.

 

[bilby]

The argument is via negativa. God is so different from us, so beyond understanding that logic can gain us no understanding. God cannot be understood by the intellect. We can only say what God is not. All we can know is

Nothing.

If we can know anything, then ineffability has suddenly been dropped.

what God tells us by revelation, the Bible, Quran et al. Of course, some religions, such as Catholicism disagree since at least Thomas Aquinas. Of course one can argue this sort of manner about the nature of a naturalistic physical Universe, or even fairies and unicorns. Taken to its illogical conclusion, Alvin Plantinga states that even if we can offer no evidence, no proof or even solve the logical problems of theology, belief in God and Christianity is properly basic.

If we cannot know God, then that's the end of the conversation.

Anyone who says "We cannot know God, except..." is saying we CANNOT know God AND at the same time CAN know God, so he is admitting that at least one of his (explicit or implied) assertions is untrue, and that he is therefore lying, confused, or otherwise untrustworthy as a source of information; And anyone who says "We cannot know God, so here is what He wants you to do..." is a lying con-artist huckster who needs to be in jail for fraud.

All the variants "God is unknowable"; "God is ineffable"; "God moves in mysterious ways"; "We cannot question God, for we are mere mortals and cannot know His plan"; etc; etc; boil down to "I don't know about God" - in which case, the question is "Why the fuck are you talking about Him then?"

I don't go around saying "We cannot fathom the mysterious rules of Ice Hockey; So you must wear these ballet shoes, and get the puck into the end-zone for a home run if you want a hole-in-one after the final chukkah; Drop 10% of your income in the plate on your way out, please"; Rather I say "Sorry, I don't know about Ice Hockey, so if you want to discuss it, you need to talk to someone else".

 

[Valjean]

No, I'm not. If God is ineffable I couldn't possibly "see" God even if I was staring right up his rectum. That's what ineffable means. So showing me this type of God is pointless.

There's a difference between being able to perceive something and being able to describe it to others. Languages have their limits, and evolve to communicate ordinary, everyday situations. Add the fact that the mystical experience posits a heightened or expanded consciousness, ineffability would be expected.

The argument goes like this: In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

So if something can't be defined its reality is doubtful?
I wonder how an uncontacted, Amazon native would describe his experience to the family, were he suddenly transported to the middle of a modern city for a day? Even without neurological alteration this would be a challenge.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But if they can't define it, how can you know what they're talking about?

If someone can't tell you the difference between their God and jdghtnrdbjiyhn, why would you assume that they're giving you any information at all about their God?