Atheism, theism and jelly beans

[James R]

50/50 tonight. Obviously I'm different to you, I can switch sides at a moments notice. Nothing defines me.

You're telling me that you flip-flop at random between believing in God and not believing in God?

You're right: you're certainly different from me.

My guess is that you really have no idea about God at all. Would you say that's right?

Were you talking about evaluating someone to decide whether they are atheist/theist by what "beliefs" they held?

I was talking about deciding whether somebody is a theist or an atheist, based on their own answer to a question - i.e. based on what they say about their own beliefs.

You can't decide what someone is.

Yes I can.

What are you talking about?

I think maybe you're confusing my making an assessment for myself with my imposing my will or opinion onto somebody else (by force, for instance).

I'm quite free to decide what somebody is based on what they tell me they are.

 

[river]

You're telling me that you flip-flop at random between believing in God and not believing in God?

You're right: you're certainly different from me.

My guess is that you really have no idea about God at all. Would you say that's right?


I was talking about deciding whether somebody is a theist or an atheist, based on their own answer to a question - i.e. based on what they say about their own beliefs.


Yes I can.

What are you talking about?

I think maybe you're confusing my making an assessment for myself with my imposing my will or opinion onto somebody else (by force, for instance).

I'm quite free to decide what somebody is based on what they tell me they are.

Like wise

 

[Vociferous]

Again, if you accept a single binary question as 'discussing' then OK.

dis·cuss
talk about (something) with another person or group of people.​

Yes, one question is literally "talking about it".

But to be clear: we are discussing the concept of God. That is not the same thing as discussing the nature of God. And note, that that concept is simply the assertions and beliefs of individuals.

Except you explicitly asked about its "nature":

Is this God supernatural in nature?

Think about, say, the magic of Harry Potter. I can certainly discuss it as a concept; but it doesn't require discussing anything about the details of it to conclude that is is fictional. If asked whether its real, I don't need to discuss any specifics.

We can discuss the thoughts and creative process of the writer(s). Much like with God. We can only discuss what various theists believe God to be. There's no objective description of God to discuss.

Seems you're just backpedaling since you did ask about its nature. You didn't ask if God was real, you asked if it was "supernatural in nature". We can discuss the logically possibility of the widely agreed upon features of God, like omniscience, omnipotence, etc..

OK, let me turn your pseudo-definition back on you then. Since you can't shake the hand of the wind or of DM, does that mean you consider them supernatural?

Again:

But more interesting...what if the answer is "no", God is not supernatural in nature?

I suppose I could use less interesting language if that would be easier for you to follow the logic. But I suspect you're smarter than that. I suspect this was just an evasion of the point - which you got. Agree?

Also, God can give himself hands, can't he?

Again:

If the supernatural are things that contradict natural laws, I don't think a God would contradict its own creation.

So if God was to give himself hands, he already has, in a way that does not violate natural law.

No they're not. Limited direct scientific scrutiny, sure. Certainly not beyond.

And that is scientism, not science.

And how would we know something is beyond the laws of nature if it never conflicts with those laws?

Dunno.

Because we wouldn't.

OK, that certainly puts you in an extremely small club.

And? Am I obligated to defend the beliefs of others? Are you?

But one possibly fruitful for exploration. It raises a whole bunch of intriguing questions.

Is it alive? Yes
Conscious? Yes
Where does it live? Everywhere
Does it affect Earthly activity? Yes
If so, by what mechanism?? Humans
Is it bound by natural physics? Yes, as said, it doesn't contradict itself.
Say, limited to the speed of light? Only so far as "spooky action at a distance" in QM is.
Thermodynamics? Does it do work? Emit heat? It's creations/manifestations do.
Obey laws of conservation? If it cures me of illness, can I detect its machinations with the right instruments? Again, it does not contradict its own laws of nature.
Did it come into existence some time since the Big Bang? No.

These questions by be difficult to get definitive answers, but if it is natural in origin, they are certainly scientifically explorable in principle.

Answered inline. ^^

There are plenty of things that exist that are not available to scientific methods, like the Big Bang itself, forever hidden beyond decoupling.

And perhaps the biggest question: Is it not self-contradictory? By pretty much any theological definition (barring yours) God is supernatural. If it's natural, then it's just another (presumably very powerful) alien critter, is it not?

The Bible, and other religious scriptures, do not make that distinction at all. That dichotomy has only existed since the scientific revolution.
It's always odd when people presume things like an "alien critter" when we have just as little empirical evidence for their existence as we do God's. Now that's self-contradictory.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except you explicitly asked about its "nature":

​

Seems you're just backpedaling since you did ask about its nature. You didn't ask if God was real, you asked if it was "supernatural in nature". We can discuss the logically possibility of the widely agreed upon features of God, like omniscience, omnipotence, etc..

So let me get your logic straight.

You assert you've seen Santa Claus deliver presents to the whole world in one night.
I ask "What is the nature of this voyage? Did it defy the laws of physics?"
And now your logic tells you that I - what? - believe Santa to be real?
I need know nothing else about Santa than that you assert he exhibits magical traits.

I'm asking about your concept of the nature of this Santa.
Just like I'm asking about your concept of the nature of God.

 

[Vociferous]

Tiassa:

I apologise for the confusion this has apparently caused you. Perhaps you thought that an atheist needs to deny every theist's personal version of God, one after the other, rather than making the more general statement that the atheist doesn't currently accept that any gods exist. I think it's fine to make the general statement. If the theist has a good argument and evidence for his god, of course the atheist is willing to change his mind. But I thought that, by now, I'd have made this point abundantly clear in this thread.

Seems you're not understanding Tiassa's point any better than mine.
Before I read your other posts, I'll take another crack at it.

Do you see no difference in these statements:

1. I do not belief any God exists.
2. I believe that no God exists.

1. is only affirming your lack of belief, while 2. is affirming your belief in the claim that "no God exists". As such, 1. is what your OP defines atheism as, and 2. is what your OP claims the religious think atheism is.

Now, you can certainly hold both views at the same time, but 1. is the minimal definition of atheism and 2. is the definition of anti-theism.

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is the opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.
- wiki​

Lack of belief versus opposition to belief. They are two different things.

And neither require you to "deny every theist's personal view of God", as anti-theism is the catchall for the belief that no God exists.

If you disagree with this distinction, it's hard to understand the distinction made in your own OP. You're an anti-theist but you don't like when people assume you're an anti-theist?

 

[DaveC426913]

Is it alive? Yes
Conscious? Yes
Where does it live? Everywhere
Does it affect Earthly activity? Yes
If so, by what mechanism?? Humans
Is it bound by natural physics? Yes, as said, it doesn't contradict itself.
Say, limited to the speed of light? Only so far as "spooky action at a distance" in QM is.
Thermodynamics? Does it do work? Emit heat? It's creations/manifestations do.
Obey laws of conservation? If it cures me of illness, can I detect its machinations with the right instruments? Again, it does not contradict its own laws of nature.
Did it come into existence some time since the Big Bang? No.

I appreciate you answering this. For a moment, I thought you weren't going to. It's at least more interesting than the usual God stuff.

So, some follow up questions.

Where does it live? Everywhere

How can something be alive 'everywhere'? Does it have material presence in the air? Between atoms? Inside me?
Does it have mass?
If it is literally everywhere, how is it - even in principle - distinguishable from the universe itself?


Does it affect Earthly activity? Yes If so, by what mechanism?? Humans

By what mechanism does it affect humans? EMR? Particles? Can we detect this mechanism?


Thermodynamics? Does it do work? Emit heat? It's creations/manifestations do.

That wasn't what I asked. How can it create or manifest anything without itself doing work? How can it be doing work in between the atoms of my body without affecting my mass, temperature, etc.


Again, it does not contradict its own laws of nature.

Point of order: This is not an explanation. It's a fiat. You're simply declaring it to be so.


Did it come into existence some time since the Big Bang? No.

So there was a living creature before the BB? What did it subsist on? Where did it live then - since 'everywhere' didn't exist.


And finally, most of your assertions are definitely supernatural. Living, conscious things that are everywhere in the universe, and have existed pre Big Bang, and affect other things without doing any work are all supernatural traits.

I thought you said you had a natural theory?

 

[Vociferous]

Do you draw any conclusions about your God's possible role in the creation of the universe? What does this omnipotent God of yours do on a day-to-day basis? Do you have any knowledge about that?

A deist role in creation and any notion of supernatural intervention (violating natural law). Being omnipresent and omnipotent, God does what everything/everyone else does.

In the opening post, I was talking about what atheists tend to mean when they say that they don't believe that gods exist. I get that it's a subtle distinction, so I understand your struggle.

First, we have two competing concepts or ideas:
1. No gods exist.
2. At least one god exists.

No, those aren't the competing concepts in your OP. The difference between atheism and theism is trivial. The difference is between what atheists claim they believe and what theists think atheists believe.

With that under our belts, we drill down into the details of the atheist belief. Possible varieties of atheism include:

1a. The belief that the existence of gods is ruled out by some kind of logical reasoning or a priori assumption.
1b. The belief that the existence of gods has not been convincingly and objectively established by those who claim belief 2, above.

My assertion is that atheists are generally more likely to hold the position 1b, rather than 1a. My own position is 1b, just to be clear. Additionally, I assert that many theists assume, incorrectly, that atheists generally hold position 1a. I also addressed another position: those theists who assume that, in fact, people who claim to be atheists actually, secretly, hold position 2 whilst asserting position 1, meaning that atheists are "in denial" because they are really closet theists.

Yes, 1b is atheism. But "Atheism is the idea that gods don't exist" is 1a, which is anti-theism (sometimes called strong or positive atheism). You've very often expressed 1b in terms of 1a in this thread. Hence the seeming contradiction noted by Tiassa and myself.
And your assumptions about what theists assume doesn't seem to be supported by anything. But we can discuss that further, if you like.

Atheism involves holding a belief - namely belief 1a or 1b, above (and I leave it open to add 1c, 1d etc. if further positions come to my attention that are relevant to this discussion). Note, however, my holding belief 1b does not mean that I "believe there are no gods" or that I "believe that gods don't exist". I certainly entertain the idea or concept that there might, in fact, be no gods, but I do not assert that as a positive belief I have. The reason is simple: I don't believe I have sufficient evidence against the existence of gods in order to be able to draw the definite conclusion that there either cannot be any gods anywhere anytime or that there certainly is no god presently existing.

Good. That is consistent with your OP.

It is anti-theistic to say that I find your god claims unconvincing? If so, then I guess I plead guilty. But, as I said in a previous post, to me the term "anti-theism" implies a bit more of an antagonistic approach than that.

No, it's anti-theistic to claim that no God exists, which is language you seem to have inadvertently used in this thread. But unconvincing is just lack of belief, as per 1b.

And you seem reticent to discuss theism without any religious trappings.

Not at all. Bring it on!

That's what I've been doing this whole time. Since I have no specifically religious beliefs, I've only argued from a purely theistic viewpoint.

If that's how you want to define anti-theism now, then clearly I'm not an anti-theist. It sounds like we're on the same page on this, after all. But then again, other things you've said give me pause.

Agreed, we seem to have only been at odds in how we expressed the same definitions.

I'm not sure about the anti-theist part. Maybe, maybe not. My definition of that term appears to differ from yours.

That only applied when I was under the impression that you making a positive claim about no God existing. It was a matter of making such a claim based solely on specific religious descriptions of God. It's completely within atheism (weak/negative atheism) to simply not find those convincing.

Just out of interest: do you think you've refuted atheism?

Never thought to try.

 

[Vociferous]

Except you explicitly asked about its "nature":


Seems you're just backpedaling since you did ask about its nature. You didn't ask if God was real, you asked if it was "supernatural in nature". We can discuss the logically possibility of the widely agreed upon features of God, like omniscience, omnipotence, etc..

So let me get your logic straight.

You assert you've seen Santa Claus deliver presents to the whole world in one night.
I ask "What is the nature of this voyage? Did it defy the laws of physics?"
And now your logic tells you that I - what? - believe Santa to be real?
I need know nothing else about Santa than that you assert he exhibits magical traits.

I'm asking about your concept of the nature of this Santa.
Just like I'm asking about your concept of the nature of God.

How you got any of that from what I wrote is anyone's guess.

You asking about the nature of a thing has nothing to do with your belief about said thing.

You compared asking about the nature of God to asking if the magic of Harry Potter were real. They are not comparable, because asking a things nature is not the same as asking if it's real. That bizarre logic is yours alone.

Again, I assert that God exhibits no supernatural traits.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, I assert that God exhibits no supernatural traits.

Except all the traits you mentioned in your theory.

 

[Vociferous]

Except all the traits you mentioned in your theory.

How is omniscience, omnipotence, etc. inherently supernatural, especially in light of the fact that such distinctions didn't even exist until the scientific revolution? Can you show that such traits cannot logically exist?

 

[DaveC426913]

How is omniscience, omnipotence, etc. inherently supernatural...

You didn't actually mention any of those in your theory (inline responses to questions about this natural God - post 243.)
I am referring to the ones you did mention.

 

[Vociferous]

You didn't actually mention any of those in your theory (inline responses to questions about this natural God - post 243.)
I am referring to the ones you did mention.

Ah, I missed that post.

And not my theory, just answering your questions.

I appreciate you answering this. For a moment, I thought you weren't going to. It's at least more interesting than the usual God stuff.

So, some follow up questions.

Where does it live? Everywhere

How can something be alive 'everywhere'? Does it have material presence in the air? Between atoms? Inside me?
Does it have mass?
If it is literally everywhere, how is it - even in principle - distinguishable from the universe itself?

Not inside you, you. Life itself and even existence itself. Compatible with pantheism, which differs from panpsychism.
I never claimed it was distinguishable from anything.

Does it affect Earthly activity? Yes If so, by what mechanism?? Humans

By what mechanism does it affect humans? EMR? Particles? Can we detect this mechanism?

Humans are the mechanism by which it affects earthy activity.

Thermodynamics? Does it do work? Emit heat? It's creations/manifestations do.

That wasn't what I asked. How can it create or manifest anything without itself doing work? How can it be doing work in between the atoms of my body without affecting my mass, temperature, etc.

Who says it actively creates or manifests anything apart from the initial creation event? The Big Bang isn't known to have required any force by which to have "done work", any more than virtual particles require an energy input to pop into existence.

Again, it does not contradict its own laws of nature.

Point of order: This is not an explanation. It's a fiat. You're simply declaring it to be so.

And? You're asking me about my beliefs, not anything I've claimed to be able to demonstrate to your satisfaction.
But just by simple logic, the self-contradictory does not exist. Ergo, if God exists, it does not contradict itself.

Did it come into existence some time since the Big Bang? No.

So there was a living creature before the BB? What did it subsist on? Where did it live then - since 'everywhere' didn't exist.

Who said it was "living", in the sense of a biological organism, prior to creation?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/did-nothing-create-everything.162483/page-43#post-3610073

And finally, most of your assertions are definitely supernatural. Living, conscious things that are everywhere in the universe, and have existed pre Big Bang, and affect other things without doing any work are all supernatural traits.

Straw man. I never said it was living and conscious (panpsychism) everywhere in the universe. I simply took the question "where does it live" to be "where does it exist", since it's not a biological organism.
Since any previous universe would have existed prior to the Big Bang, are you calling that supernatural too?
And another straw man, as I never said it affects other things without doing work. Any such affect, through the mechanism of humans, does require work.

So far, your claim that these are supernatural traits is just a straw man.

I thought you said you had a natural theory?

Nope, saying that something is not supernatural does not mean that there is a demonstrable natural explanation for it. Dark matter is not supernatural, but we still have no natural explanation of what it may be or why it causes the relevant observations. Again, does that make dark matter supernatural?

 

[Vociferous]

Not specifically/solely deistic. If God didn't exist, why is there something rather than nothing, why the evidence of a beginning of the universe, why the ubiquitous belief arising independently in almost every culture throughout history? These are questions that science and even philosophy cannot compellingly answer.

God of the Gaps, then?

So philosophy, cosmogony, and anthropology are "God of the gaps"?
Or is the blithe dismissal of these questions just scientism, i.e. "science of the gaps"?

You think so?

It seems to me that Allah and Yahweh, as described in the Qur'an and the bible are quite different in important ways, even though Islam is obviously derivative of Christianity. It also seems to me there's a general agreement among Muslims and Christians, as well as among scholars, that they follow different religious traditions.

I understand that some are motivated to claim that Yahweh and Allah are one and the same. For Islam, that assertion provides a useful notion of historical continuity, if nothing else.

I think that if you regard my view as a unique one on this, then you probably haven't read widely enough.

Oh, I'm sure plenty of atheists think they can tell the religious what they really believe, just like your OP criticizes the religious of doing to atheists.

Yes, the Quran and New Testament obviously differ, which is why Christianity and Islam are different religions. And yes, the Old Testament God is described differently than in the New Testament. That only makes the different views of God, between Christianity and Islam, rather trivial in consideration of the different views on God presented within a single religion.

The Quran mentions the Torah, the Zabur ("Psalms") and the Injil ("Gospel") as being revealed by God to the prophets Moses, David and Jesus respectively in the same way the Quran was revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet and messenger of God according to Muslims. However, Muslims generally view these books (i.e the Bible, or parts of it) as having been corrupted, altered and interpolated over time, while maintaining that the Quran remains as the final, unchanged and preserved word of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Bible​

All the major religions, for starters, though to be fair they all already think they have the answer.

And? Do you expect me to defend all major religions? I don't even expect you to defend the views of Christopher Hitchens, much less every atheist. You can only speak to your own beliefs.

It sounds to me like you're bending over backwards to try to argue that all gods are One. It's reminiscent of Jan Ardena. To do that, you have to skim over the surface of the various religions, or else carefully pick and choose from each while ignoring huge slabs of inconvenient inconsistencies and blatant contradictions.

It is possible to mulch the god concept into something so vague that you can fit it to any religious idea you want, but then the god loses most of attributes that provide the reasons why believers worship the god(s) in the first place.

No, not all conceptions of God are equal.
What's so vague about the basic characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, etc.? That I'm not pushing some specific "will of God" on others?
Personally, I don't believe a God would desire worship, except insofar as to bring people together.

Is it a case of lowest-common-denominator for you, then? Is that the extent of your own belief in God?

I don't know what you mean by that. I just believe God exists, without the necessity for any mythology or religious trappings or self-importance.

Sure. For instance, in science I have many questions about dark matter. It is possible that none of the current hypotheses about dark matter is correct.

So that diversity of views leads you to belief that none of them are true? Since there are so many, you don't believe that any of the interpretations of QM are likely to be true? Sure, just about anything is "possible", but you're saying you have no preference in anything with some critical number of competing views? How many views? Two? Three?

That "point of agreement" you mention sounds to me like the mulched concept of a god that I mentioned above. All I can say is if that is the full extent of your belief in a god, then I have to wonder why you believe it at all, given that it's so ill-defined and apparently unevidenced.

No God is "evidenced", so that seems like a disingenuous criticism.
And since when are the agreed upon characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. ill-defined?
Sounds like you're just not happy without claims of miracles to shoot like fish in a barrel.

It seems to me that it is you who is working overtime here to abstract out your god from the specifics of any religious claim that could be tested, whereas when I talk about refuting religion I try to engage with the actual beliefs that actual believers in the mainstream religious faiths say that they hold. Those go far beyond vague notions of omniscience and omnipotence.

Why do you think only religious claims about God are testable? There are certainly logical tests of omnipotence, omniscience, etc..
Not my problem if you've got tunnel vision on mainstream religion. Most mainstream believers do not engage atheists enough to have any challenging arguments. But if you really need to, I'll be happy to play Christian apologetics with any claims you like.

 

[DaveC426913]

And not my theory, just answering your questions.

Yeah. I wasn't sure what to call it. Theory seemed to suit, but I'm happy to go with whatever you prefer.

I never claimed it was distinguishable from anything.

OK, most of the universe is definitely not alive.
So, to say it's 'everywhere' and still 'alive' appears to be paradoxical.

I say 'appears to be' because it is obviously a more nuanced idea than I have divined so far.

Humans are the mechanism by which it affects earthy activity.

OK, by 'mechanism', I'm trying to ask 'with what form the communication does it influence other entities' - particles, photons?

Who says it actively creates or manifests anything apart from the initial creation event?

You did. Above, where you say it affects earthly activity through humans.

And? You're asking me about my beliefs, not anything I've claimed to be able to demonstrate to your satisfaction.

Yes. Just making clear that 'It does nothing contradictory' doesn't address any questions.

But just by simple logic, the self-contradictory does not exist. Ergo, if God exists, it does not contradict itself.

Sure. Big 'if' there. God not existing at all also meets the criterion of not contradicting itself.

Who said it was "living", in the sense of a biological organism, prior to creation?

It existed before the Big Bang, but it wasn't alive then.
Then it came alive after the BB.

Maybe you need to string these elements together for me.

Straw man. I never said it was living and conscious (panpsychism) everywhere in the universe. I simply took the question "where does it live" to be "where does it exist", since it's not a biological organism.

This entity is alive, and exists everywhere in the universe, but is not alive everywhere in the universe.

You may need to elaborate on how this is not trying to have your cake and eat it too.

(Forgive me, I am trying to stifle the spontaneous mental image of having God's fingernails or hair follicles floating around between my atoms. )

And another straw man, as I never said it affects other things without doing work.

OK, so does it emit some form EMR, heat?

Nope, saying that something is not supernatural does not mean that there is a demonstrable natural explanation for it.

True, but it does require defending the logic.

 

[James R]

Vociferous:

How can you be confident that your God exists in our universe, as opposed to the universe operating by natural laws alone? Can you show that your God is necessary to create the universe, or to create the laws of nature, or whatever?

You say your God is everywhere - it is the trees, the rocks, the water, ourselves, everything. How is this God distinguishable from any of its supposed manifestations? That is, what test could I apply to tell the difference between a God-rock and a purely natural rock?

It seems to me that you don't have any objective means to tell the difference between a universe that contains your God and one in which your God is absent. If you don't have any means to tell the difference, what makes you so confident that your God is real?

 

[davewhite04]

You're telling me that you flip-flop at random between believing in God and not believing in God?

You're right: you're certainly different from me.

My guess is that you really have no idea about God at all. Would you say that's right?

I'm pretty sure he exists, but sometimes I don't care I guess.

We are different but that is good.

 

[James R]

I'm pretty sure he exists, but sometimes I don't care I guess.

What makes you pretty sure?

 

[Vociferous]

Vociferous:

How can you be confident that your God exists in our universe, as opposed to the universe operating by natural laws alone?

How are those two mutually exclusive? Where have I claimed that God intervenes in natural laws?

Can you show that your God is necessary to create the universe, or to create the laws of nature, or whatever?

The source of the laws of nature is an open question, even to philosophy and science.
Can you justify the universe and the laws of nature coming from nothing? Or even coming from a fallacious infinite regress?
You may just throw your hands up at such questions. That's your prerogative.

You say your God is everywhere - it is the trees, the rocks, the water, ourselves, everything. How is this God distinguishable from any of its supposed manifestations? That is, what test could I apply to tell the difference between a God-rock and a purely natural rock?

It seems to me that you don't have any objective means to tell the difference between a universe that contains your God and one in which your God is absent. If you don't have any means to tell the difference, what makes you so confident that your God is real?

Who said God was testable? Many religions actually call that blasphemy.

I'm pretty open about the fact that my beliefs are not compelling to others.
I arrive at my belief primarily through logic, which can address things empirical science cannot, albeit not as convincingly either. I'm fine with that.

I started by asking myself what the very least first assumption about the origin of everything could be. The absolute, very least assumption is nothing. I worked it out from that starting point.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who said God was testable?

Anything that is natural is testable in principle (even if practically difficult).*

If you're claiming you God is not testable, that is either philosophy, or it is tantamount to a claim that it is beyond nature.

So: are you saying "God is not testable"?


*and yes that includes the moments after the Big Bang.

 

[davewhite04]

What makes you pretty sure?

Something that wouldn't change your mind.