Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Jan Ardena,

Then why do you persist with the silly claim that there are no actual atheists?

Do you think that, right now, as I tell you that I do not share your belief in an all-powerful God, that secretly, deep down, I really do have that belief, after all, and I just don't realise it?

Or what?

God's existence doesn't appear to be necessary for anything. Judging by what we know so far, the observable universe seems quite amenable to explanation, without any need to introduce supernatural forces of any kind.

Now, you might argue that everything God does is "natural" and not supernatural at all - that nature is just a manifestation of the divine. But that would be no different from identifying the universe as God. There's no value added by positing human-like motives and feelings to the invisible Creator that supposedly runs the natural universe. Such motives are, after all, nowhere in evidence.

Predictable.

Your God is in a category of one. It's an ad hoc "explanation" without any basis in fact.

This is why you have to keep avoiding Sarkus's question (also put to you in a slightly different way by Baldeee).

You're not fooling anybody, Jan. We all see your stalling and avoidance for what it is: failure to face the weaknesses in your description of God.

You're probably right!

I guess atheists are just hung up on inconvenient questions, like wanting some actual evidence for God before they will believe in him. Very likely, if they could just get over that hurdle and faith it up a bit, they'd give up their atheism and join you enthusiastically in your belief in the unevidenced.

Better not get too close to that gateway, Jan. Some of the nasty logic and reasoning might escape and infect you! Turn away. Avoid. Ignore. Turn a blind eye!

Yes it does.

See what I mean? There's no getting through to you on this.

What you need to grasp, fundamentally, is that no matter how strong your gut feeling is that God is real, there is nothing objective about that (other than the fact that you're having the feeling). Your subjective belief that there is a God doesn't make God real.

(Watch as this point flies over your head again.)

Why do you think such a thing is needed at all? And why just one Cause, with a capital C? Why not many?

I understand: the belief comes first, then the rationalisations.

To reject or deny would mean I accept that it is real. I do not.

I accept the possibility that the universe is eternal (well, the multiverse, but let's not split hairs unless it becomes important). I've never been a big fan of actual infinities (as opposed to conceptual ones), so philosophically I don't much like the idea, but I admit I can't rule out the possibility.

Clearly our observable universe is not eternal; there was a big bang 13.8 billion years ago that resulted in all the stuff we can see today. But I don't see how this fact in any way obliges me to accept God.

Our observable universe need not necessarily have had a cause. It's difficult - possibly even meaningless - to talk about the "cause" of the big bang, especially if time as we know it only started at the big bang.

It's only an assumption that there is a finite string of causes that must lead back to God. An unprovable assumption held on faith, just like the rest of your God belief.

No. I doubt the existence of the God that you describe. Not that you ever provide much in the way of a detailed description; I think you're afraid to overembellish because you want your God to be as small a target as possible, and every time you pin a definite characteristic on it, we tend to point out flaws in your concept.

Who's to say there is anything to deny or reject?

You don't ever dare, and you're the theist. Maybe you'd do better to come clean on what you think God is, and what you think God does, and how you think God manifests.

When I was theist like you, I was quite happy to talk about my God to other people who were interested. I didn't hide him away and reduce his role in the world to that of an abstract Cause of all causes, buried somewhere back in the dim past. I don't think this is actually your conception of God, either, but this is the only impression we can take from what you post here.

Why do you avoid talking about your God so much, Jan? Is it because you're actually embarrassed to admit what you believe in front of a bunch of atheists? Is that what all the avoidance and evasion and constant redefinition is really about?

But I am!

How many times to I have to tell you that I accept that God is a possibility? It's similar to idea of an eternal universe, which I discussed above, although the eternal universe idea is more plausible in that it requires far fewer ad hoc assumptions than the kind of gods described by religions.

This is really the bottom line with your God belief. I understand. Having faith in an unevidenced belief is enough for you. It's too big a stretch for me.

You're probably right. If I could just give up reason and choose to believe (to have faith), then I could be a theist (once again), just like you. In the same way, if I could give up reason, I could probably happily embrace homeopathy, pyramid power, astrology and any other number of superstitions. There's no evidence for any of those things, either, but if you have faith that's no barrier to belief in them.

It's a rejection of your contention that the statement "God Is" has any substantive content.

We've previously discussed the possible meanings of that statement at length, so I think it's fair at this point to call a spade a spade. Sorry to hurt your feelings with this reality check.

 

The atheists in this conversation are being much more open than the theists in terms of answering direct questions put to them. I think that speaks volumes.

To continue the trend, I would like to have a go at this one:

I can only speak personally about this, because every atheist is different.

The first thing I'd say is that any acceptance of God on my part would be predicated on the same kind of reasoning as any other belief I accept. I am a trained scientist and critical thinker, so I realise that even the facts that seem most solid and immovable are, when it comes down to it, provisional. One must always be open to changing one's mind in the light of new evidence. In short, doubt is a healthy attitude to have about everything.

I believe that trees exist. I believe that because I see them, I can touch them, other people around me speak and write about them and agree with me that they perceive them in a similar way that I do, and so on and so forth. It is possible that trees do not actually exist. I could be a brain in a vat, so that every tree I have ever perceived is just a computer simulation fed directly into my brain. But, based on the evidence available to me, I accept provisionally that trees are real, understanding that it is possible (though in this case I think it extremely unlikely) that I will have to change my opinion in the future.

So, God. As I understand the concept, God is supposed to care personally about human beings, at least to the extent of interacting with them in various ways. God is supposed to know everything, and God can do anything. There is, of course, the deist conceptions of God as a Creator who basically creates a clockwork universe then does nothing after that. It makes no practical difference whether I accept the existence of that kind of God or not, so I don't really want to discuss evidences for that kind of God here, now. So let's think about this personal, interventionist God that the major religions talk about.

That kind of God could easily talk to me if he wanted to. he could appear in front of me in any convenient form and start up a conversation. Or he could speak directly into my mind. If such a God were to appear and to speak to me, I would be inclined to believe in him. Of course, it would be good to check that I wasn't hallucinating. Preferably, this God should also communicate to other people as well, so we can compare notes about what he had to say. If he appeared to a crowd of people instead of just to me individually, and we all agreed that his appearance was miraculous, then I'd be more likely to believe. I'd also be more likely to believe if God told me things that I couldn't (easily) know through other means. That is, God would need to say more than "I love you. I've got your back" and such platitudes. He could easily convey private or previously-unknown information that could not be obtained (easily, or at all) by other means.

I would also probably accept God if he were to appear and do an impressive miracle of some kind. For example, if he were to lift a mountain into the air and suspend it there, whole, in front of myself and other witnesses then I'd have little choice but to accept that, at the least, a being with incomprehensible power was present and active in the world. Similarly if he brought the long-dead back to life. Really, any reasonable miracle would go a long way to convincing me.

As a wise man once said, any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so it is true that mountain-lifting or resurrection might be achieved by super-advanced aliens and it might not actually require supernatural omnipotence. But such aliens would be hard to distinguish from gods, anyway, so it couldn't hurt to accept, at least, that god-like powers were on display.

God could break the laws of physics if he wanted to. It wouldn't be hard for him to arrange some convenient demonstration for my benefit, I'm sure. That would be quite convincing evidence of his existence, as far as I'm concerned. (With the proviso about advanced alien technologies and yet-to-be-discovered physics, of course.)

Speaking personally, there is sufficient evidence to suggest to me that trees exist. I therefore believe in trees, wholeheartedly. I could be wrong. Maybe there are no trees after all, but the evidence I am aware of sure looks convincing to me.

Similarly, I can imagine all kinds of evidences that would be sufficient to convince me that God exists. Again, I could conceivably mistake certain evidences as evidence for God, when in fact they were evidence of advanced aliens, or whatever. But I can still imagine circumstances in which I would happily concede that I believe in God, because the evidence sure looks convincing to me.

Current theists like Jan Ardena, of course, believe in God in the absence of any of the kinds of evidence I used as examples above. The kinds of things that present-day theists claim as evidence of God inevitably turn out, upon examination, to be equivocal and/or unconfirmed and/or purely subjective. So much so, in fact, that people like Jan are forced to concede that there is no good evidence for God at all.

This is why Jan constantly says that you just have to open yourself up to God. You just have to accept God, regardless of evidence. Because Jan knows that the evidence doesn't stack up. A replacement is needed. That replacement is called "faith".

 

Just to add to what I wrote above, I'm very happy to respond to specific suggestions from theists. For example, it would be very helpful if Jan could tell us all what he personally requires in order to establish God's existence. Then I can comment on whether that would be enough for me, also.

Or, he could suggest some other things that other theists say establish God's existence for them, and I'll be happy to comment on those as well. Because there might be things that have convinced theists out there but which I'm not yet aware of. Happy to take a look at any things that theists find convincing. Who knows? They might convince me too.