Proofs that God is imaginary

[Flying Pig]

THat could almost be taken as support for my position - watch yourself

 

[Plotinus]

In order for atheism to be justified, the central position needs to be 'We admit no more causes or natural things than the evidence insists'.

That is debateable, but irrelevant. You said that atheism is incomptable with belief in life after death. That is not the same thing as justified atheism. Someone could reject the principle you stated and yet still believe that there is no God, just as they could reject the principle and believe in God - or indeed accept the principle and believe in God too. What you've done there is to confuse a certain belief with a principle that is often used to justify that belief.

By this logic, the afterlife, dualism, platonic philosophy are all against the idea, since we have no good reason to belive in them.

That's just a wild assertion with no justification whatsoever. There certainly could be good reason to believe in the afterlife; more importantly, someone could easily believe that they have good reason to believe in it (for example, they might have experiences that appear to be of dead people). Moreover, there are plenty of arguments for substance dualism. In fact, in the debate between dualists and monists, most of the actual arguments are on the side of the dualists, even though today they are in a small minority.

While technically atheism means lack of a God, I take it to mean lack of religious convictions.

Why? That's not what it means. Why confuse things unnecessarily like that?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In order for atheism to be justified, the central position needs to be 'We admit no more causes or natural things than the evidence insists'. By this logic, the afterlife, dualism, platonic philosophy are all against the idea, since we have no good reason to belive in them. While technically atheism means lack of a God, I take it to mean lack of religious convictions.

Does that mean you equally discredit theoretical physics? No evidence exists to create certainty in many claims made by science, yet they are taken for fact.

I believe you are mistaking nhilism for atheism.

 

[Camikaze]

I disagree. "God" is defined as a deity, and, in the sense used here, an absolute one. Redefining "God" as something other than a deity completely ignores the fundamental question of said deity's existence. It's merely redefining terms until you can find an answer that suits you, rather than actually attempting to deal with the question as stated. It's one thing to dispute the nature of the deity, another to claim that God is something different altogether.

I was under the impression that the idea of God as a deity was largely used to explain that which is unexplainable. So this would mean that it is in fact a redefinition, rather than being the absolute be-all-and-end-all. And the idea is probably only a partial explanation anyway, not a definite, as with the idea of God being solely a figure in the sky.

 

[Agent327]

God is a m o r a l.

Explanation: if God is perceived as the Supreme Being - which is usual -, consider that most beings, i.e. plants and animals, lack any sense of morality. Most beings are motivated by necessity. (The notion of a Supreme Being may in itself be a psychological necessity.) God is either moral or amoral. If God is almighty the existence of the devil negates God's morality. If no devil exists, God tolerates evil deeds - and again, by extension, evil itself. (The idea of the human free will is as immaterial as it is irrelevant.) Conclusion: God is amoral. QED

(By example: all pre-judaeic gods are amoral, i.e. beyond moral considerations. The Romans knew one particular god related to moral matters: Justitia. The law is amoral. Why ? Because law is the result of a decision making process or, ultimately, the result of a political process. And politics is, by nature, amoral. Why ? Because politics is power play; its decisions are the result of the clash of various interest groups, and interest is not governed by morality, but the wish - or need - to prevail. At best, laws may be the result of compromise.)

 

[Plotinus]

I was under the impression that the idea of God as a deity was largely used to explain that which is unexplainable.

No - many theists have used the idea of God in that way, but certainly not all.

God is a m o r a l.

Explanation: if God is perceived as the Supreme Being - which is usual -, consider that most beings, i.e. plants and animals, lack any sense of morality. Most beings are motivated by necessity. (The notion of a Supreme Being may in itself be a psychological necessity.) God is either moral or amoral. If God is almighty the existence of the devil negates God's morality. If no devil exists, God tolerates evil deeds - and again, by extension, evil itself. (The idea of the human free will is as immaterial as it is irrelevant.) Conclusion: God is amoral. QED

You haven't proven that at all. For your conclusion even to follow from your premises you need to add at least two more - first, God exists, and second, a being who tolerates evil deeds must be amoral. I'll be interested to see how you support those claims.

 

[BasketCase]

This completely misses the point of theism as it is understood by most monotheists.

It's entirely possible they misunderstood it.

Three thousand years ago, just about everybody on Earth thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

All the theories--errrr.....sorry, that's the wrong word, because theories require actual evidence ....all the.....what's the word.....fancy stories about all possible universes and God's relationship to them is guesswork written by us. Well, maybe we got it wrong. Maybe God only created all things in this universe, and cannot interact with other universes because the different laws of physics prevent Him from entering them.

 

[BasketCase]

There is no "point" of atheism.

I feel like there is. If there's no God in command of the Earth, that means WE are. It means the fate of all things Earth-ey rests in our hands.....

Yikes. Suddenly my list of life achievements looks pretty damn short......

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And the to-do list is astronomical

 

[Plotinus]

It's entirely possible they misunderstood it.

Three thousand years ago, just about everybody on Earth thought the world was flat. They were all wrong.

All the theories--errrr.....sorry, that's the wrong word, because theories require actual evidence ....all the.....what's the word.....fancy stories about all possible universes and God's relationship to them is guesswork written by us. Well, maybe we got it wrong. Maybe God only created all things in this universe, and cannot interact with other universes because the different laws of physics prevent Him from entering them.

You're doing what I described in an earlier post - assuming that God exists and then wondering what God is like - the "existentialist" approach to such a question. As I argued there, it makes more sense to take an "essentialist" approach, where one first defines God (or whatever) and then considers whether such a thing exists.

I would say that if other universes exist, and there is a being which created everything in this universe but which did not create everything in those other universes and cannot interact with them, then that being is not God, because such limitations are not consistent with deity. If there is a God, he certainly created everything that exists other than himself. If there is no being that did that, then there is no God. End of story.

I feel like there is. If there's no God in command of the Earth, that means WE are. It means the fate of all things Earth-ey rests in our hands.....

Why must anyone be in command of the earth? Why can't it be the case that God isn't in command, and no-one else is either?

 

[BasketCase]

You're doing what I described in an earlier post - assuming that God exists

Errrr.....actually, I assume he doesn't exist. What I described was possible. One possibility in a pretty long list.

As I argued there, it makes more sense to take an "essentialist" approach, where one first defines God (or whatever) and then considers whether such a thing exists. I would say that if other universes exist, and there is a being which created everything in this universe but which did not create everything in those other universes and cannot interact with them, then that being is not God, because such limitations are not consistent with deity.

What's wrong with a God having limitations? The Bible says it took God an entire six days to Create the universe we now know and live in. Why six days? A God without limitations could have done it instantly. And other religions are full of gods that do have limitations (though now we get into multiple lower-case gods instead of one upper-case God, and that causes certain people in here to have conniptions..... )

In my opinion, any single Being capable of creating entire planets with his mind qualifies as God (or a god or whatever). God may not actually be all-powerful--just all-powerful from our limited viewpoint.

Why must anyone be in command of the earth? Why can't it be the case that God isn't in command, and no-one else is either?

Just because we're in the driver's seat doesn't mean we have to take the wheel. Yes, it's generally a good idea to take the wheel when we're driving, but some of us may go all Tyler Durden and decide to let the car go where it wants to.

If there's no God, then that means humans are the most powerful force on the planet--basically, we're the only Gods this world has. Whether we choose to exercise that power isn't really important. What's important is that we can.

 

[BasketCase]

And the to-do list is astronomical

Snooze. My list only has eight items on it. You're not gonna like this, but you don't come in first. "Piss off Ziggy" only comes in at number four.

The other items on my list involve pizza, posting in CFC, finishing that game of Rome: Total War that I've spent more than a year on, getting back to work on the Vanguard story thread (sorry about that, folks--real-life complications), getting air conditioning installed, and......errrrr......the other two items are women-related stuff I can't talk about in here.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Snooze. My list only has eight items on it. You're not gonna like this, but you don't come in first. "Piss off Ziggy" only comes in at number four.

Good luck with that.

The other items on my list involve pizza, posting in CFC, finishing that game of Rome: Total War that I've spent more than a year on, getting back to work on the Vanguard story thread (sorry about that, folks--real-life complications), getting air conditioning installed, and......errrrr......the other two items are women-related stuff I can't talk about in here.

Heh, I still have a game going with the Brutii where I'm holding 35 provinces, while the Julii and the Scipii are expanding, both having more than 40 regions, pissing of the Senate. They're close to getting the thumbs-down and when that happens I have armies positioned After that my to-do list reads: Trying to get Baskie to love me as well. It's a work in progress.

Erm, yeah.

 

[Agent327]

Pizza will definitely prove God is imaginary.

You haven't proven that at all. For your conclusion even to follow from your premises you need to add at least two more - first, God exists, and second, a being who tolerates evil deeds must be amoral. I'll be interested to see how you support those claims.

1) If a proposition starts with "God is..." it already presupposes the existence of God;
2) "God is amoral" does not stipulate God as a being at all. (The only things discussed are God and amorality; you will note that I did not use immoral.)

But I'd be happy to see any comment on content. (BTW, I only posted this - written quite a long time ago - with regard to some earlier discussion vs. amoral/immoral.)

 

[Plotinus]

Errrr.....actually, I assume he doesn't exist. What I described was possible. One possibility in a pretty long list.

All right then, you're not exactly assuming that he exists, but you are assuming that we think of whether he exists first and only then of what he is. You're saying, "Maybe God is this" or "Maybe God is that", on the assumption that there's some fixed referent for "God". But what do you think the word "God" means? Is it a proper noun? Or does it stand for a kind of thing? If it's a proper noun, what's its referent? Are you talking about a character in a story, or what?

That's why it makes more sense to start by defining "God" and only then arguing about whether he exists or not. In which case there's no long list of possibilities. Either a being answering to our definition exists or he doesn't.

What's wrong with a God having limitations? The Bible says it took God an entire six days to Create the universe we now know and live in. Why six days? A God without limitations could have done it instantly.

What's the Bible got to do with anything? I'd say that if the author of Genesis 1-2 thought that God couldn't make the universe in less than six days, that author had a poor conception of God. However, I don't believe you'll find any passage in the Bible that states that God couldn't make the universe in under six days, only that he didn't. I don't see any inconsistency in supposing that an omnipotent being could choose to take longer doing something than he has to, if he wants to.

In my opinion, any single Being capable of creating entire planets with his mind qualifies as God (or a god or whatever). God may not actually be all-powerful--just all-powerful from our limited viewpoint.

That wouldn't be God, in my opinion, because I think Anselm was right to define God (perhaps in part) as that than which no greater can be conceived. If you can think of something superior to X, then X is not God. I can think of something more powerful than your planet-creating entity, namely a being with even more power. So your planet-creating entity, if it existed, would not be the God of classical theism. It might be something that lesser beings would regard as a god, but that's a matter of anthropology, not theology. Undeveloped societies thought Jean-Luc Picard was a god but that doesn't mean he met the criteria of divinity.

1) If a proposition starts with "God is..." it already presupposes the existence of God;

No, it doesn't, because some "is" statements are definitional and therefore conditional. If I say "A triangle is a geometric figure with three sides" that doesn't presuppose the existence of triangles, because such a statement is a definition. A definition is shorthand for "If something meets certain criteria, it will be a certain kind of thing." So the definition of a triangle is shorthand for something like "If something is a geometric figure with three sides, that thing is a triangle." That doesn't presuppose that any such thing actually exists. Similarly, one can say "God is that than which no greater can be conceived" and mean by it "If there is something than which no greater can be conceived, that thing is God." And obviously one can assert that and remain neutral about whether such a thing exists, or even deny it.

The key points of your argument break down into something like this:

(1) A moral being would not tolerate evil acts.
(2) God tolerates evil acts.
(3) Therefore, God is not moral.

(1) seems pretty dubious to me, but we'll skip over that. What is the justification for (2)? It must be something like:

(2') If both God and evil acts exist, then God tolerates evil acts.
(2'') Evil acts exist.
(2''') God exists.
(2) Therefore, God tolerates evil acts.

The argument as you stated it explicitly argues for (2''). Why do you need (2''') as well? Because only if God and evil acts co-exist can you legitimately say that the one tolerates the other. If only evil acts existed, and not God, then God wouldn't be tolerating anything, any more than Father Christmas tolerates anything.

That is why I said that your argument presupposes both God's existence and the claim that it is amoral to tolerate evil acts. Since both of these premises are pretty controversial, your conclusion is not very sound.

Now you might recast the argument so that it concludes only that if God exists, then he is amoral. That would run like this:

(1) A moral being would not tolerate evil acts.
(2) If God exists, then if evil acts exist, God tolerates evil acts.
(3) Evil acts exist.
(4) If God exists, then God tolerates evil acts. (from (2) and (3))
(5) If God exists, then he is not a moral being. (from (1) and (4))

That is better, because you are no longer assuming God's existence. You're still assuming premise (1), though, which now becomes the key premise for the argument.

 

[BasketCase]

Good luck with that.

Based on what I've seen in those PM's you threw at me in past weeks, I would say I've already succeeded. Actually, that whole "piss off Ziggy" thing was just a joke anyway. I (usually) don't aim to piss you off--it's just a side effect. As the old saying goes, the truth hurts.

Heh, I still have a game going with the Brutii where I'm holding 35 provinces, while the Julii and the Scipii are expanding, both having more than 40 regions, pissing of the Senate. They're close to getting the thumbs-down and when that happens I have armies positioned After that my to-do list reads: Trying to get Baskie to love me as well. It's a work in progress.

Erm, yeah.

You remember that old joke I once made about how you and I act like a married couple???

I'm suddenly thinking it might not be a joke......

 

[BasketCase]

Pizza will definitely prove God is imaginary.

No way, dude. Pizza proves that he's real.

All right then, you're not exactly assuming that he exists, but you are assuming that we think of whether he exists first and only then of what he is. You're saying, "Maybe God is this" or "Maybe God is that", on the assumption that there's some fixed referent for "God". But what do you think the word "God" means? Is it a proper noun? Or does it stand for a kind of thing?

Yes.

If it's a proper noun, what's its referent? Are you talking about a character in a story, or what?

That's why it makes more sense to start by defining "God" and only then arguing about whether he exists or not. In which case there's no long list of possibilities. Either a being answering to our definition exists or he doesn't.

Anybody of great knowledge, who can make vast events happen with his mind, qualifies. Jean Luc Picard does not: when he conjures up a mug of Earl Grey (hot) out of thin air, he's not using his mind--he's using the food synthesizer.

But once we have a definition X in place, what do we do with it? How do we find out if a Being of definition X exists? That's the whole problem with religion. It's all unprovable, so I don't see much point to the above approach.

What's the Bible got to do with anything? I'd say that if the author of Genesis 1-2 thought that God couldn't make the universe in less than six days, that author had a poor conception of God. However, I don't believe you'll find any passage in the Bible that states that God couldn't make the universe in under six days, only that he didn't. I don't see any inconsistency in supposing that an omnipotent being could choose to take longer doing something than he has to, if he wants to.

Which means God is either lazy, juvenile, or just plain imperfect. Maybe He created the Universe just for fun. Or maybe He took six days because He wasn't sure how everything would work out. None of which means He doesn't exist--just that He's different from the way we thought He was.

The key points of <Jeleen's> argument break down into something like this:

(1) A moral being would not tolerate evil acts.
(2) God tolerates evil acts.
(3) Therefore, God is not moral.

Actually, I think #1 is the most important in the whole list. Plus there's a criterion missing: that God is all-powerful. God's willingness to tolerate evil is contingent on his ability to do something about it.

As an example, Superman is extremely powerful, but he does tolerates evil, and for a very simple reason: because he can only be in one place at one time. Lex Luthor exploited this in the very first movie, by creating two crises at the same time.

Of course, if God isn't all-powerful (i.e. if he's not capable of being in several places at once) then we do come back to the problem of the definition of God, but I have no problem with a God that isn't omnipotent. (Though I still don't believe He actually exists)

 

[Agent327]

(1) A moral being would not tolerate evil acts.
(2) God tolerates evil acts.
(3) Therefore, God is not moral.

(1) seems pretty dubious to me, but we'll skip over that. What is the justification for (2)? It must be something like:

(2') If both God and evil acts exist, then God tolerates evil acts.
(2'') Evil acts exist.
(2''') God exists.
(2) Therefore, God tolerates evil acts.

The argument as you stated it explicitly argues for (2''). Why do you need (2''') as well? Because only if God and evil acts co-exist can you legitimately say that the one tolerates the other. If only evil acts existed, and not God, then God wouldn't be tolerating anything, any more than Father Christmas tolerates anything.

That is why I said that your argument presupposes both God's existence and the claim that it is amoral to tolerate evil acts. Since both of these premises are pretty controversial, your conclusion is not very sound.

Now you might recast the argument so that it concludes only that if God exists, then he is amoral. That would run like this:

(1) A moral being would not tolerate evil acts.
(2) If God exists, then if evil acts exist, God tolerates evil acts.
(3) Evil acts exist.
(4) If God exists, then God tolerates evil acts. (from (2) and (3))
(5) If God exists, then he is not a moral being. (from (1) and (4))

That is better, because you are no longer assuming God's existence. You're still assuming premise (1), though, which now becomes the key premise for the argument.

You may be correct (on which I'm not commenting), but I prefer writing sentences over formal argumentation. It makes for better reading.

No way, dude. Pizza proves that he's real.

I wonder if I could use that in a formal argument?

 

[Plotinus]

You may be correct (on which I'm not commenting), but I prefer writing sentences over formal argumentation. It makes for better reading.

That's arguable: I think that the more clearly the argument can be stated, the better it is to read. In any case, I did use sentences. Believe me, it's possible to get a lot more formal than that, and a lot more unreadable too.

 

[Agent327]

Oh, I believe you. (I feared I might get into trouble for using 'sentences'...)

BTW, did Plotinus get 'updated'? (Avatarwise, that is.) I'm not just seeing things, am I?