Atheism does not exist

[Falvlun]

I'm saying that my concept of perfection may be flawed, but it does not mean that the underlying idea of what it means to be perfect is.

So the argument that "We don't understand God" to me is faulty because if we are created by God, given spirits by God, then it stands that we have a good grasp of what these things mean.

My argument wasn't that we don't understand God, though, should a God exist, I would think that highly likely. My point was that you are making assumptions about what such a God would do that are a) unsupported and b) do not have to apply to every possible god.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My argument wasn't that we don't understand God, though, should a God exist, I would think that highly likely. My point was that you are making assumptions about what such a God would do that are a) unsupported and b) do not have to apply to every possible god.

Ah

I was talking about the Abrahamic/Christian God.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, depending on how "omnipotence" is defined, I'd say that omnipotent gods are logically contradictory... as illustrated in the old line "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?"

Every time I've seen discussions on omnipotence, the consensus was the logical contradictions are not included.

 

[Falvlun]

While I largely agree with what you are saying, one could also know something that contradicts existence, and that would suffice.

That's a good point. Though, I think stuff that can fall into that category are necessarily limited to things like logical impossibility.

 

[Falvlun]

Really? Even if it can be shown that the claim "God does not exist" meets an epistemic level of evidentiary support comparable to many other things we commonly accept as knowledge?

I don't think it can meet the same level of evidentiary support. It is no where near the level of "Obama is the current president of the United States" or "Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s."

 

[Falvlun]

Ah

I was talking about the Abrahamic/Christian God.

If any god were to exist, I'd be very surprised if any religion got all of the details/characteristics right about it.

In other words, the "Christian God" might very well exist, but the Christians might be wrong about some things that they think about him.

 

[idav]

While I appreciate your confidence (and the smooch ), I am still not convinced. (Well, to be fair, it's not like you guys made any argument; you just asserted.)

This is the line of thought that brought me to this sad pass:

How do we know this isn't the best possible world? Do you have access to all the knowledge that an omniscient God would have in order to come to that conclusion?

Based on the knowledge I do have, no, I can't see how this can possibly be the best possible world. But, I have to admit, I don't have access to the big screen view that the big guy upstairs would have.

Therefore, the assertion that this is not the best possible world is an assumption. It might be a good assumption, but it is still just an assumption.

Hence, an omnimax God is NOT logically contradictory, since it is possible that all three omnis did in fact produce the best possible world, and we just don't know it.


Not sure what you mean by "God of the gaps". For your argument to work, though, you'd have to show that something God wanted to happen didn't happen. That seems like a pretty tall order.

That is a tough one for me, faith that this is the best of possible worlds, perfect in every way. It is easy to believe that this one of many possible worlds maybe even guided but with major limitation.

 

[Willamena]

I'm saying that omnipotence is a contradiction with itself. Like is god so powerful that he can exist and not exist at the same time, perhaps in two parallel universes he created where he exists in one but not the other? Thats why I hate the omni words, including everything gets ridiculous pretty quickly.

That's not "powerful," it's just impossible.

 

[idav]

That's not "powerful," it's just impossible.

Well just like Chuck Norris, Omnipotence doesnt even know what impossible means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hence, an omnimax God is NOT logically contradictory, since it is possible that all three omnis did in fact produce the best possible world, and we just don't know it.

Except it's a tenet of faith for many religions that this is not the best possible world... that it's inferior to Heaven, for instance.

Not sure what you mean by "God of the gaps". For your argument to work, though, you'd have to show that something God wanted to happen didn't happen. That seems like a pretty tall order.

The Bible describes God regretting things a few times.

And many religions have a concept of "sin": i.e. the idea that things that God didn't want to happen did happen.

Every time I've seen discussions on omnipotence, the consensus was the logical contradictions are not included.

That depends. I've heard some believers claim that God is the creator of logical absolutes, so he could in fact have made a universe where contradictions are possible.

... though I don't have details of how this might be, because I usually give up talking to these people when I get a headache.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why? :sarcastic

Why what? Why would creating the world entail worldly evidence? Because all changes in the world entail worldly evidence... And irreducible complexity and a moral world order were just two examples of what might count as this sort of evidence- it was hardly an exhaustive list... The point was simply that the existence of even a deistic god, who creates the world and then leaves it completely alone, would nevertheless entail some worldly evidence.

So, essentially you could say that a God-that-produces-a-universe-in-allignment-with-your-concepts-of-perfection doesn't exist. What about all the other sorts of Gods?

Are these gods purported to be transcendent? If so, then they do not exist-

-A transcendent being can only be a non-being since transcending all conditions and relations entails transcending all conditions of existence (causal or other relations, spatiotemporal location, etc.); a transcendent being cannot exist

Perfect or maximally great? If so, then they do not exist-

-a maximally perfect being, or a being possessing all possible perfections is logically contradictory; perfections of various attributes exclude one another

Omnipotent and necessary? If so, then the do not exist-

-Also, an omnipotent and necessary being is contradictory since a necessary being exists in all logically possible worlds whereas an omnipotent being has the capacity for self-destruction/self-undoing and does not it exist in at least one logically possible worlds.

Atemporal and acting or intervening? If so, then the do not exist-

-An atemporal deity cannot be an intervening/acting deity since causing changes involves temporality

And of course, there is the final stick in the spokes- for any particular god:

1. What changes in the world are uniquely accounted for by the existence of your god/gods?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Every time I've seen discussions on omnipotence, the consensus was the logical contradictions are not included.

Sure, omnipotence can be defined as the ability to enact any logically possible state-of-affairs; thus, an inability to create a cat that is not a cat, or any other logical absurdity, do not "count against" omnipotence.

But omnipotence generates its own logical contradictions when conjoined with other attributes- omnibenevolence and omniscience ala the problem of evil, and logical necessity, as above.

Also, if God is defined as an eternal being, and an omnipotent being, we get a similar issue that we see above with necessity and omnipotence-

In modal terms:

-If X is eternal, then in any logically possible world P such that X exists in P, there is no time such that X does not exist in P.

-But if X is omnipotent (which trivially includes the capacity for self-destruction), then there is at least one logically possible world P such that X existed in P at some time t1 but does not exist in P at some later time t2.

But this is contradictory. Thus, any god that is eternal and omnipotent cannot exist.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.
He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity. Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles. Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.
Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god. But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same . Like a sad case of the irony when one realizes their greatest enemy is themselves.

I have said this for a very long time now.

If somebody was a true Atheist and didn't believe in God, they would just carry on with their lives, and ignore the Theists and not even bother to even think that 'there is no God' because all of that would be rather non-sequitir.

They wouldn't try and dissuade Theists from believing or argue against them, because if God doesn't exist anyway, what is the point? Like my daughter (an Atheist) they would simply say 'in my opinion, what you are doing is totally ridiculous, but hey...your life' to which I usually reply 'and never you forget it'.

Some even say, on here: 'Mercy/Love/Grace doesn't come from God' in which, they are admitting that God exists, so that these Divine Traits cannot emanate from It...that's cool...I have a good laugh at their expense..

Still, if they didn't care, they wouldn't care and that's it.

So there's no such thing as an Atheist OR a Theist beyond 'I don't believe in God and you do'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have said this for a very long time now.

If somebody was a true Atheist and didn't believe in God, they would just carry on with their lives, and ignore the Theists and not even bother to even think that 'there is no God' because all of that would be rather non-sequitir.

No. No, no.
I don't believe in God. I am interested in religion. I am not a communist. I am interested in communism. I am not a Nazi. I am interested in National Socialism.
In each case they are ways of looking at the world that I don't agree with. IN each case, there have been points of history (or all of history) where these world views have informed and driven people. In all cases, the people so driven have impacted on the world.
I am interested in religion because I am interested in motivations. I am interested in people's perspectives. I am interested in causes.

They wouldn't try and dissuade Theists from believing or argue against them, because if God doesn't exist anyway, what is the point? Like my daughter (an Atheist) they would simply say 'in my opinion, what you are doing is totally ridiculous, but hey...your life' to which I usually reply 'and never you forget it'.

You're daughter knows you well enough to see you as a person. I wouldn't try to dissuade my mum or sister from their views, because they are good people who happen to be theists. Good luck to them. If they ask my opinion about a religious viewpoint (which happens once every 3 years) I can give them a decent answer from a Biblical standpoint, most of the time, as well as my own opinion.

But if your brand of theism meant you were berating women entering an abortion clinic, and I was there, I might engage in some discourse. If nothing else I could run interference, right? And if your brand of theism meant you proselytized to my kids, I would certainly argue the point. And if you wanted to change the laws of my country to include a state religion, then I'd argue. Etc, etc.

Some even say, on here: 'Mercy/Love/Grace doesn't come from God' in which, they are admitting that God exists, so that these Divine Traits cannot emanate from It...that's cool...I have a good laugh at their expense..

Nothing funny about it. They are talking in the language of the person they are speaking to, in generic terms. I do it all the time, since communication is about framing things in a manner by which the listener can understand.

Personally, I don't believe in objective morality, so this is a forced example, but if I suggested that objective morality doesn't come from God, you might have issue with the way I frame it, or even find it amusing, but it is not indicative of me secretly believing or suspecting there is a God. If that's what you are thinking (and I haven't misunderstood) it's kinda...well, insulting is much too strong a word. You're reading too much into it, put it that way.

Still, if they didn't care, they wouldn't care and that's it.

Atheism means they don't hold a belief in God. It's possible to really wish there was a God, and be an atheist. Or to think that any God would be worthy of derision, and be an atheist. Or think there's no God, but religion is such a powerful force in every realm of life it is worth thinking about and studying.

So there's no such thing as an Atheist OR a Theist beyond 'I don't believe in God and you do'.

Not sure I follow, but I think we agree on this final point. Atheism/Theism says little about a person. It only answers one question, which is merely the tiniest piece of the whole.

 

[Willamena]

...but religion is such a powerful force in every realm of life it is worth thinking about and studying.

Unless it doesn't impact your life. In which case, you go on living a secular life like NobodyYouKnow described.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have said this for a very long time now.

If somebody was a true Atheist and didn't believe in God, they would just carry on with their lives, and ignore the Theists and not even bother to even think that 'there is no God' because all of that would be rather non-sequitir.

They wouldn't try and dissuade Theists from believing or argue against them, because if God doesn't exist anyway, what is the point? Like my daughter (an Atheist) they would simply say 'in my opinion, what you are doing is totally ridiculous, but hey...your life' to which I usually reply 'and never you forget it'.

Some even say, on here: 'Mercy/Love/Grace doesn't come from God' in which, they are admitting that God exists, so that these Divine Traits cannot emanate from It...that's cool...I have a good laugh at their expense..

Still, if they didn't care, they wouldn't care and that's it.

So there's no such thing as an Atheist OR a Theist beyond 'I don't believe in God and you do'.

To me this would sort of go back to ignosticism. Atheist nor theists never truly express what qualifies as god. Both have presumed definitions.

This is why I like Hindus soooo much. To a Hindu, anything can qualify as god the issue is just a matter of if the god is good/evil or worthy of worship.

I have heard Atheists state that during their period of deconversion that they realized what they called god was actually the universe. Many Atheists left religion then moved on to Deism and Pantheism before hitting Atheism. finally. The issue with this is that for many theists the universe is close enough to what one might assume is god.

Deists int he past like Charles Blount argued in defense of Paganism for a very simple fact. Pagan attributes their gods to natural phenomena such as lightening, fire or cosmic events. These events in accordance to myself qualify as forms of god, no matter how disastrous or good they may be.

Another example of pre-assumed conclusions about god is that god is a he or even a she. I myself say it because god is ultimately a concept and does not become anything until you acknowledge it. For whatever reason we apply gender to something we have no definition of.

Pagan Arabs were at a point like this also where they only used words to give form to god then pillars then idols. They continuously began adding more definitive forms to god(s).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Unless it doesn't impact your life. In which case, you go on living a secular life like NobodyYouKnow described.

Welp, to judge whether you are a person who has been impacted by religion, take the following test;

Q1 : Look around you. Do you see Amazonian rainforest? If Yes, continue.
Q2 : Get a tape measure, and get your buddy to measure you. Are you shorter than 5 feet (152 cm) for a male, or 4 feet (121cm) for a female? Yes? Then continue.
Q3 : Are you successfully reading this web page? No? Then continue, and tip your interpreter while you're at it.
Q4 : Multiple choice : Select the answer you most agree with.
a) God is great
b) God is meh!
c) God is within you!
d) You ARE God!
e) You're not God, but you signed your house over to him, which is why you're living in an Amazonian Rainforest.
f) There is no God
g) God? Oh, you mean 'Gods'...
h) Whose-i-what-now?

If you answered (h) continue.

If you have made it this far, there is some chance you are an Amazonian pygmy who has so far avoided the impact of religion. Although I'd still suggest it's more likely you have been impacted, and are just unaware of it.

Sure, some people have been directly impacted, and some not. But I'm a history buff. Pick a strand, and tell me religion has played no role. Pick a person and tell me they have no history. Everyone has been impacted by religion. The direct impact on me has been limited, yet I'm fascinated by it. I'm not suggesting others should be, or that they would be. Only that they might be.

Atheism is not apatheism, and even an apatheist might be interested in the historical and current impact of religion, regardless of whether they see the question of God's existence as interesting or determinable.

BTW...for anyone who's got this far, completed my quiz, and is not nodding off to sleep, major kudos. Let me know, and I'll personally frubal the heck out of you.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, some people have been directly impacted, and some not. But I'm a history buff. Pick a strand, and tell me religion has played no role. Pick a person and tell me they have no history. Everyone has been impacted by religion. The direct impact on me has been limited, yet I'm fascinated by it. I'm not suggesting others should be, or that they would be. Only that they might be.

Atheism is not apatheism, and even an apatheist might be interested in the historical and current impact of religion, regardless of whether they see the question of God's existence as interesting or determinable.

BTW...for anyone who's got this far, completed my quiz, and is not nodding off to sleep, major kudos. Let me know, and I'll personally frubal the heck out of you.

I concede.