Q: Isn’t it a bit extreme to assert "God does not exist"? To make such a statement you would have to have complete knowledge and to have been everywhere in the universe. Maybe God dwells somewhere in the universe you don’t know of or have not been to? Is that possible?
A: There is so much wrong with this question that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start dissecting it. As I see it, this is but a version of the old "you can't prove a negative" dogma. I'm not sure where this particular argument originated but it commonly seems to have its one and only line of defence in a broken understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. However, I feel that getting into Quantum physics just to address the point raised would be pretty much useless, so I'll keep it much simpler.
First off, not all atheists are equally assertive. Many will stick to a mild lack of belief in a supernatural reality or specifically in a creative power. However, just as many - including me - will go as far as to say that god does not exist. In doing so we're often spat at the aforementioned rebuke about negatives being unprovable. What most believers fail to understand is that "you can't prove a negative" is as self-contradicting as a statement can possibly be. If negatives cannot be proven, then one cannot prove that the absolute, negative statement "you can't prove a negative" is true either, therefore destroying every bit of its absoluteness and leaving us with a statement that sounds rather more like "some negatives can be proven." Think of a statement such as "one is not the same as two." It is common sense that one and two are not the same, we can easily take it as a postulate without bothering to look for supportive evidence. Same goes for less mathematical statements. Let's take for example "the ancient Romans did not build the Hubble telescope." Should we declare ourselves agnostics about the making of the Hubble? Don't think so. The real deal with most negative statements is not really that they can't be proven, rather that they needn't be proven at all. If, on the other hand, one were to use an affirmative phrase like "the ancient Romans did build the Hubble telescope," then that person would be in serious trouble as his, and only his, would be the burden of proof.
Statements about the existence of god are really not all too different, as demonstrated by the hopeless quest for evidence proponents of Creationism need to embark on whenever they seek to have some sort of rational debate. Whoever claims that "god exists," has the responsibility to provide enough evidence to support such claim, else it is bound to be rejected. Sure, someone might contend that we have enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule out the possibility that the Romans could have built anything even vaguely comparable to the Hubble, whereas we have no piece of evidence as irrefutable as that to rule out the existence of god. Of course one such person would have to wilfully and ill-willingly ignore centuries of scientific achievements, but dignity doesn't seem to be amongst the top concerns of the average theist these days. But really, the real problem with all this is not the Creationist tendency to claim evidence they don't actually have, rather the fact that statements about the existence of an entity "god" are completely and utterly useless without a meaningful definition of "god," and theists are usually unable to provide a clear one. Roughly put, you can't possibly disprove the existence of a vague "god" whose attributes are unspecified. Of course you can nearly always safely assume that the god theist X is talking about is the one of the Judeo-Christian tradition and, in that context, "god does not exist," is far from being an arrogant statement.
A: There is so much wrong with this question that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start dissecting it. As I see it, this is but a version of the old "you can't prove a negative" dogma. I'm not sure where this particular argument originated but it commonly seems to have its one and only line of defence in a broken understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. However, I feel that getting into Quantum physics just to address the point raised would be pretty much useless, so I'll keep it much simpler.
First off, not all atheists are equally assertive. Many will stick to a mild lack of belief in a supernatural reality or specifically in a creative power. However, just as many - including me - will go as far as to say that god does not exist. In doing so we're often spat at the aforementioned rebuke about negatives being unprovable. What most believers fail to understand is that "you can't prove a negative" is as self-contradicting as a statement can possibly be. If negatives cannot be proven, then one cannot prove that the absolute, negative statement "you can't prove a negative" is true either, therefore destroying every bit of its absoluteness and leaving us with a statement that sounds rather more like "some negatives can be proven." Think of a statement such as "one is not the same as two." It is common sense that one and two are not the same, we can easily take it as a postulate without bothering to look for supportive evidence. Same goes for less mathematical statements. Let's take for example "the ancient Romans did not build the Hubble telescope." Should we declare ourselves agnostics about the making of the Hubble? Don't think so. The real deal with most negative statements is not really that they can't be proven, rather that they needn't be proven at all. If, on the other hand, one were to use an affirmative phrase like "the ancient Romans did build the Hubble telescope," then that person would be in serious trouble as his, and only his, would be the burden of proof.
Statements about the existence of god are really not all too different, as demonstrated by the hopeless quest for evidence proponents of Creationism need to embark on whenever they seek to have some sort of rational debate. Whoever claims that "god exists," has the responsibility to provide enough evidence to support such claim, else it is bound to be rejected. Sure, someone might contend that we have enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule out the possibility that the Romans could have built anything even vaguely comparable to the Hubble, whereas we have no piece of evidence as irrefutable as that to rule out the existence of god. Of course one such person would have to wilfully and ill-willingly ignore centuries of scientific achievements, but dignity doesn't seem to be amongst the top concerns of the average theist these days. But really, the real problem with all this is not the Creationist tendency to claim evidence they don't actually have, rather the fact that statements about the existence of an entity "god" are completely and utterly useless without a meaningful definition of "god," and theists are usually unable to provide a clear one. Roughly put, you can't possibly disprove the existence of a vague "god" whose attributes are unspecified. Of course you can nearly always safely assume that the god theist X is talking about is the one of the Judeo-Christian tradition and, in that context, "god does not exist," is far from being an arrogant statement.
8 comments:
Nice.
I was instantly hooked when I read the title of the post, because I am currently talking to a few friends of mine and their misconceptions about atheists.
Sometimes, it gets difficult with trying to reason with people about your position. I've got many friends who go to some youth group around the area, and I am being led to believe that all the youth pastors are beginning to 'equip' there bible groups against atheists like me by telling them this lie about how since no one can know everything, we can't possibly say there isn't a god. Therefore, atheists do not exist, and if we were honest we'd say that we're agnostic. My face can't take any more palm attacks.
Well-put.
Another good point is that in situations where definition of god is self-contradictory, "god does not exist" is as true as "invisible blue unicorns do not exist". The term itself is an oxymoron, and I have no problem at all asserting that a logical impossibility is impossible. They have to try to work out how their God can exist in all of his illogicality, while they dismiss everyone else's gods, including the pagan gods. IMO, the pagan gods are much less contradictory, since they are not supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
I usually find that trying to reason with religious people is utterly useless and frustrating. They have their own brand of logic that they think works, and they think it is a good thing to stick to their faith when contradictory ideas/evidence arises.
Salutations.
While I agree that proving a universal negative is often not impossible, I am afraid that I must strongly disagree with many of your other comments here.
People who merely lack belief in God are not atheists but agnostics. It is very common nowadays for an agnostic to insist the he is an atheist. But his over-zealousness does not make his false claim true. The standard argument is that “atheism” literally means “without theism”. But this is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Words clearly do not always mean what they literally mean. We find the meaning of words out from the dictionary and according to the dictionary an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves (hence they lack belief) in the existence of God and atheists believe there is no God. I must stress this point because once unbelievers are allowed to redefine any terms they want to suit their needs, in dialogue with religious people, communication will be destroyed.
I normally break out in a rash when I hear people speaking of “burden of proof.” In any case, a true atheist is making a positive truth claim-they claim, “I know God does not exist,”-and this is an extreme claim indeed. How could one know such a thing? They have to have some type of evidence and, thus far, all such evidence is very weak as far as I can tell. One way to know that God does not exist, if He really does not, would be to find something inherently self-contradictory in the idea. The most popular candidate is the paradox of the stone. Could God make a rock so big He cannot lift it? If no, then He is not omnipotent for there is something He cannot do-namely, make the rock. If yes, there is still something He cannot do-namely, lift the rock once He makes it. In either case, says the argument, God can not be omnipotent but He is omnipotent according to theists so the idea of God is logically impossible. The problem with this is that it places the contradiction in the wrong place. It is nonsense to suggest that all strength could make a being (in this case, a rock) with more than all strength. The inconsistency is in the misunderstanding of omnipotence for nobody ever claimed that an omnipotent being can do all things including self-contradictory things. So we see that when it comes to omnipotence, the idea of God is consistent. We could similarly go through the other aspects of the idea of God.
If we did that, we would see that there is no contradiction to be found in the idea of God. Any being (that actually exists or not) that is not self-contradictory is logical possible. And nobody can possibly know that a logically possible being definitely does not exist. So strong atheism is left without a leg to stand on. If you want to say that probably God does not exist, then that would also require some type of evidence. And usually the purported evidence given for this claim is at best very weak.
Before moving on to the next point, I must finish what I had to say about burden of proof. If I wanted to define Christianity as “lack of belief in atheism” then I could place the burden of proof on you. However, if it is not good for a Christian to not have to explain things (e.g. just believe God created the universe and not having to explain it or think about it) then it is also not good for atheists to not have to explain things. In other words, to play the we-don’t-have-the-burden-of-proof card is a cop-out, so far as I can tell. So then, let us hear your argument for why God probably does not exist.
If you reply that Christians also have a burden of proof to support their claims that God does exist, I could reply with a version of the cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments. For example:
1. That which exists, requires an explanation for its existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. But the universe is of such a nature that it cannot explain its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be something or someone outside of the universe that causes it to be. This all men call “God”. In other words, God definitely exists.
So we do have (irrefutable?) evidence for God after all. And, the definition of “God” may go something like this: the purported transcendent creator of the world who, according to Christians, actually exists. That is a clear and meaningful definition and, we also see above, evidence for the existence of this entity.
One cannot rationally deny the existence of God once His existence has been logically proven. To sum up, in the absence of self-contradictory theology, it is possible to be, at best, an agnostic and in the light of good logical arguments for theism and no good ones against it, one can be, at best, a non-Christian theist. In any case, strong atheism is seen to be an unreasonable position to hold.
See you next time, dear Fabio.
"Atheism: as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism."
"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove."
It seems to me that the one who's trying to redefine terms here is you. The atheistic community is a wide one with many nuances. Some make positive statements about god's non-existence, some say they do not believe in the existence of a god and live their lives accordingly. Agnosticism is instead based on an epoché of sorts and is as such rather different.
As for all the evidence against the existence of a god being "very weak," that's but your personal position and a highly disputable one. Now to save your deity you even go as far as to propose a personal definition of what omnipotence is. Who's redefining terms here? Regardless, the philosophical arguments against or for the existence of god are by far the least interesting of all. Most of them are actually rather trivial, good for debates but hardly more. If you have physical evidence to support your belief, bring it forth.
You have a problem with the idea of burden of proof, I see. That's not uncommon amongst those who have no proof in the first place. You claim there is a god, a metaphysical entity that goes against everything modern science has demonstrated to be objectively true. You claim it is invisible, immaterial and beyond all rational scrutiny. Science affirms that no such entity can exist in a physical universe, and a physical universe is all there is until otherwise proven. Therefore the burden of proof is on you who positively claim that such an entity exists against all odds. You might want to call it a cop-out but it just displays a lack of intellectual honesty on your part.
And now on to your "argument." Everything that exists exists as a result of a "how," and a "why" is not logically necessary. This is the false premise of every teleological argument and the reason why they are all utter crap. Kiss your argument goodbye.
Hi Fabio.
Your first move is to deny what essentially all dictionaries have said for years and all people (accept some agnostics who really want to be called atheists for some strange reason) have always meant by "atheist". This is not good in my opinion.
Evidence against the existence of God is usually very weak. Skeptical writings are often filled with straw men, non sequiturs, quoting out of contexts, and misrepresentations. If you have a single good argument for your position, let us hear it.
I do not redefine "omnipotence" but give the standard definition it has always had. The definition you seem to want to give it is precisely the point I was trying to make in the last paragraph about weak arguments (by way of straw men, for example). The self-contradictory is no thing, or nothing, and God can only do all things. At least as far back as Thomas Aquinas the point was made explicit by theologians that omnipotence can not do the logically impossible. It does not even make sense to say that God could contradict Himself so, of course, Christians do not believe that He can.
As for physical evidence of Christianity, I offer the Resurrection. The objective, physical, natural, material body of Jesus was biologically dead and then (as now) alive.
No proof in the first place? How about the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments which each have several different forms? How about the Resurrection of Jesus? Now, you may suppose that there is something inconclusive in all of these approaches but, you must admit, I am not merely saying "just believe" or "follow the Bible for no apparent reason". Rather, I am making a legitimate effort to defend my beliefs with what I, at least, regard as compelling.
I am very concerned about your view of science. It seems that you will count as true only what is scientifically demonstrable. Why? Is empiricism or scientism, which you apparently hold, itself scientifically demonstrable? Of course not. But then you should reject it if you are going to be consistent. And what about mathematics? Mathematics is a strictly rational, hence non-scientific, discipline. Don't you agree that 2 + 2 = 4 even though this is a non-scientific statement and, hence, "metaphysical hogwash"?
The idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" is one I do not think I accept. I appeal to it because you imply that you accept it, I think, even though you subsequently deny this is so. How do you imply this? By saying that physical nature is all science studies and vice versa. Everything else is fairy tale land and is strictly within the province of unreasonable fools such as myself. The twain shall never meet. So it is you who believes in non-overlapping magisteria. I am merely pointing out the consequences which follow from your position. If one first insists science cannot study the supernatural, one cannot then be upset when science finds nothing supernatural.
God is not beyond rational scrutiny for that is precisely what you and I are doing right now.
We know there is another realm because we know reality cannot be strictly material. For example, love cannot be weighed or put in a jar. I do not mean that one must accept Platonism. Even Aristotle believed in ethical ideals (though not, of course, in some separate realm of Platonic Goodness).
I have accepted the burden of proof, I remind you, and offered several arguments in that light (only two of which I explicitly stated).
Now on to my argument. That argument is the Liebnizian Cosmological argument and not a teleological. It is a legitimate question, with an answer, to ask why a particular entity exists for any entity. When we ask this question of the universe, the only answer can be God. If you don’t like (the conclusion of) this argument, the proper response is to point out an invalid inference and/or demonstrate which premise is false. Instead, all you have done is assert that there is no why (I.e. that premise one is false). But surely this is incredible. I should think that Fabio is just there and that is all. He had no parents or anything. Is that what you want me to believe? How is that any different when applied to the universe? If you cannot justify your assertion then I do not see why you would not accept the conclusion of my argument.
See you next time.
I'm tired of arguing semantics with you. Use all the distorted definitions you wish to, nonsense will catch up with you regardless.
Arguments against the existence of your deity? That's what I've been providing ever since I started this blog, and even before that, when I was a frequent user on several public forums. I won't indulge you merely because you aprioristically wish to make tabula rasa of any argument provided thus far. That's your childish issue, nothing I'm interested in.
There is no physical, archaeological evidence of the Bible's Jesus and the little textual "evidence" people like you claim to possess is ambiguous at best, most of it being later interpolations, e.g. Josephus' writings. The resurrection is hardly a valid argument when the very historicity of the Bible's Jesus is disputable.
That's exactly the problem. What you regard as compelling, is pretty much an offence to human rationality.
True? I will count as real only what is real in the physical reality we live in. I'm yet to hear a single piece of evidence to support your believe in something beyond the physical. I'm waiting. You've offered no argument that I would consider worthy of the name. Keep them to the theology class, you might have better luck in the herd.
So are you comparing me to the universe we live in? Well, that is most certainly flattering, however nonsensical. Now go back to when you decided to even type something like that and actually think of it as a valid argument as to why there must be a why behind the universe and that why has to be your god. Once you're there, turn off your PC, it's a waste of energy.
Go Fabio!
First,
Thank you fabio this is a very well done site...my comment is to evangelical...please excuse some of the misspelling for I am dislextic,, that is why I don't blog much. And as someone who uses the dictionary,, A LOT,, I really took your statement of the definations not actually meaning what they say to heart. I rely on the dictionary for, not only correct spelling, BUT definitions to words beyond my limited use. So, when one tries to SPIN the definitions of words to there ideological idiotisms tells me that YOU are ONLY OUT TO DECIEVE AND CLOUD RATIONAL THOUGHT. If you can, I can too..! How about this,, Agnositc... A person that does'nt acknowledge, nor dispute the existence of a god...
Atheist... One who dose'nt believe in god on the grounds that there is NO EVIDENCE SUPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF A gOD..
Now,, since you put your arguement AFTER your disclaimer that all atheists are "really" agnostics on some layaway plain,, places we true Athiests as some kind of spoilsports that are too immiture to understand that your cosmic dieity "created all this " LET'S the cat out of the bag sort of say that psychologically speaking... your way is right and our way is wrong..
Of course,, If you tried to spin the definitions of agnostic and athiest,, then why would'nt you try to SPIN FACT from FANTASY If one can do one, than one can do the other..Not my fantasy.. YOURS...
The fact of the matter is you have TWISTED things around to SUIT YOUR MEANS. Therefore by trying to include Athiests as agnostics you think ( in your simplestic ways ) that where all just bastared children of god simply because we don't believe is audasiesus on your part.. I need PROOF that HE/ SHE EXISTS..
Please, e-mail me of your so called PROOF that there is a god at lesavagepeter@hotmail.com BUT leave any supposits DEFITIONALLY out of it..
I love a good debate ( so long it is factual,,) SO BRING IT ON..!!
Thank you for your time and descretion..
Post a Comment