A question for atheists

[Infinite_Loser]

I don't know where else to put this, so I guess I'll just put it here.

This is primarily aimed at (A specific group of) atheists, but anyone can answer. Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God, then how can one claim, with any reasonable faith, that no God exists? The admission that there are an infinite number of possibilities for God precludes atheism. To make such a statement while claiming to be an atheist is-- Dare I say it?-- Logically incoherent.

(When I say atheism, I'm talking about those who claim no God exists rather than agnostics.)

[Shauk]

I apply this comment


"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


It relates, I think.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God, then how can one claim, with any reasonable faith, that no God exists?

There aren't infinite possibilities for god. The only resources for god are religious texts and stories. There are like 20 major world religions currently, but let's be very generous. Let's say there have been 1 million total gods believed in since the dawn of man. All of those gods include one thing: they're supernatural. Without that, the meaning of god changes and it's just someone calling something non-supernatural god (like when someone says they see god as the universe or some such nonsense).

Supernatural = unproven, unverified, and currently unverifiable. So when someone says "God doesn't exist" it's simply a statement made to communicate that there's absolutely no reason to believe in god that's based in logic.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I don't know where else to put this, so I guess I'll just put it here.

This is primarily aimed at (A specific group of) atheists, but anyone can answer. Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God, then how can one claim, with any reasonable faith, that no God exists? The admission that there are an infinite number of possibilities for God precludes atheism. To make such a statement while claiming to be an atheist is-- Dare I say it?-- Logically incoherent.

(When I say atheism, I'm talking about those who claim no God exists rather than agnostics.)

For that matter, there are an infinite number of ways my car could break down. It's logically incoherent to assume that it runs at all.

[Shauk]

furthermore, it's not infinite or zero.

it's not about numbers, it's about "1" or "0" in a binary sense.

true, or false
yes, or no.

in that light, might as well say it's 50/50

[Infinite_Loser]

Will, that's nice and all, but that really wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Excluding agnosticism, atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. Now, I realize that a disbelief in God is not the same thing as the belief that there is no God, therefore I'm not concerned with the first position, as it poses no problems. It's the second position which provides a whole host of nasty logical problems. It's not uncommon to see an atheist use the argument "How do you know your God exists? God could be anything!" Well, if God could be anything, then to simultaneously make the statement that God doesn't exist, would be to make a contradiction (Something can't be anything yet not exist). That's why the statement, as I see it, is logically incoherent and precludes one from being an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

[Willravel]

Only an idiot would make a statement like that. If any atheist says that to you, please send them my way. I won't want morons making atheists look bad (we're all looking at you, Lenin).

[inBOIL]

Some infinite sets are larger than others. For example, one might consider that the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for God is smaller than the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for no God. If the first set turns out to be infinitely smaller than the second, one might conclude that the chance of God existing is infinitely small.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

"How do you know your God exists? God could be anything!"

As willravel points out, this is not a logic-driven argument.

However, let's put a different spin on it. I believe, Infinite_Loser, that you're a Christian of some description, am I correct? I don't need the details and I'm not judging, I just want to clarify that as a point of comparison. Personally I'm a dedicated fence-sitter, but that's neither here nor there.

Here's the catch, though: if you are Christian, you can't use the above argument to invalidate atheism without invalidating your own religion. If we assume for the sake of argument that it would be correct to say that there are an infinite possible ways in which God or a pantheon of gods could manifest, we have to accept as a given that one of those ways is for no gods to manifest at all; non-existence is one of those infinite possibilities. From there we can then equate atheism with any other faith, with the only difference being that atheism uses empirical evidence as a 'Bible.' From that perspective, you really can't use the infinite possibilities argument against atheists any more than they can use it against you, since those infinite possibilities contain both of your 'religions.'

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by inBOIL

Some infinite sets are larger than others. For example, one might consider that the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for God is smaller than the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for no God. If the first set turns out to be infinitely smaller than the second, one might conclude that the chance of God existing is infinitely small.

I'm not sure how one could make this distinction as, by definition, infinite is undefined and inmeasurable. So there'd be no way of knowing this aside from simply assuming it to be true.

[Baraka_Guru]

I would like to contribute to this thread, but it would first help to have a definition of God.

If we are taking God to mean a singular being as Creator, then I believe that such a being does not exist. If, however, we take God to mean something different, then my own beliefs could very well be parallel to such.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Martian

Here's the catch, though: if you are Christian, you can't use the above argument to invalidate atheism without invalidating your own religion. If we assume for the sake of argument that it would be correct to say that there are an infinite possible ways in which God or a pantheon of gods could manifest, we have to accept as a given that one of those ways is for no gods to manifest at all; non-existence is one of those infinite possibilities. From there we can then equate atheism with any other faith, with the only difference being that atheism uses empirical evidence as a 'Bible.' From that perspective, you really can't use the infinite possibilities argument against atheists any more than they can use it against you, since those infinite possibilities contain both of your 'religions.'

I'm not so sure how such an argument would invalidate my religion as, assuming God is anything, then, by association, my definition of God would be among one of the possibilities. This doesn't validate the atheist position, though, as while anything can be something, anything can't be nothing. And, yes, while I realize that the argument here is, if I'm understanding it correctly, that "Nothing is a possibility of anything (Which would make the probability of God existing being zero)", the usage of the word anything excludes nothingness (Or, in other words, existence doesn't include non-existence).

[Willravel]

"God is the anything" is a simple mislabeling. God is not "anything". God is a deity, whether you consider he/her/it/them to be mythology or not. It's a personhood, not some concept of all that is.

Edit: if when one says "I believe in God" they are actually saying they believe in anything, then they're not even necessarily a theist or deist. They're just way too open minded.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by willravel

"God is the anything" is a simple mislabeling. God is not "anything". God is a deity, whether you consider he/her/it/them to be mythology or not. It's a personhood, not some concept of all that is.

Will, you've skipped over entire bodies of philosophy through the ages.

EDIT: (God is not necessarily a personhood.)

Edit: if when one says "I believe in God" they are actually saying they believe in anything, then they're not even necessarily a theist or deist. They're just way too open minded.

This is something else entirely.


We need a clarification of just what we're talking about when we say God.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

We need a clarification of just what we're talking about when we say God.

For argument's sake, let's just define God as the creator of the universe.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God...

This assumption includes non-existence as one of those possibilities, since "an infinite number of possibilities" would by definition include any possibility conceivable.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I'm not so sure how such an argument would invalidate my religion as, assuming God is anything, then, by association, my definition of God would be among one of the possibilities. This doesn't validate the atheist position, though, as while anything can be something, anything can't be nothing. And, yes, while I realize that the argument here is, if I'm understanding it correctly, that "Nothing is a possibility of anything (Which would make the probability of God existing being zero)", the usage of the word anything excludes nothingness (Or, in other words, existence doesn't include non-existence).

If you wish to use a completely literal interpretation of the statement "God could be anything" and therefore exclude non-existence as a possibility, that statement ceases to be atheistic in nature (which it never really was to begin with) and becomes an implied declaration of faith. Therefore, assuming such an interpretation for the statement "God could be anything," it for the purposes of this discussion carries essentially the same meaning as "God is an all-knowing, all-powerful benevolent creator," and any atheistic viewpoint becomes irrelevant. You are essentially making an argument against the different flavours of theism, rather than an argument for or against atheism. Regardless, the first highlighted statement and the second highlighted statement are inconsistent unless one adopts a more liberal interpretation of one or the other.

Also note that the statement "God could be anything" is not identical in meaning to the statement "God is anything." Your terminology in general is somewhat inconsistent here, which makes deciphering your message difficult.

EDIT for cross-posting -

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

For argument's sake, let's just define God as the creator of the universe.

This definition is theistic in nature and is therefore not well suited to a discussion of theism vs. atheism. A better definition would be "an entity assumed by some individuals to be the creator of the Universe," since it will allow discussion of God without an implied discussion of the Universe.

[JohnDonCon]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God, then how can one claim, with any reasonable faith, that no God exists? The admission that there are an infinite number of possibilities for God precludes atheism. To make such a statement while claiming to be an atheist is-- Dare I say it?-- Logically incoherent.

I'm not following, how can we assume there are an infinite number of possibilities god exists? This type of assumption doesn't get us anywhere because you're not bringing up any evidence for assuming such a thing. If you assume there are an infinite number of possibilities for god and an infinite number of possibilities that there is no god you end up right back where you started. Making assumptions like that is the complete lack of logic, not even a speck of it whatsoever.

The type of question you're asking here appears to be dealing with the probability of god existing and to determine if god exists or not you have to come up with reasons for and against and weight them based on their legitimacy.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I'm not sure how one could make this distinction as, by definition, infinite is undefined and inmeasurable. So there'd be no way of knowing this aside from simply assuming it to be true.

Your logical and analytical skills are as abominable as ever. You also like to make shit up, which seriously offends me. Either that, or you're totally ignorant of the meaning of the words (and phrases) that you use...

Infinity is not undefined. Indeed, how can something, by definition, be undefined? This is a clear example of you making shit up and using words you don't understand...

Now, I think I can agree that infinity is immeasurable but that doesn't mean it's incomparable. For instance, lets define a power set of a given set as the set of all subsets of the given set. It's not too hard to prove that the power set has more elements than the given set, regardless of whether the given set had an infinite number of elements or not! Thus, some infinite sets are larger than others...

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I don't know where else to put this, so I guess I'll just put it here.

This is primarily aimed at (A specific group of) atheists, but anyone can answer. Now, assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for God, then how can one claim, with any reasonable faith, that no God exists? The admission that there are an infinite number of possibilities for God precludes atheism. To make such a statement while claiming to be an atheist is-- Dare I say it?-- Logically incoherent.

(When I say atheism, I'm talking about those who claim no God exists rather than agnostics.)

Sorry for the edit. I don't ordinarily edit to this degree but I was so incensed with the first post that I wasn't reading this one too clearly. It's very late at night so, hopefully, not too many people have read the previous revision...

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. The conclusion of the argument you're trying (desperately) to refute isn't "therefore, there is no God." The point of the argument is that the burden of proof is on the theist to provide compelling reason to believe in their particular god. The atheism comes from the sad fact that no one has provided any evidence that such a being exists and, therefore, it's most reasonable to not believe in any...

[Infinite_Loser]

NVM

[ironman]

Trying to prove god's existance throug scientific analysis is futile as science by definition is supported in natural facts that are constant and repeatable, meanwhile god is by definition super natural or BEYOND nature. God is about faith, and faith by definition is believing beyond logic. If you or I believe in god that's fine, if you and I dont, that's fine too, just dont try to convince an atheist of God's existance rationalizing it.

[roachboy]

"assuming there are an infinite number of possibilities for god"

where does this assumption come from?
how do you imagine this would involve an atheist in your op?


let's give this goofy thing the benefit of the doubt.

say there's an operation behind it---say youre transposing something like giodarno bruno's idea that there are infinite possible worlds.

so:

world=>category=>meaning understood as manifold of possibilities=>a manifold of possibilities is a collection of all possible exemplars of the category==>if the category is "world" then it follows that there are infinite possible worlds.

none of this gets started without the category "world."

the demonstration repeats the characteristics imputed to "meaning."

if you assume a meaning is a manifold, when you ask about a meaning, you find a manifold.
as a manifold, a meaning would "contain" all possible exemplars.
a manifold in this sense is maybe a "tree" diagram that would connect all possible exemplars of the category.
another way: this particular idea of "meaning" is spatialized (projected onto the world) as a tree of exemplars, say.
a tree of clay pots would be the manifold "clay pot".

for any given category, there's an infinite number (?) of potential examples of the category.
but infinite here implies indeterminate: you can't make an exhaustive list of them. your tree cannot indicate all possible exemplars. there's always n+1. so maybe an arithmetical infinity, in the sense that you can't create a closed set. indeterminate more like.


anyway: nothing here goes beyond a discussion of the characteristics of a particular idea of "meaning" as it is applied to the case of a noun.

a meaning is a manifold is a meaning is a manifold.

"world" here: world=>category=>meaning understood as manifold of possibilities=>a manifold of possibilities is a collection of all possible exemplars of the category==>if the category is "world" then it follows that there are infinite possible worlds.


possible logic to justify substituting "god" for "world":

world is a category
god is a category
therefore god=world.

so we are basically being asked about the noun "god" which exists as a noun and just as a noun---and about the meanings that are or can be attached to that noun..

if that's the case, then what you're asking us to do is agree with you that the word "god" exists, and that a conception of what a meaning is also exists such that we can think in terms of infinite possibilities without loosing all specificity.

congratulations.
we have demonstrated that the word "god" exists and is a noun.

[Hain]

I think the assumption, while sounds valid, is flawed. If there are an infinite amount of universes, and then an infinite amount of universal sets (each set with an alternate form of physics), yes some god like beings are capable of existing. These beings could be without limit to their power. However, these beings would not be the alpha-and-omega God because these gods were created as a consequence of infinite possibility, not the creator of infinite possibility.

[Halx]

The concept of god is a human invention. That's why there are so many variations. However, it all comes down to one thing: explaining and justifying the unknown and unknowable. If you let go of the need to explain the things you do not understand, then the concept of god becomes unnecessary. If you give god credit for the things you already understand, then you're escaping reality.

[levite]

Can I risk scorn and offense by putting in two cents, even though I'm a definite theist?

I don't mean what I say to be offensive so I apologize in advance if any resident atheists do take my remarks out of turn.

It seems to me that atheism is a spectrum of beliefs. That spectrum ranges from those who have adopted the scientific paradigm to the spiritual paradigm, and will not accept the notion of a God that is not measurable by manmade instruments, or deducible in laboratory experiments that follow the accepted academic models (although they admit that if the Heavens opened in front of them and a great, well-modulated deep voice was heard amidst a column of dazzling light, they might well change their minds); all the way to a kind of fundamentalist atheism that not merely refuses to believe in God, but refuses the notion that anything could ever change that (like, if the Heavens opened tomorrow and flights of angels sang choruses, these folks would attribute it to mass hallucination or alien spacecraft or too much fluoride in the water-- anything except a supernatural experience).

But in any case, atheism is a belief choice. Atheists have chosen to believe that nothing in human experience ought not to be subject to scientific reasoning. That there is nothing beyond what is perceptible to the five physical senses, or to the best mechanical and electronic equipment that can be manufactured on this planet. That the validity of a feeling or perception is entirely dependent upon it being quantifiable mathematically and repeatable as desired. That is a perfectly valid spiritual belief, but it is just that. And as such, I try not to get into "why don't you believe what I believe" arguments with atheists (or anyone else), because I try stay clear of criticizing other people's religious beliefs.

[Willravel]

Atheism isn't a religious belief, though. It's a term explaining what someone is not (like gentile! ). Maybe that's why it's so difficult to argue against. It's not really one doctrine or set of beliefs. My atheism is founded in what I view is rationalism. Someone else's may be rooted in something completely different. It's not like we have a Bible or something.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by levite

Can I risk scorn and offense by putting in two cents, even though I'm a definite theist?

Dude, you're post is a calm and rational statement of your opinion. I don't see how anyone could be offended by that.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, as does everyone. In fact, I would say you have a very valid point; the bottom line is that atheism is a belief system, albeit one that's grounded in logic rather than ancient texts. In fact, it's my experience that this logical basis causes a subset of atheists to be the most zealous individuals I've ever met.

Originally Posted by Levite

It seems to me that atheism is a spectrum of beliefs. That spectrum ranges from those who have adopted the scientific paradigm to the spiritual paradigm, and will not accept the notion of a God that is not measurable by manmade instruments, or deducible in laboratory experiments that follow the accepted academic models (although they admit that if the Heavens opened in front of them and a great, well-modulated deep voice was heard amidst a column of dazzling light, they might well change their minds)...

This sort of depends on who you talk to. From the strictest standpoint one could argue that atheism is solely the belief that there is no divine overseer, with no room for doubt. Anyone who admits uncertainty would be categorized as agnostic.

Originally Posted by Levite

And as such, I try not to get into "why don't you believe what I believe" arguments with atheists (or anyone else), because I try stay clear of criticizing other people's religious beliefs.

I can respect that. It's my firm belief that people should have the right to whatever religion they wat; as such, I don't care if you're Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or believe the Universe was sneezed out the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure. Whatever makes you happy. The people who piss me off are the fucking missionaries (of any religion). I get that they're committed to their beliefs, why can't they get that other people are committed to different ones?

Anyway, I reckon that's a rant for another time.

EDIT - For cross-posting:

Originally Posted by willravel

Atheism isn't a religious belief, though...

I think the point wasn't 'atheism is a religion' so much as it was 'atheism is a belief system,' which is correct. A religion, as you rightly point out, is an organized group of people sharing a belief (usually founded on a text that's considered holy), while a belief system is simply an explanation for why the world is the way it is and can be highly individual. You consider your belief system to be superior because it's grounded in logic and I get that. Keep in mind, though, that from Levite's perspective his belief system is superior, since it's founded on the word of God and that trumps logic. It's all about point of view.

[roachboy]

personally, i dont think you can know anything either way. maybe there's some god. maybe there's not. it's undecidable, and so is functionally irrelevant. chances are that whatever you think a god is comes from the way in which you project through the word "god"---maybe there are thousands. maybe there's nothing. you don't know either.

that you "believe" means only that you believe. it doesn't provide you any special ground to stand on. it doesn't really mean anything, except insofar as it helps you get through your life: it functions for you.

you are in no position to say anything about anything that is not clanging about inside your skull by way of the statement "i believe.."

it is of no consequence whether that position or an atheist's position or an agnostic's position is or is not grouped as a belief: your belief that it is a belief is also a belief.
we can go round and round about this endlessly.
it too is of no consequence.

[levite]

Originally Posted by willravel

Atheism isn't a religious belief, though. It's a term explaining what someone is not (like gentile!). Maybe that's why it's so difficult to argue against. It's not really one doctrine or set of beliefs. My atheism is founded in what I view is rationalism. Someone else's may be rooted in something completely different. It's not like we have a Bible or something.

You don't have to have a bible, or an organization, or unified beliefs, or anything else. When I say atheism is a religious belief, I don't mean that there's some sort of Church of Nuh-Uh that atheists belong to. I mean that the belief that the rationalist paradigm (or the nihilist paradigm, or the humanist paradigm, or whatever foundation a person's atheism happens to be built on. I am just going with rationalism because that seems popular) is, essentially, the only authentic and effective means of engaging the universe and attempting to discover truths valuable to human beings...is a belief. It is a belief that you and I would both agree works spectacularly well for scientific endeavors. You and I would differ on its efficacy for matters spiritual. But there is nothing any more inherently true about the notion of rationalism's authenticity or effectiveness in matters spiritual than there is about any religion's authenticity or effectiveness.

To not believe in God cannot stand on its own: there must inevitably be a "rather." As in, I don't believe in God, rather, I believe in...(science, rationalism, humanism, nothingness, chaos, or whatever other things occupy that philosophical place). Human beings instinctively require a framework of structure in which to understand the universe. I don't believe (ironically) in the notion of an atheism solely defined by its prime negative attribute. Therefore, there are inevitably going to be philosophical frameworks that the atheist will apply, or invent, even if not always refined and formulated.

But my point is, when I say a religious belief, I mean not a belief in a religion, but a belief in some system or notion that holds equivalent status to the atheist in question as a religion would to a theist.

You can't prove anything about spirituality scientifically, nor can the supernatural ever be quantified by rational means: those experiences are by definition arational. They require a completely different paradigm to function and be understood effectively.

I don't try to prove or disprove atheism (or theism, for that matter), any more than I would try to "prove" Judaism to a non-Jew. First, it's a waste of time to try and prove the unprovable to people who don't agree with you in the first place. Second of all, it's not merely comparing apples and oranges (as might be said of, say, Judaism and Christianity, which at least share the same theistic paradigm): it's like someone saying "Sexual love is a beautiful thing," and another person saying "But I just don't care for Gothic architecture." Or having an artist show you a painting, and asking him to solve the painting using the quadratic formula.

Originally Posted by Martian

Keep in mind, though, that from Levite's perspective his belief system is superior, since it's founded on the word of God and that trumps logic. It's all about point of view.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I never said that, and never would! My whole point is that I don't judge systems of belief on a hierarchical scale! That includes mine!

My view is-- and for the record, it's the traditional view of Rabbinic Judaism-- that what you believe or if you believe at all is infinitely less important than how you behave. I would rather see (and according to Judaism, God would rather see) an atheist who helps the poor, comforts the sick, feeds the hungry, and promotes justice in society than a Jew (or adherent of any other religion) who observes all the ritual trappings of the religion, but does no charity, acts out of selfishness and greed, promotes injustices in society, and in general acts like an asshole.

And when I talk about theism or the supernatural, I'm not referring to the word of God (which, by the way, is a term of questionable theological standing, and by Jewish standards should not trump logic, when logic is used within the theistic paradigm): I'm referring to being open to leaps of faith (which are a choice made deliberately), being open to experiences of the world not dependent upon the five physical senses or sensing machines, and the belief that there are truths about the universe that can be acquired through such experiences.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by levite

You don't have to have a bible, or an organization, or unified beliefs, or anything else. When I say atheism is a religious belief, I don't mean that there's some sort of Church of Nuh-Uh that atheists belong to. I mean that the belief that the rationalist paradigm (or the nihilist paradigm, or the humanist paradigm, or whatever foundation a person's atheism happens to be built on. I am just going with rationalism because that seems popular) is, essentially, the only authentic and effective means of engaging the universe and attempting to discover truths valuable to human beings...is a belief. It is a belief that you and I would both agree works spectacularly well for scientific endeavors. You and I would differ on its efficacy for matters spiritual. But there is nothing any more inherently true about the notion of rationalism's authenticity or effectiveness in matters spiritual than there is about any religion's authenticity or effectiveness.

Ah but the scientific matter of which you speak are something objective. You and I, of different philosophies, can look at the same factual evidence regarding natural phenomena and come to the same, reasoned conclusion. We both understand that evidence points to evolution to explain why the planet isn't overrun by just one kind of microorganism. We both understand that gravity is what keeps us from flying off into space. These are basically universal. If people don't believe them it's for one of two reasons:
1) They have evidence that contradicts our conclusions (awesome!)
2) They're nuts.

Science isn't really subjective. It's something that can be universally known without personal opinion. It's factual. Religion, spirituality, and philosophy aren't. They're about subjective interpretation, which is fine, but one should recognize the difference between gravity and Jesus.

Atheism may have different philosophies, but it usually boils down to things that aren't subjective. My atheism isn't a belief. My secular humanism is, but that comes later.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by levite

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I never said that, and never would! My whole point is that I don't judge systems of belief on a hierarchical scale! That includes mine!

Sorry about that, then. When you classified yourself as a theist, I assumed we were talking about a sect with more.. evangelical beliefs. We could replace your name, however, with the term 'generic Christian X,' however, and get basically the same point. What I was driving at is that atheists tend to believe that their viewpoint is superior because it's based entirely on secular logic, whereas other belief systems simply use another basis for their beliefs. I was attempting to make the point that it's difficult or impossible to state authoritatively that any one religion is superior to another, since it's really all a matter of perspective anyway. On that we seem to be agreed.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Martian

If you wish to use a completely literal interpretation of the statement "God could be anything" and therefore exclude non-existence as a possibility, that statement ceases to be atheistic in nature (which it never really was to begin with) and becomes an implied declaration of faith. Therefore, assuming such an interpretation for the statement "God could be anything," it for the purposes of this discussion carries essentially the same meaning as "God is an all-knowing, all-powerful benevolent creator," and any atheistic viewpoint becomes irrelevant. You are essentially making an argument against the different flavours of theism, rather than an argument for or against atheism. Regardless, the first highlighted statement and the second highlighted statement are inconsistent unless one adopts a more liberal interpretation of one or the other.

First of all, the one point in which I said "God is anything" should be changed to "God could be anything" as I have it everywhere else (Not sure why I did that, but *meh*). From there, what I had written should logically follow. My goal wasn't to make a statement (a)theistic in nature, but rather to show that if God could be anything, then He can't be nothing, as anything excludes nothingness (Or non-existence). And, if God can be anything but nothing, then an infinite number of possibilities of God being *something* should preclude atheism.

(Now as I said earlier, I didn't come up with the statement "God could be anything", so don't go ballistic on me for that one.)

This definition is theistic in nature and is therefore not well suited to a discussion of theism vs. atheism. A better definition would be "an entity assumed by some individuals to be the creator of the Universe," since it will allow discussion of God without an implied discussion of the Universe.

Ehhh... That's not much much different, but fair enough, I guess.

[QUOTE=KnifeMissile]Your logical and analytical skills are as abominable as ever. You also like to make shit up, which seriously offends me. Either that, or you're totally ignorant of the meaning of the words (and phrases) that you use...

Infinity is not undefined.

Originally Posted by Knife_Missle

Now, I think I can agree that infinity is immeasurable but that doesn't mean it's incomparable. For instance, lets define a power set of a given set as the set of all subsets of the given set. It's not too hard to prove that the power set has more elements than the given set, regardless of whether the given set had an infinite number of elements or not! Thus, some infinite sets are larger than others...

*Sigh*

inBOIL said that one might consider that the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for God is smaller than the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for no God, to which I said there'd be no way of knowing this unless you simply assumed it to be true.

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. The conclusion of the argument you're trying (desperately) to refute isn't "therefore, there is no God." The point of the argument is that the burden of proof is on the theist to provide compelling reason to believe in their particular god. The atheism comes from the sad fact that no one has provided any evidence that such a being exists and, therefore, it's most reasonable to not believe in any...

I understand what the argument just fine. But, you see, I'm not concerned with proving whether or not a particular God exists, as that doesn't terribly concern me at this point (Especially since trying to argue which God exists with someone who doesn't believe in one to begin with is futile), but rather that, if one assumes God could be anything, then there's no way he, or she, could be an atheist. And, you know, I might be wrong here, but I don't know too many atheists who claim God, assuming he exists, to be only a few, finite possibilities.

[levite]

Originally Posted by willravel

Ah but the scientific matter of which you speak are something objective. You and I, of different philosophies, can look at the same factual evidence regarding natural phenomena and come to the same, reasoned conclusion. We both understand that evidence points to evolution to explain why the planet isn't overrun by just one kind of microorganism. We both understand that gravity is what keeps us from flying off into space. These are basically universal. If people don't believe them it's for one of two reasons:
1) They have evidence that contradicts our conclusions (awesome!)
2) They're nuts.

I would agree that it does no one much good to point to a physics problem and attempt to solve it by other means. And as you know, I think, I have no problem with the notion that the "how" of the universe is accomplished through interactions of physical laws and evolution of biological organisms-- a notion I embrace readily. I am not, in fact, talking about the phenomena of physics and biology at all. I am talking about revelation, of feeling the presence of God, of awareness of supernatural beings, of being aware of and interacting with energies which are not physical or measurable by instrument, of being aware of subtle connections in the universe that are not manifest to scientific examination. These are arational experiences, and are neither scientific or unscientific notions, but non-scientific notions. I have already accepted that rationalist examination works splendidly for science. It is not such issues that I differ on, but the notion that the scientific paradigm is universally objective, and applicable equally to everything.

Originally Posted by willravel

Science isn't really subjective. It's something that can be universally known without personal opinion. It's factual. Religion, spirituality, and philosophy aren't. They're about subjective interpretation, which is fine, but one should recognize the difference between gravity and Jesus.

For a physics problem, which falls admirably within the scientific/rationalist paradigm, sure. Science is objective. For spiritual and supernatural phenomena, which fall into their own paradigm altogether, science is subjective, because one must choose to apply that paradigm into a different one. There is a difference, in other words, between "fact" and "scientific fact." The latter can be proven using set processes to within mathematical parameters, and can be demonstrated at will. What I would argue is that people's experiences can be factual, and yet not fall within the parameters of "scientifically provable." (I resist the dichotomy of universal subjectivity/objectivity, if for no other reason than it seems too limited. Science is objective to the point at which it becomes theoretical-- for example, how many dimensions are there? Depends on who you ask. Likewise, can we say without doubt that the belief in the existence of God/gods/the supernatural is truly subjective when it is common to every culture, and history is full of claims of mass witnessing of miracles or revelations?) The distinction I am making here is, I think, both real and acceptable. The only point at which it becomes problematic is when people begin attempting to do the reverse of what I have argued is your position of point, namely, to apply the spiritual/supernatural paradigm to the scientific one.

The difference between gravity and Jesus is that they are data from two completely independent subsets of knowledge and experience.

Originally Posted by willravel

Atheism may have different philosophies, but it usually boils down to things that aren't subjective. My atheism isn't a belief. My secular humanism is, but that comes later.

I am in no way trying to diminish or be dismissive of your atheism. And I understand that part of your embrasure of rationalism is the notion that scientific reasoning is universal-- an ultimate authority. I am not in any way suggesting that you not be an atheist or a rationalist. But I do think that the idea that one way of looking at everything is universally applicable and correct is a philosophical belief.

[miko]

I'm more agnostic than atheist.
I don't currently believe in a god(s) but I'm not full opposed to the idea if you can prove to me that one exists. But telling me it's true because someone wrote it in a book thousands of years ago is not going to do it for me.
But then at the same time, I do believe in some kind of "force" that connects all of us and everything. And in that same camp I believe somewhat in karma.
So where does this leave me???

[Ustwo]

A true atheist is no different than a true believer.

A true atheist is taking the unknowable and making definite statements about it.

Most rational atheists are really agnostic. God is possible but very very very very highly improbable. We think there is no god but can not say with honest certainty there is none.

I can't say there is no god, but nothing would surprise me more than finding out there was one.

[Hain]

I like how we now bring infinite sets into this discussion. Again, just because there is a set of verses that could contain a super supreme being only implies that they occurred as a result of their being infinity many outcomes and these gods are not the creator of said infinite sets.

Does that makes sense or did I cross my logic somewhere?

[Daniel_]

I'm not sure, using the definitions that are here, that I can claim to be anything.

I CALL myself an atheist - and when I use the word about myself I mean that I do not beleive in god.

The word atheist comes from a-theist. As in NOT A THEIST. It does not require a belief that there is NOT God, it simply requires that there is NO belief IN God.

LACK OF BELIEF =|= BELIEF OF LACK

Belief is not a skill that can be learned or taught, it is an atribute. I can no more chose to believe than I can chose to be taller.

To me, the key issue is that there is no explanation involving theism that cannot be equally well explained by non-theist arguments.


My position is equivalent to Epicurus:

1. if God is willing but unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent

2. if God is able but not willing to prevent evil, he is not good

3. if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

Although traditionally ascribed to Epicurus, it has been suggested that it may actually be the work of an early skeptic writer, possibly Carneades

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Daniel_

LACK OF BELIEF =|= BELIEF OF LACK

QFT.

[Halx]

God is whatever the believer wants him to be. He is a self-serving construct of an individual. God is a justification.

(More to come... reading all of these posts brings the words forth.)

[BogeyDope]

Atheists are just as ignorant as religious fanatics. In fact, Atheism, deny it all you want, is a religion. It is a set of beliefs held to be true that cannot be dis/proven.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by GeneralMao

Atheists are just as ignorant as religious fanatics. In fact, Atheism, deny it all you want, is a religion. It is a set of beliefs held to be true that cannot be dis/proven.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, GeneralMao, be careful with that unwieldy brush you got there....I think you got some on me.... put....the....brush... down....

Religious "fanatics" often have aberrant beliefs of their own faith. Is this really what you mean to say?