Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[Climacus]

You . . . created a reductio that thus had no bearing on the discussion, a formulation which Varenne responded to in the next post by saying that you were being silly--yet you insisted that the point was valid, and that she should respond to it, because the silliness was for a good reason, when in fact it was entirely arbitrary and misguided.

Again, you seem to be missing the point of an ad absurdum. It leads to an absurdity. And absurdities do not exist. The idea of rocks and trees being atheists is absurd. But it follows from the antecedent. It's "silly" in that sense, in the sense that the antecedent premise is silly. But that's the whole point. That's what the argument is supposed to show. Moreover, I still see it as relevant. Since both Calidore and Varenne, if not others, have suggested that atheism is merely a lack of belief. But it's obviously stronger than that. Change rocks and trees to dogs and cats if you want. Since dogs and cats have beliefs. The argument still holds.

[Climacus]

Later, you attempted to sooth her with your sympathies about how she didn't know how to make an argument--which we should not mistake as any sort of ad hominem, since you apparently believed you were on to something with all of this, and you are quite right about how logic should be a (mandatory, in my opinion) part of high school education.

An ad hominem occurs when someone goes after a person instead of their argument. It isn't just being nasty. Your response to the ad absurdum was, technically, an ad hominem. Since you didn't touch the argument itself. My response to Varenne, technically, was not. Since she had no arguments for me to touch. It may have been impolite. And I apologised, on her profile, for upsetting her.

Intellectually honesty is something we should all be striving after. And something we need continually to be reminded of - myself included, of course. You guys seem to think I'm a hair-splitting sophist. Sorry about that - really. Not the sort of impression I'm going for. (And I'm glad you're for reintroducing logic, Bill. Amen to that.)

[Climacus]

Let's draw together some of the threads of this defining atheism problem. Some of you suggested that atheism was merely a lack of belief in God. I gave a harmless little ad absurdum to show that this is false. And so far, most of you guys agree with it - though you don't seem to have noticed. You want to qualify the definition. Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God, you say, but a special sort of lack of belief that only certain agents can have. But, note well, the ad absurdum still holds given this qualification. For it was conditional and said "if atheism is merely a lack of belief . . ."

Maybe you mean something like this. Agents that are capable of forming the concept of God, but have not done so, are atheists. (I'm shifting the focus from believing to forming, because forming concepts is prior to believing in concepts.) Trees and rocks - which can't form any concepts - and dogs are cats - which can form some concepts - are incapable of forming the concept of God, so they're not atheists. Cave-women with very primitive cognitive faculties can't form the concept of God, thus they're not atheists either. But somewhat more advanced cave-women may be able to form the concept of God, yet if they still do not do so, they're atheists. Do you guys mean something along these lines?

[Darcy88]

An atheist is a PERSON who does not believe in God. I just looked it up in several dictionaries and each definition includes the word "person."

And how can God be proved not to exist?

[Climacus]

An atheist is a PERSON who does not believe in God. I just looked it up in several dictionaries and each definition includes the word "person."

I used the term "agent," which means the same thing. You can substitute "person" if you want. I'm thinking of self-conscious agents or persons. (Remember, also, all humans are persons, are agents, but not all persons - in the philosophical sense - are humans, not necessarily.)

And how can God be proved not to exist?

We've been over this a few times already. Take the concept of God (a maximally-great or maximally-perfect being), unpack it, and find an incoherence. Incoherent things can't exist. So, if the concept of God is incoherent, then God can't exist. Case closed. Can a married bachelor exist? Can a four-sided triangle exist? Demonstrate that God is like these things and you'll have disproved theism.

[Darcy88]

God isn't like a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle. Neither are unicorns, centaurs, fortune-tellers or lizard people for that matter.

[Varenne Rodin]

Your still implying that I'm demanding "stringently formal rules." But I'm not. I'm just asking, insofar as one is propounding an argument, for the bare minimum - clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning. Again, this applies to arguments. And arguments are the things I was asking for.

If, like Varenne, you just want to voice subjective personal opinions or explanations. That's fine. They needn't be logical in any way. But if you're putting an argument forward, it must have those three qualities, or it's no good.

I don't just voice subjective personal opinions. That is false. Laughable coming from someone of the opinion that the words "reason" and "rationalization" have the same meaning. Good effort.

[cafolini]

I used the term "agent," which means the same thing. You can substitute "person" if you want. I'm thinking of self-conscious agents or persons. (Remember, also, all humans are persons, are agents, but not all persons - in the philosophical sense - are humans, not necessarily.)

We've been over this a few times already. Take the concept of God (a maximally-great or maximally-perfect being), unpack it, and find an incoherence. Incoherent things can't exist. So, if the concept of God is incoherent, then God can't exist. Case closed. Can a married bachelor exist? Can a four-sided triangle exist? Demonstrate that God is like these things and you'll have disproved theism.

Ah, but God could be like a 4-sided triangle. That could hardly prove that it doesn't exist. God could even be a volumetric plane. Are you trying to be funny?

[Climacus]

God isn't like a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle.

You're assuming that. Much is involved in the concept of God - a maximally-great being. There's a lot to unpack. It's not unreasonable to think that there might be a contradiction lurking somewhere. Anyway, you asked how we can disprove God. Well, that's how. Find an incoherence.

[Climacus]

Ah, but God could be like a 4-sided triangle. That could hardly prove that it doesn't exist.

The impossible is the contradictory. (The possible, on the other hand, is the non-contradictory.) Four-sided triangles are contradictory and thus impossible. If God is contradictory, too, then he is impossible.

[Varenne Rodin]

This is all supposing that atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god, or that we should provide evidence of his non-existence if we want to remain atheists. It's unnecessary. I could set about attempting to disprove all things imagined and invisible, but why should I? The burden is not on the atheist to provide proof or else embrace delusion.

Premise - conclusion - happy?

[Climacus]

I don't just voice subjective personal opinions. That is false. Laughable coming from someone of the opinion that the words "reason" and "rationalization" have the same meaning. Good effort.

Well, you haven't put forward an argument. That's what I'm waiting for. You think God doesn't exist. OK. Do you have any arguments, deductive or inductive, that argue to that end? I'm not asking you to tell me why you're an atheist. (That's all very interesting, though, no doubt.) What I'm after is arguments against God. Again, here's an example of a deductive argument against God:

"All that which exists is that which is empirically verifiable (premise 1). God is not that which is empirically verifiable (premise 2). Therefore God is not that which exists (conclusion)."

Now, this argument has clear enough terms, and valid reasoning. But premise 1 is false. And so the argument fails.

But do you have something along these lines - a logical argument?

[Climacus]

This is all supposing that atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god, or that we should provide evidence of his non-existence if we want to remain atheists. It's unnecessary. I could set about attempting to disprove all things imagined and invisible, but why should I? The burden is not on the atheist to provide proof or else embrace delusion.

Premise - conclusion - happy?

I didn't see this before my last post. Now I better understand your position. So, you don't have arguments against God, and you don't think you need any. OK.

[Darcy88]

The burden of proof is on the theists!

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: you don't need logical certainty to justify disbelief. A dozen times I've mentioned that there's no logical argument against unicorns, centaurs, ect. Varenne stated that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Its true. Give me some evidence. Not just an argument but some hard evidence of God's existence. You'd think an all-powerful being would leave some trace, some foot-print. In the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe. Without a logical argument I may not be able to uphold the impossibility of God, but I can sure maintain His unlikelihood.

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess we should try to ask the question, is it impossible for there to be a supernatural entity that is able to create beyond the natural laws. If there is one who chooses not to believe that there is a God, but would at least concede that there may be a possibility of such an entity, it could easily be accepted. However, most of the atheists at this site choose to disbelieve AND demand that anyone who would believe MUST be an idiot for such unreasonable considerations.