21 reasons to be an Atheist

[MichaelLewis]

G God does not believe that this sentence is true.

The rest of us, on the other hand, can know that G is true.

I realize this is an old thread, but I’d like to suggest that defenders of God’s omniscience can’t just dismiss G as meaningless. Though it is indirectly self-referential (Notice that neither G nor ANY OTHER LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCTION is the subject of G), it directly refers to and reports on God’s belief set with respect to itself. If we accept the law of the excluded middle, God’s belief set must either accord with G’s report or not (Note that if God doesn’t exist or has no belief set, **G **is true). God must not believe that G is true if he is to escape error (he can only escape by reserving judgment), and so he doesn’t believe that G is true, for that would entail believing a falsehood. If God doesn’t believe that G is true, than G is true and God does not believe at least one true proposition (a proposition that WE CAN know to be true). Therefore God is not omniscient.

I must say that I don’t think this should BOTHER theists. God could know all he needs to know to achieve his goals without knowing or being able to do everything that is logically possible. Even when I was a Christian I never understood why the omni-s were so important to so many theists.

Michael

 

[Liberian]

G God does not believe that this sentence is true.

The rest of us, on the other hand, can know that G is true.

I realize this is an old thread, but I’d like to suggest that defenders of God’s omniscience can’t just dismiss G as meaningless. Though it is indirectly self-referential (Notice that neither G nor ANY OTHER LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCTION is the subject of G), it directly refers to and reports on God’s belief set with respect to itself. If we accept the law of the excluded middle, God’s belief set must either accord with G’s report or not (Note that if God doesn’t exist or has no belief set, **G **is true). God must not believe that G is true if he is to escape error (he can only escape by reserving judgment), and so he doesn’t believe that G is true, for that would entail believing a falsehood. If God doesn’t believe that G is true, than G is true and God does not believe at least one true proposition (a proposition that WE CAN know to be true). Therefore God is not omniscient.

I must say that I don’t think this should BOTHER theists. God could know all he needs to know to achieve his goals without knowing or being able to do everything that is logically possible. Even when I was a Christian I never understood why the omni-s were so important to so many theists.

Michael

Michael,

If I may ask, why should God be governed by logic? Being omnipotent would include not having to follow any syllogistic contortions that people would like to devise for Him.

As I am sure you are aware, there are statements that are neither true nor false, but are rather paradoxical. I haven’t spent a whole lot of time meditating on your post, but it occurs to me that you are probably trying to limit God to “true” and “false,” and saying that because statement G does not fall into either category God cannot be omniscient.

• Liberian

 

[MichaelLewis]

Liberian writes:

If I may ask, why should God be governed by logic? Being omnipotent would include not having to follow any syllogistic contortions that people would like to devise for Him.

Because our concepts our governed by logic and “omniscience” presumably signifies one of our concepts (Otherwise, why use it?). If “omniscience” is to be meaningful, then it must be coherent. If it isn’t meaningful, then we are saying nothing about God when we ascribe omniscience to him.

As I am sure you are aware, there are statements that are neither true nor false, but are rather paradoxical. I haven’t spent a whole lot of time meditating on your post, but it occurs to me that you are probably trying to limit God to “true” and “false,” and saying that because statement G does not fall into either category God cannot be omniscient.

Actually, G is not paradoxical. It IS true if God does not believe it. It is false if God does. Its truth is determined by God’s belief set respecting G. Because we know God would never believe anything that is not true, we know that G is true. There are similar sentences for each of us, of course. I don’t believe that this sentence is true. If I did, I would be mistaken.

Thanks,

Michael

 

[john_doran]

G God does not believe that this sentence is true.

The rest of us, on the other hand, can know that G is true.

I realize this is an old thread, but I’d like to suggest that defenders of God’s omniscience can’t just dismiss G as meaningless. Though it is indirectly self-referential (Notice that neither G nor ANY OTHER LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCTION is the subject of G), it directly refers to and reports on God’s belief set with respect to itself.

the sentence G doesn’t express a proposition, which means that it’s got nothing to do with omniscience understood as something like “knowing every true proposition and no false ones”.

i mean, try to write out the prosposition you think is expressed by G:

the proposition "god does not believe that the proposition, "god does not believe that the proposition, "god does not believe that the proposition, "god does not believe that the proposition, “god does not believe that the proposition…”

as you can see, the use of the self-referential indexical “this” causes an infinite and semantically fatal recursion in the propositional form.

 

[MichaelLewis]

John Writes:

the sentence G

doesn’t express a proposition, which means that it’s got nothing to do with omniscience understood as something like “knowing every true proposition and no false ones”.

i mean, try to write out the prosposition you think is expressed by G:

the proposition "god does not believe that the proposition, "god does not believe that the proposition, "god does not believe that the proposition, "god does not believe that the proposition, “god does not believe that the proposition…”

as you can see, the use of the self-referential indexical “this” causes an infinite and semantically fatal recursion in the propositional form.

Let us reformulate G as:

G God does not believe that sentence G is true.

Now, does the following sentence express a proposition?

A God does not believe that sentence G is true.

If G is meaningless or true, God does not believe it, so A would seem to be correct. Now G and A are tokens of the same proposition, so G is meaningful as well. It is true that G happens to be self-referential, but

B God does not believe that sentence B contains five words.

is self-referential as well, yet it expresses a (true) proposition, doesn’t it? The subject of both B and G (respectively) is God’s belief set. Both are subject to the regress you mentioned. Why should G be treated any differently than B?

Michael

 

[john_doran]

MichaelLewis:

John Writes:

Let us reformulate G as:

G God does not believe that sentence G is true.

Now, does the following sentence express a proposition?

A God does not believe that sentence G is true.

i would say A doesn’t, because **G **doesn’t.

it doesn’t matter if you replace the indexical with a proper name or definite description or whatever: the problem is that the referring term can never succeed in referring given the recursive nature of the proposition - the definition can never be finished.

but look, i don’t think this has got anything to do with god or omniscience: no one can believe something like **G **- it’s something like an antinomy. for example :

P: i do not believe that P is true.

but if P is true, then it is false (if i believe P then i believe that i don’t believe P).

but an inability to “know” antinomies doesn’t compromise omniscience any more than the inability to perform them compromises omnipotence. because there’s just nothing there to know, despite the apparent meaningfulness of the sentences.

B

God does not believe that sentence B contains five words.

is self-referential as well, yet it expresses a (true) proposition, doesn’t it? The subject of both B and G (respectively) is God’s belief set. Both are subject to the regress you mentioned. Why should G be treated any differently than B?
not all self-reference is problematic. some is.

 

[MichaelLewis]

John Wrote:

i would say A

doesn’t, because **G **doesn’t.
So you are saying that it isn’t meaningful to deny that God believes G? If G isn’t a proposition (as you claim), no one (God or anyone else) can believe it, can they? And that is what you are claiming about G isn’t it? Doesn’t it follow from G’s not being a proposition that God doesn’t believe it, and isn’t this what is asserted by A?

it doesn’t matter if you replace the indexical with a proper name or definite description or whatever…

I replaced the indexical so I could introduce A; another sentence identical to G. I realize that that change by itself doesn’t amount to a response to your criticism.
…the problem is that the referring term can never succeed in referring given the recursive nature of the proposition - the definition can never be finished.
B can’t be finished either, in that sense:

B God does not believe that “God does not believe that “God does not believe that “God does not believe that…

Yet you seem to think that B is proposition. Why is that?

---

…no one can believe something like G - it’s something like an antinomy. for example :
P: i do not believe that P is true.

but if P is true, then it is false (if i believe P then i believe that i don’t believe P).

---

Yes, there are equivalent sentences for each of us. God is not a special case, but I would also assert that you are mistaken if you believe:

J John does not believe that this sentence is true.

Whereas if you don’t believe it and I do believe it I would be right, just as I would be right to believe G if God has not made the mistake of believing it.

Michael

 

[john_doran]

MichaelLewis:

John Wrote:

So you are saying that it isn’t meaningful to deny that God believes G? If G isn’t a proposition (as you claim), no one (God or anyone else) can believe it, can they? And that is what you are claiming about G isn’t it? Doesn’t it follow from G’s not being a proposition that God doesn’t believe it, and isn’t this what is asserted by A?

what i’m claiming is that god’s not believing G entails nothing about his omniscience. or, if you prefer, that his not believing G has as much to do with it as his not believing the sentence “the colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.

B God does not believe that “God does not believe that “God does not believe that “God does not believe that…

Yet you seem to think that B is proposition. Why is that?

because B is synonymous with “there are more than five words in this sentence”, and the self-reference in that sentence is innocuous.

the problem with G, on the other hand, is that no synonymous but non-antinomic formulation is possible. and what’s wrong with (self-referential) antinomies, in my opinion, is that they do not express propositions because they fail of reference.

MichaelLewis:

Yes, there are equivalent sentences for each of us. God is not a special case, but I would also assert that you are mistaken if you believe:

J John does not believe that this sentence is true.

Whereas if you don’t believe it and I do believe it I would be right, just as I would be right to believe G if God has not made the mistake of believing it.

the only way that it can be true that i do not believe J is if **J **is simply absent from the set of my beliefs; i cannot disbelieve J in the sense of “believe J to be false”.

so. if J is absent from the set of my beliefs, and you believe J, then you would be right.

of course, this is assuming that sentences are proper objects of belief, or, if they are not, that J expresses a proposition. which it doesn’t.

 

[pangit]

hi, just share my jokes,

If we believe in God, and if we die , assuming God does not exist then its just OK/FINE, but If we dont believe in God, and when we die, and we see God, he really exist, then thats too late to regret of hell.

 

[cardenio]

pangit - you can say that for any religion

 

[atheos_sum]

Fun stuff.

who won?

 

[Achatius]

in reply to:

1. Death exists. Suffering exists. Disease exists. Natural disasters exist. God is mean. Therefore, God does not exist.

Have you ever heard of a theodicy? A vindication of the justice of God in establishing a world in which suffering exists.

One of these is that suffering does not really exist, an idea formed by St. Augustine. He said that Suffering is the lack of goodness, Poverty the lack of wealth, and blindness the lack of sight.

Another theodicy is that suffering is our own fault - humans are responsible for their sufferings; as God gave us free will sometimes we make wrong choices which can cause suffering.

In addition to these two, there is the argument that suffering is ultimately good for you. It can make you learn for your mistakes, and can make you stronger, wiser, more optimistic, and more appreciative.

And of course there is the devil - a big cause of evil and suffering.

 

[buffalo]

“An omnipotent God does not exist” follows from that fact. Unless of course, you redefine omnipotence to be slightly less than omni-.

Uh no! This is a silly argument.

There are things the Bible states God cannot do.

1. He cannot lie
2. He cannot sin
3. He cannot turn truth into a lie

 

[Libero]

There are many different ways that a person can look at suffering, i think that Achatius covered most of the bases though. It also depends who you define the suffering of a person. Certain suffering I believe does cannot really be suffering. For exapmle, say you decide to let your child ride a bike for the first time, he falls off and breaks his arm, is God mean for allowing suffering there? Of course not, God has provided us with an oppertunity, we took it and some suffering came from it.

Remember, God loves all of his children

 

[Libero]

Death exists.

What is so wrong with this?

The best part of life is death. We are finally reunited with God, to his glorious kingdom of heaven and find ourselves in a paradise that we cannot even begin to contemplate. Life is a test, God wants us to overcome and still have faith in him throughout all of these terrible things that you have highlighted, and then he rewards us if we still love him. The reward is far greater than anything we can imagine.

 

[Liberian]

MichaelLewis:

…
Because our concepts our governed by logic and “omniscience” presumably signifies one of our concepts (Otherwise, why use it?). If “omniscience” is to be meaningful, then it must be coherent. If it isn’t meaningful, then we are saying nothing about God when we ascribe omniscience to him.

Ah, so because our ability to talk and reason about God is limited, it follows logically that God is limited. No dice.

Actually, G

is not paradoxical. It IS true if God does not believe it. It is false if God does. Its truth is determined by God’s belief set respecting G. Because we know God would never believe anything that is not true, we know that G is true. There are similar sentences for each of us, of course. I don’t believe that this sentence is true. If I did, I would be mistaken.

Thanks,

Michael
OK, Statement G is not by itself paradoxical. In combination with other statements, though, it is paradoxical. It’s somewhat akin to the pair of statements:

The second statement in this series is true.
The first statement in this series is false.

In this case, God (or you in the example in your post quoted here) is analogous to the second statement and Statement G is analogous to the first statement. Statement G by itself is not paradoxical, but it forms part of a paradoxical system.

• Liberian

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Kevin Walker:

God made atheists,

atheists exist,

atheists believe in Satan;

God made Satan,

Satan exists,

God frightens atheists and Satan,

Therefore God exists.

Invalid because:​

1. defective in form
2. circular ##

 

[rocklobster]

Geez, does being religious mean you can’t laugh at sarcasm? Cause that’s what this list means. The poster was attempting sarcasm, and you all thought he was serious!