Atheism and the Christian God.

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

don’t you think that’s a little weak a reason upon which to base one’s positive belief in a proposition? i mean, it’s as good a reason to believe that god exists: since, for all we know the universe was caused by god.

There is one big difference: The universe is observable, God is not. Which means, we all have empirical evidence, that the universe exists, so that fact is hardly debatable (unless you pull out solipsism, but then I will pull out of the discussion). Which brings me back to the point, that truth is only valid when backed by empirical evidence.

i’m not sure what you mean by “no reason” here: god’s existence is necessary.

Well, that’s what we are debating right now. I agree, that there must have been some uncaused event to start the universe, but to postulate that event must be conscious mind with personality, morality, and fuill of love is a far fetch. It could have been just an unconscious, uncaused event. And as long as there are other explanations, a god is not automatically necessary. If we could disregard any other possibility, then we can speak of necessity.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

but those problems aside, i would say that the being in question would know true propositions of the form: “the proposition p is neither true nor false”.

Ok, but can knowledge really be defined in such a way? Could such a being know, that it does not know the false propositions? If it doesn’t, there is one true proposition it does not know, by your definition that’s not omniscient. If it does, it has at least some knowledge about those false propositions, which contradicts your definition too. Or is this knowledge of a different order, thus perhaps no knowledge at all, but something different? And knowing all this… :whacky:

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Ok, but can knowledge really be defined in such a way?

how else would knowledge be defined if not in relation to some kind of awareness/possession/perception of truth?

AnAtheist:

Could such a being know, that it does not know the false propositions? If it doesn’t, there is one true proposition it does not know, by your definition that’s not omniscient. If it does, it has at least some knowledge about those false propositions, which contradicts your definition too.

call the following proposition p: “god knows no false propositions”. p is true. therefore god knows *p. *

there’s no contradiction in having knowledge about false propositions (e.g. that they are false) - what is excluded is knowing a proposition that is false.

in other words, knowing that some proposition is false is not the same thing as knowing a false proposition.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

there’s no contradiction in having knowledge about false propositions (e.g. that they are false) - what is excluded is knowing a proposition that is false.

in other words, knowing that some proposition is false is not the same thing as knowing a false proposition.

How can you know, that a proposition is false, if you do not the proposition, because it is false?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

There is one big difference: The universe is observable, God is not.

define “observable”.

i would suggest that scientific methodology necessarily considers something “observable” if its existence can be inferred from its effects. for example, quarks or pretty much any subatomic particles or phenomena. not to mention any and all history, scientific or otherwise.

similarly, if the universe is plausibly considered the effect of a personal creator, then that creator is so far forth “observable” in his creation.

AnAtheist:

Which brings me back to the point, that truth is only valid when backed by empirical evidence.

what’s your empirical evidence for the truth of that proposition?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

How can you know, that a proposition is false, if you do not the proposition, because it is false?

if i know that it is raining, this is the proposition i know: “it is raining”.

if i know that it’s not raining, this is the proposition i know: “the proposition ‘it is raining’ is false”. this is what god does.

if i “knew” it was raining, but was mistaken, then what i would know would be: “it is raining”, and that proposition would be false. this is not what god does.

does that help?

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

define “observable”.

i would suggest that scientific methodology necessarily considers something “observable” if its existence can be inferred from its effects. for example, quarks or pretty much any subatomic particles or phenomena.

fine with me

similarly, if the universe is plausibly considered the effect of a personal creator, then that creator is so far forth “observable” in his creation.

Yes, but the scientific way is to compare different theories matching different observables. That theory which fits all (or most) of the observations best, is the chosen one. When it comes down to gods we have many theories but only one observable. What now?

what’s your empirical evidence for the truth of that proposition?

It works in practice.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Yes, but the scientific way is to compare different theories matching different observables. That theory which fits all (or most) of the observations best, is the chosen one.

well, for one thing this is an oversimplification of the process of theory-choosing; what counts as the “best-fit” for a model is a complex balance of a number of epistemological virtues, each of which matter differently to different scientists and the schools of thought to which they belong.

some of these criteria include elegance, fit with other accepted theories, predictive power, accuracy, precision, and comprehensiveness. then there’s “simplicity” which is itself a catch-all for a family of related concepts like ontological parsimony - i.e. when a theory posits as few entities as possible to account for the phenomena; mathematical simplicity - as in actual ease with which the mathematical formalism can be worked-out; limited ad hoc extensions - i.e. when a theory makes as few modifications as possible in order to account for specific experimental data; conceptual parsimony - when a theory uses as few concepts as possible.

theories and models are preferred based on their exemplification of these various properties, each of which can be ranked in completely different hierarchies by different theorists.

AnAtheist:

When it comes down to gods we have many theories but only one observable. What now?

if i understand you here, this is no different a situation than attempting to choose between the many different models of, for instance, quantum mechanics: matrix mechanics, wave mechanics, and bohmian mechanics, for starters, are all formally equivalent theories. then there’s einsteinian relativity and lorentzian relativity. not to mention the five (perturbative) string theories…

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

if i understand you here, this is no different a situation than attempting to choose between the many different models of, for instance, quantum mechanics: matrix mechanics, wave mechanics, and bohmian mechanics, for starters, are all formally equivalent theories. then there’s einsteinian relativity and lorentzian relativity. not to mention the five (perturbative) string theories…

Certainly not to me. But for the average religious guy, there is a huge difference, as he insists his theory is the only valid theory, though there are formally equivalent ones. Not to mention those people who think that their particular theory entitles them to force it upon others.

Haven’t heard of the 30 years war between Einsteinians and Lorentzians yet.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Certainly not to me. But for the average religious guy, there is a huge difference, as he insists his theory is the only valid theory, though there are formally equivalent ones. Not to mention those people who think that their particular theory entitles them to force it upon others.

sure, but the proponents of each of their theories believe them to be right and the others wrong: bohm believes in hidden variables, and bohr did not. lorentz and others believed in an aether, einstein didn’t. and so on.

i was only responding to what i took to be your suggestion that the simple fact of a number of equivalent models is somehow incompatible with one of them being the right one: it isn’t.

AnAtheist:

Haven’t heard of the 30 years war between Einsteinians and Lorentzians yet.

that’s because it’s a quiet war, but no less full of acrimony and vituperation for all that…

 

[Philthy]

Hi AnAtheist!!

AnAtheist:

The problem of evil is not a real stumper to me, it just makes you think about some things.

Uhh, you haven’t communicated anything of substance here. What “things” do you think about , how do they relate to your understanding of evil, and why do you consider them more valid than the Christian solution?

AnAtheist:

But the usual Christian solution of that problem contradicts other Christian claims about the nature of their God. The PoE is a Christian problem only btw, if you propose a non-all-loving god, then the problem does not arise in the first place.

Im not sure you know what the “Christian solution” to evil is, nor have you identified which claims contradict. If you acknowledge that evil exists and that evil is inherently bad, how does the fact that you “propose a non-all-loving god” change the reality of evil? All that would accomplish is a different understanding of the problem - the problem still exists.

AnAtheist:

The main problem I have, is, the Christian God is logically impossible. Omniscience is impossible, omnipotence is impossible, and omnibenevolence is highly unlikely when I look at reality.

OK, this is a good start, but please tell me you’re not going to simply claim that Omniscience is impossible without somehow supporting the statement. I mean, explain how you arrive at your conclusions…

AnAtheist:

Even if I assume an omnipotent, omniscient (or nearly so) god for a minute, who created the whole universe, then the universe is completely predetermined, as it is fashioned in the way it is.
That contradicts Free Will, and then the PoE kicks in, see above.

Finally some beef, and unfortunately for you it doesn’t hold. You have essentially claimed that an omnipotent God is limited in the way that he created the universe! This is logical? You need to explain that to me. Why can’t an omnipotent God create a universe with beings on it that have free will within that universe? Why, exactly, is an omnipotent God UNABLE to allow those beings to act on their free will while He reserves the right to act how and when He sees fit?

AnAtheist:

Furthermore it is not necessary to claim a god to explain the universe.

Im sorry but Im not sure I know what you mean here. Do you mean to say that it is not necessary to claim a God to explain the workings of the universe or do you mean to say it is not necessary to claim a God to explain the EXISTENCE of the universe? They are radically different statements.

AnAtheist:

Granted we are far from knowing everything yet, but in former times, we couldn’t explain lightnings, so we assumed a divine influence. We can’t fully explain the origins of life yet (though we have some insights), well, we will in time.

Perhaps, but you fail to understand that the ability to explain natural phenomena in no way influences the existence of God regardless of the alleged errors of the past. Given enough time, we will be able to explain all observable nature through science, I agree with you. However, how that nature came to be in existence from nothing and why it did will not be answered by science.

Deep stuff…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

cheddarsox:

I am a pantheist.But I do have a problem believing in the Christian concept (interesting choice of words!) of God.

It is encouraging to see that you recognize the problem as yours and not the Christian concept as being faulty .

cheddarsox:

My reason is that I don’t see divinity working in the universe in the way it is presented by Christianity.
I don’t see evidence of a personal omnipresent, omniscient, parent who reigns from above. The explanations and descriptions provided about “God”, don’t fit the reality of the universe I live in.

Is it possible that your perceptions are so far off that you cannot recognize God? How would you know?

cheddarsox:

The explanations for “evil” are one place where the concept does not fit the reality, but only one of many, many places.
I am not an atheist. I believe in divinity. It is nothing like the Catholic concept of God.

Just so we all understand each other, could you please briefly (without using large words borrowed from others) explain the “Catholic concept of God” and also provide a definition for the last word in the following quote:“I believe in divinity.” It would be much appreciated.

cheddarsox:

I accept that the Catholic/Christian concept is a useful metaphore for divinity, but I do not think it in any way approaches the true nature of the divine.

This makes me more confident that there is a little bit of misunderstanding on your side. Do you think that the Catholic descriptions of God are meant to approach the “true nature of the divine?” They are not and you are correct that there is much more to God. What may not be entirely obvious to you is that we are INCAPABLE of understanding (natural senses) the true nature of God. Our perspectives are VERY limited. It is interesting nonetheless that you have this awareness of a being greater than that which can be thought of. Did you know that St Augustine used that very awareness as his proof for the existence of God? It went something like this:
I am aware of a being greater than that which can be thought of - I call this being God.
If such a being did not exist, I would not be aware of it
Therefore, God exists.

cheddarsox:

The experience of the divine that some Catholic mystics have, and that is beyond the theology makes some sense to me. But the image of “God” that appears on the screen of the teachings of the church is a very poor one indeed.

This last sentence is unintelligeable - there is no such thing as “the screen of the teachings of the Church”. Are you talking about paintings(images) or writings(teachings)? they are different. No painting is going to convey an accurate image of God the Father or the holy Spirit - all they can do is point to a reality. Writings on God will reveal truths but our appreiciation of them is still limited. We, and all our faculties are finite; He is infinite.

cheddarsox:

Trying to fit divinity into a human like box is a fools effort, and will never result in a good product. The truth of the divine, is so much bigger that we must look much farther than ourselves to be able to even imagine it.
cheddar

I agree 100%. So does the Church. Did you think this is what the Catholic Church was trying to do - “fit divinity into a box”? Hardly. You can comfortably toss out that criticism of the Church that you were mistakenly holding on to - it does not pretend to have a full grasp of god’s infinite nature and knows full well how woefully inadequate our words and art are compared to Him.

Thanks for the post!

Phil

 

[AnAtheist]

Philthy:

Finally some beef, and unfortunately for you it doesn’t hold. You have essentially claimed that an omnipotent God is limited in the way that he created the universe! This is logical? You need to explain that to me. Why can’t an omnipotent God create a universe with beings on it that have free will within that universe? Why, exactly, is an omnipotent God UNABLE to allow those beings to act on their free will while He reserves the right to act how and when He sees fit?

If he’s omniscient at the same time, he already knows the outcome of all my actions, hence they are predetermined. Perhaps not for me, but certainly for him, as he has created the universe in a way that I must do whatever he knows I will do, ergo there cannot be Free Will.

Im sorry but Im not sure I know what you mean here. Do you mean to say that it is not necessary to claim a God to explain the workings of the universe or do you mean to say it is not necessary to claim a God to explain the EXISTENCE of the universe? They are radically different statements.

Both.

 

[cheddarsox]

It is encouraging to see that you recognize the problem as yours and not the Christian concept as being faulty .

I was answering the question using the words of the original poster. And no, I don’t see a problem with the Christian concept of God. Anyone can have any concept of god or divinity that suits them, It does not affect the true nature of divinity that people hold different concepts.

*Is it possible that your perceptions are so far off that you cannot recognize God? How would you know? *

I already gave a lenthy post on this, you’ll find it if you bother to read the entire thread.

Just so we all understand each other, could you please briefly (without using large words borrowed from others) explain the “Catholic concept of God” and also provide a definition for the last word in the following quote:“I believe in divinity.” It would be much appreciated.

I think that there are several Catholic concepts of God. I think there is one the mystics have, which accept God as being truly pervasive, awesome, immutable etc, and which I feel approaches the truth about the divine. Then there is the sort of Theological God, based on Catholic interpretation of the Bible, Father of Christ, Creator, The one who sits on the throne.
Then there is the way that many common Catholic parishoners have, A big Father in the sky , imposing lots of rules for our own good, sometimes petty, with angels, saints and others to keep a record book for him. Who went to church, was a sin missed at confession, did anyone have an impure thought etc. etc.

As far as defining divinity, I am providing my own working definition for the way I used the word in the sentenced you quoted. Divinity is that which is beyond our understanding, unchanging, which is the basis of all that happens, the cause and the source and the laws which govern everything and everyone.
*
This makes me more confident that there is a little bit of misunderstanding on your side. Do you think that the Catholic descriptions of God are meant to approach the “true nature of the divine?” They are not and you are correct that there is much more to God. What may not be entirely obvious to you is that we are INCAPABLE of understanding (natural senses) the true nature of God. Our perspectives are VERY limited. It is interesting nonetheless that you have this awareness of a being greater than that which can be thought of. Did you know that St Augustine used that very awareness as his proof for the existence of God? It went something like this:*
I am aware of a being greater than that which can be thought of - I call this being God.
If such a being did not exist, I would not be aware of it
*Therefore, God exists.
*
I do not deny the existence of divinity. I am not an atheist. (did you miss that somewhere in your zeal to challenge me?) I do not believe in your “God”, I will not insult your belief or my own by pretending what I believe is parellel to yours. You don’t need to try to convince me there is something out there, I know it. But I also know that it is very different from what the church teaches.

Logic can never be used to prove the existence of anything.(cont)

**

 

[cheddarsox]

I think we basically agree here, my reference to the screen of the teachings of the church was my likening all the teachings of the church to a screen, when we look throught them a certain image of god appears, made up of all the different presentations that exist in the teachings. The god that appears there, the amalgam of concepts, is not an accurate picture of the nature of divinity.

I agree 100%. So does the Church. Did you think this is what the Catholic Church was trying to do - “fit divinity into a box”? Hardly. You can comfortably toss out that criticism of the Church that you were mistakenly holding on to - it does not pretend to have a full grasp of god’s infinite nature and knows full well how woefully inadequate our words and art are compared to Him.

I think what the Catholic church is/was trying to do was to put forth and image of the divine that people could work with, wrap their minds around and deal with. I think in the name of expediency, and to meet the needs of various cultures and times, some very weird and unfortunate concepts of the nature of god have developed.

It is just as possible that your concept of God, and the church’s concept of God are incomplete or flawed, as it is that my concept is so. A significant difference is that I have the humility and perspective not to go about teaching that my concept is the ONE TRUTH, and that all who do not believe it are wrong and doomed.

I feel the Christian concept of the divine, or at least the way it is ultimately presented to the common folk, is very skewed and limited, and leaves out much or what makes the divine so very worthy of worship.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Logic can never be used to prove the existence of lack of existence of anything.

All concepts of the divine, or lack of such are theories. Theories are useful because they allow us to take the next step in discovery, they are a limb we go out on. Theories become useless when we become attached to them as ultimate truth. When anyone claims they know. And puts a great big period at the end of it, then they have closed the door on all further possibility of greater knowledge.

If the divine has more to reveal, or more to say to us, how will you ever hear it if you KNOW you already have it all?

cheddar

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

If he’s omniscient at the same time, he already knows the outcome of all my actions, hence they are predetermined.

this does not necessarily follow. the logical formalism is this:

if god knows p, then p.
god knows p
therefore p

whether or not determinism is entailed here depends entirely on what p happens to be, and does not follow simply from the structure of the reasoning itself.

so, for example, if p happens to be the proposition “sam will freely choose to eat cornflakes for breakfast tomorrow”, then the fact that god knows p clearly doesn’t entail that sam is determined to eat cornflakes tomorrow morning.

in order to motivate your argument, you would first need to demonstrate that there are no true propositions about free choices. but then your argument to determinism from god’s omniscience would be otiose, since you would already have had to establish the determinism you’re seeking to prove with the argument…

 

[Nan_S]

AnAtheist:

If he’s omniscient at the same time, he already knows the outcome of all my actions, hence they are predetermined. Perhaps not for me, but certainly for him, as he has created the universe in a way that I must do whatever he knows I will do, ergo there cannot be Free Will.

1. The omniscient God knows everything we could do, and all the choices we could make, and all the consequences and new choices arising from all of those decisions of ours.
2. The omnipotent God gave us Free Will. He still lets us make the choices.
3. The omniscient God knows ahead of time which choices we will make. If He did not, He would not be omniscient.
4. The omniscient, omnipotent God is capable of giving humans Free Will and also remaining omniscient Himself. If He was not, He would not be omnipotent.
5. From our limited, human perspective, this sounds a lot like predestination.
6. The apparent conflict between human Free Will and God’s omniscience and omnipotence is beyond our limited human understanding.
7. Unlike dogs and monkeys, our limited, human minds are capable of understanding that something infinitely greater than ourselves, i.e., God, exists. Realizing that God is infinitely greater than ourselves, we can also recognize that God’s omniscience and omnipotence are beyond our understanding.

It’s a logical, philosophical argument, but I hope it helps.
Nan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dennisknapp:

Another posted this on another thread:

Why do atheists have a problem with the Christian concept of God?

Problem of evil, maybe?

Peace

The trouble with Biblegod - as He has been called - is that He is:​

1. a God of Love and mercy & compassion
2. Who drowns the whole world, orders wars & massacres, & does similarly distasteful things.

IOW - the problem is partly that the Christian estimate of God’s character, seems rather at odds with the evidence supplied by the Christian holy book

And there is the repulsive and vicious behaviour of Christians, of course, all happily persecuting their socks off over irrelevant and unmeaning trivia: Christians seem to have no sense of proportion.

Biblegod can’t be perfect

%between%BIBLEGOD - A God of Love or a God of Atrocities and Murder?

---

That should be quite enough ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AnAtheist:

The problem of evil is not a real stumper to me, it just makes you think about some things. But the usual Christian solution of that problem contradicts other Christian claims about the nature of their God. The PoE is a Christian problem only btw, if you propose a non-all-loving god, then the problem does not arise in the first place.
The main problem I have, is, the Christian God is logically impossible. Omniscience is impossible, omnipotence is impossible, and omnibenevolence is highly unlikely when I look at reality.
Even if I assume an omnipotent, omniscient (or nearly so) god for a minute, who created the whole universe, then the universe is completely predetermined, as it is fashioned in the way it is. That contradicts Free Will, and then the PoE kicks in, see above.

What in the Domco see below: = “Christian God”] is in any way incompatible with genuine human free will ? First, what do you understand by “free will” ? (We can’t really have an intelligent or productive discussion if we are using words in different senses without knowing it )​

Why are omnipotence & omniscience logically impossible ? ##

Furthermore it is not necessary to claim a god to explain the universe. Granted we are far from knowing everything yet, but in former times, we couldn’t explain lightnings, so we assumed a divine influence. We can’t fully explain the origins of life yet (though we have some insights), well, we will in time.

God (in this context, = the deity of “mere Christian” orthodoxy) is not an explanation: God is the Exemplar and Cause of all created things. If there were nothing to explain, Christian faith in God would be unaffected.​

And the Domco is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and all the other attributes predicated of Him. There’s nothing like building one’s fences as high as possible ##