God Delusion is Delusional

[Spirithound]

Or the FSM, as I have demonstrated.

That’s fine. We’ll work on the appearance of the Necessary Being once we have agreed that he exists.

 

[alongexpected]

Again, though, God, at least directly, cannot be amenable to science. And Dawkins is a disciple of scientism! It would not accomplish anything to attempt to persuade him. His presuppositions, which are wrong, do not allow for God. Besides, if they would not listen to Moses or the prophets…

Actually, he would! You see, that’s the whole difference between scientists and the hard-core religious. If you gave Dawkins proof, or even a decent amount of evidence, that God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, etc., then he would believe that!

But there is no proof. As I said, there’s some evidence, but definitely not proof. For example there’s the Gospels that say he rose, but that can’t remove any shred of doubt. Christians have faith that those authors were divinely inspired and got it right, but that’s not proof at all.

That’s the whole difference between science and religion; science is open to new ideas and ready to discard old ones once enough evidence comes along to prove it wrong, while religion relies on millenia-old tradition and (usually) has an uncompromising attitude towards change.

 

[Pieman333272]

Actually, he would! You see, that’s the whole difference between scientists and the hard-core religious. If you gave Dawkins proof, or even a decent amount of evidence, that God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, etc., then he would believe that!

But there is no proof. As I said, there’s some evidence, but definitely not proof. For example there’s the Gospels that say he rose, but that can’t remove any shred of doubt. Christians have faith that those authors were divinely inspired and got it right, but that’s not proof at all.

That’s the whole difference between science and religion; science is open to new ideas and ready to discard old ones once enough evidence comes along to prove it wrong, while religion relies on millenia-old tradition and (usually) has an uncompromising attitude towards change.

Dawkins said that if he went back in time to the first century, saw Jesus die, and saw his resurrected form with other people around him affirming the vision, he still wouldn’t believe. He said the same if a statue of Mary waved at him, and if he felt God’s presence and heard his voice in his mind/body.

Science may be open-minded, and religion may be closed-minded, but scientism - the belief that science can, does and/or will answer all questions, is the ultimate closed mind. No doubt about it.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

wanstronian,

I have heard this flying spagetti monster thing and you know what? God maybe just that Being as he is God if apearing in that form is what it took for you to come to know him I am sure that he may just chosse to do so. Lets face it he has choosen to appear in a firey bush, ans a pilar of fire, and pillar of smoke. He has sent angels to speack for him and if he chose I have no reason to beleive that he could not apear as a FSM.

The problem is not what form or method he chose, the problem is, I beleive that you still would not beleive. I don’t know if you have read the story of lazarus and the rich man from the bible, But in it the rich man ask that lazarus be sent back to warn the rich mans brother of what will happen if they die without repenting and he is told they have moses and the prophets if they do not beleive what they have already been told they will not beleve one that comes back from the dead either.

I see things like this it takes more blind faith to believe that there is not god. than it does to beleive there is. That creation all just came into being and that we will someday be able to find out how and when take more faith than I have. to beleive that when I die that is it game over is the biggest leap yet. Kinda like playing russian ruelett only in that instead of just one bullet in the gun there is only one empty space. But thats just me I am kinda of simple that way. Not much church upbring just have always seemed to know that God was there and that was enough for me.

 

[JackVk]

It cracks me up how ignorant Dawkins is of Christian theology. There are a number of books out now that have been carpet-bombing The God Delusion and making it look absolutely stupid:

God is No Delusion by Fr. Thomas Crean
Answering the New Atheism and Reasons to Believe by Scott Hahn
What’s So Great about Christianity by D’nesh D’souza
The Godless Delusion by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley
Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller

 

[wanstronian]

You criticized him for saying you don’t understand the argument, and then in the next paragraph you admit that you don’t understand the argument.

No, I observed and flagged the common theist rearguard action of claiming that the argument is too complex or subtle for the atheist to understand. I then pointed out that the reason such arguments are difficult, if not impossible, for critical thinkers to understand isn’t because they are too complex or subtle, but because they are not robust, nor coherent. I think I understand the argument as far as it goes, I’m just not prepared to make the leaps of assumption that theists do to convince themselves that the argument is sound.

Okay. If you don’t have something more reasonable to say next time, I’m going to find something else to do.

By “reasonable,” do you mean, “in agreement with my argument?” If so, bye-bye!

 

[Pieman333272]

No, I observed and flagged the common theist rearguard action of claiming that the argument is too complex or subtle for the atheist to understand. I then pointed out that the reason such arguments are difficult, if not impossible, for critical thinkers to understand isn’t because they are too complex or subtle, but because they are not robust, nor coherent. I think I understand the argument as far as it goes, I’m just not prepared to make the leaps of assumption that theists do to convince themselves that the argument is sound.

By “reasonable,” do you mean, “in agreement with my argument?” If so, bye-bye!

Dude, you criticize us for saying that God is a necessary being repeatedly as though it made the argument stronger, and then you call the argument at hand incoherent without even saying how, instead just repeating how.

Awatkins wasn’t asking you to agree with him, he was asking you to appropriately show him where the flaw in the argument is and stop being a bleeding hypocrite. You used a strawman, hypocrisy, circular reasoning, repetition, and ad homenims so far. Please give us something slightly less fallacious - disprove the existence of a necessary being, disprove one or more of its attributes, or disprove it being able to be God.

 

[Windfish]

Actually, he would! You see, that’s the whole difference between scientists and the hard-core religious. If you gave Dawkins proof, or even a decent amount of evidence, that God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, etc., then he would believe that!

But there is no proof. As I said, there’s some evidence, but definitely not proof. For example there’s the Gospels that say he rose, but that can’t remove any shred of doubt. Christians have faith that those authors were divinely inspired and got it right, but that’s not proof at all.

That’s the whole difference between science and religion; science is open to new ideas and ready to discard old ones once enough evidence comes along to prove it wrong, while religion relies on millenia-old tradition and (usually) has an uncompromising attitude towards change.

Maybe I will get around to responding to your original post in this thread, and it’s many errors, but, for now, I will respond to this.

Proof can only be provided in the realms of the logical and the mathematical. Science does not provide proof. It provides predictions because it depends on inductive logic. This is why a scientific body of knowledge could only ever be said to be likely true, not, in fact, true. The question of God’s existence is not amenable to science, sure, but it is amenable to logic, and, if you recall, logic can provide proofs.

The problem is, and you do not seem to get this, this kind of knowledge is excluded from Dawkins’ scientism. He may be open to “change” or “new ideas,” but not ones that are excluded from his worldview as a valid body of knowledge! So it would not do me any good to reason with him. He is IRRATIONAL.

 

[Windfish]

Or the FSM, as I have demonstrated.

Pfft, hardly.

And by the way, simply repeating “there is a necessary being” doesn’t make it so.

There is a necessary being, a necessary explanation for what is. Either it is nature or it is God.

Nope, because I define FSM as being none of those things. Therefore it is the necessary being, therefore it exists.

You are doing exactly what I said, then. You are merely using the characters F-S-M instead of G-o-d. Well, fine. It makes no difference.

Aha, the good old “You just don’t understand the argument” argument! The last throw of the die for the theist who can’t prove their superstition! Us dumb ol’ atheists, we just don’t have the smarts to understand, not like you clever believers!

It is not an argument, it is an observation, and one that I have observed too frequently with atheists on the internet.

However, you’re right, I don’t understand the arguments. But that’s because they are neither sensible nor coherent, rather than for any other reason. They rely on the credulity, the cognitive dissonance, and the suspension of critical analysis by the theists who so direly wants their belief to be true.

I don’t think I am the one being uncritical, here.

 

[wanstronian]

That’s fine. We’ll work on the appearance of the Necessary Being once we have agreed that he exists.

Why would we agree on such a thing when such a being can’t be proved? And your choice of pronoun implies that this is a done deal in your mind - which I’m sure is the case, but doesn’t really provide much hope for objective discussion.

 

[Windfish]

Why would we agree on such a thing when such a being can’t be proved? And your choice of pronoun implies that this is a done deal in your mind - which I’m sure is the case, but doesn’t really provide much hope for objective discussion.

In philosophy, a being does not necessarily mean a person. A rock is a being.

Why can’t a Necessary Being be proven?

 

[wanstronian]

Dude, you criticize us for saying that God is a necessary being repeatedly as though it made the argument stronger, and then you call the argument at hand incoherent without even saying how, instead just repeating how.

Awatkins wasn’t asking you to agree with him, he was asking you to appropriately show him where the flaw in the argument is and stop being a bleeding hypocrite. You used a strawman, hypocrisy, circular reasoning, repetition, and ad homenims so far. Please give us something slightly less fallacious - disprove the existence of a necessary being, disprove one or more of its attributes, or disprove it being able to be God.

Well, the first flaw in the argument is that a “necessary being” hasn’t been proven. It may seem instinctive when considered against the alternative of an infinite regress, but this is a poor reason to consider something “true.”

The second flaw is that even if a necessary being can be “proven,” it can’t be proven to be purposeful or even sentient.

I don’t believe I’ve used a strawman, but it’s entirely possible, so point me towards where you think I’ve done so and I’ll clarify. I do accept I may have been hypocritical, that’s almost certainly because I’ve been round the houses on this argument before and found it wanting. Coupled with the fact that my “opponent” during that discussion resorted to some very low tactics when he realised that his argument was getting him nowhere.

Re: circular reasoning - this seems particularly ironic! Can you point out where you think I’ve done this?

Repetition is an unfortunate side effect of responding to repetition. Not much I can do about it I’m afraid.

I don’t believe I’ve used ad hominem anywhere, but it’s worth noting that most people don’t even know what actually constitutes an ad hominem, so that may be the problem here. Sorry if that comes across as condescending.

All that said, I apologise if I’ve come across as overly dismissive - it may be that AWatkins and others may be able to provide information that was missing from my previous discussion. I’m happy to wind back a bit and take the arguments at face value.

However, I have responded to the premisses proposed by AWatkins in Post#69. To wit - I don’t believe the existence of a necessary being can even be proved. I’d like to see the proof, as long as it doesn’t involve philosophical equivocation, semantic sleight of hand, and unprovable assumptions. I’ll follow the evidence where it leads, as long as it’s worth following.

Bear in mind that as far as I’m concerned, I don’t have to prove the argument wrong, I just have to show where it’s not necessarily right. That’s quite enough to refute the ‘proof’ of the argument. I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist - my contention is that nobody can provide evidence that he does, and in the absence of such evidence, I see no reason why I should believe in him any more than I believe in Thor or Batman.

 

[The_Exodus]

Wanstronian

Would you mind responding to my post # 72? Thanks.

 

[wanstronian]

Pfft, hardly.

The point is that when using this argument, theists define God as having attributes x, y, and z, oh and also, he’s obviously “necessary.” Therefore if he exists, he’s necessary. Therefore if he can exist, he does. Therefore he exists.

Sorry, but that’s cobblers.

There is a necessary being, a necessary explanation for what is. Either it is nature or it is God.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. As I said in my previous post, it seems instinctively true. But do did Geocentricity, once upon a time.

You are doing exactly what I said, then. You are merely using the characters F-S-M instead of G-o-d. Well, fine. It makes no difference.

I shouldn’t have to explain that I was using the FSM tongue-in-cheek. How about I remove God from my fake hypothesis? How about this instead: The FSM was a non-sentient, immaterial blob of nothingness that one day sneezed out the universe, which then immediately started to expand exactly as described in Big Bang theory.

Can you prove that this is wrong?

It is not an argument, it is an observation, and one that I have observed too frequently with atheists on the internet.

Sorry, but that adds no weight. Particularly it strongly implies that of those who have considered the argument, the theists are consistently more intelligent and/or educated than the atheists. This might be true, but statistically it’s extremely unlikely.

More likely is that one side has a bias which is affecting their ability to think critically. I have an opinion on which side that is, as I’m sure you do.

All this serves to suggest is that your “observation” that atheists “can’t understand” this argument is tantamount to the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

I don’t think I am the one being uncritical, here.

Of course you don’t!

 

[wanstronian]

In philosophy, a being does not necessarily mean a person. A rock is a being.

Indeed - that was my point when calling out Spirithound on his/her use of the male pronoun.

Why can’t a Necessary Being be proven?

Sorry - should have said “hasn’t been.” My mistake.

 

[wanstronian]

Sorry, missed this one.

A reason or proof can be sound, even if it fails to convince you.

Indeed. But not this one. And we’re not talking about just me that’s not convinced, are we?

Let’s be clear - theists have a vested emotional interest in believing the things they do. They think they’re going to heaven, they think their religion gives them ethical superiority over the irreligious, and so on.

Atheists are unencumbered with such bias-inducing baggage.

I would be more interested in knowing how it is you know that you exist, or know that you are a separate being from, say, the computer you are typing on. It is my position that it is just as reasonable to affirm that you exist, and that the computer exists, as it is to affirm that God exists.

Really? Well then I guess I don’t have much to say to you. Of course, I might not exist. You might be imagining this whole discourse. But your first-hand experience presumably suggests to you that this is not the case.

What’s more, my existence, and the existence of the computer, are much less spectacular claims than that of an undetectable deity that just decided to create the world one day, without much in the way of a reason that we can derive; that knows the inner thoughts of all 6.5 billion of us; that allegedly intervenes in human affairs on a daily basis, even though we can’t detect such intervention; and so on.

This is just common sense to anybody who isn’t a solipsist.

In other words, do you affirm the law of identity, and if so, why do you think it unreasonable to posit the existence of a first cause?

I’ve not heard of this law until now, but a quick scan of Wikipedia makes me think that yes, I probably do agree with it.

It’s not unreasonable to posit the existence of a first cause, but I’ve never seen a robust proof for one. As I’ve said, it seems instinctively right, but so did geocentricity at one point.

Furthermore, even if one concedes a First Cause, I’ve never seen a proof that turns it into the Christian God; or at least, I’ve never seen such a proof robust enough that it couldn’t be used to “prove” the existence of any number of other hypothetical beings.

 

[The_Exodus]

Indeed. But not this one. And we’re not talking about just me that’s not convinced, are we?

A proof can fail to convince 1 person, or 100, or 1 billion, and still be reasonable. The number of those not convinced is irrelavent.
wan:

Let’s be clear - theists have a vested emotional interest in believing the things they do.

This works both ways. I could just as well say atheists have an emotional interest (subconsciously even, just like theists are accused of having a strong subconscious desire for God). This is really a red herring and doesn’t help one side or the other.
wan:

Really? Well then I guess I don’t have much to say to you. Of course, I might not exist. You might be imagining this whole discourse. But your first-hand experience presumably suggests to you that this is not the case.

It’s tempting to throw off the question as “silly,” I know, but it is legitimate to ask how it is your intellect senses your own existence. This is particularly important in the question of epistemology. How do you distinguish yourself from the “other” or “things”?
wan:

What’s more, my existence, and the existence of the computer, are much less spectacular claims than that of an undetectable deity…

Ah, but you are assuming what’s in question, and what as of yet has not been proven or falsified - the deity’s existence. It is circular to say at this point he doesn’t exist. As of this point in the argument, it is an unknown.
wans:

…that just decided to create the world one day, without much in the way of a reason that we can derive; that knows the inner thoughts of all 6.5 billion of us; that allegedly intervenes in human affairs on a daily basis, even though we can’t detect such intervention; and so on.

Again, this is all question begging. The existence of a deity is what is in question at this time, so it is circular to go on about these things.
wans:

This is just common sense to anybody who isn’t a solipsist.

Is it? I could just as easily say it is common sense to say God exists, but I doubt you would find that reasonable. Why cannot I object to your “common sense” or “intuitive” anti-solipsism?

It is a good question to answer: why are you not a solipsist? I can say why: because I hold my intellect detects beings outside itself, and, reflecting on its act of knowing, becomes aware that it is not those objects which it knows.

This is important, because it establishes the ability for the intellect to grasp other beings – not imaginatively or illusively (as would a solipsist hold) – but truly. From this it follows, that there are actual, real beings – things or objects – outside my own existence. This is a fundamental point of metaphysics which must be grasped in the traditional proofs of God’s existence.
wans:

I’ve not heard of this law until now, but a quick scan of Wikipedia makes me think that yes, I probably do agree with it.

Then you must hold the mind can know that things exist “in themselves.” This admission is fundamental. Not all – Kantians, for example – hold this, and thus they reject metaphysics and the proofs for God’s existence.

The proof procedes then: all beings receive existence from logically prior beings (not necessarily temporal.) All things in act receive that act from some other being, which indicates that each being which received act, was thenforth in potency in respect to that act, and is now, after having received its act, in potency to what it was. Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, we must posit a being which receives no potency, because we cannot procede to infinity, or no being would ever receive act.
wans:

It’s not unreasonable to posit the existence of a first cause, but I’ve never seen a robust proof for one. As I’ve said, it seems instinctively right, but so did geocentricity at one point.

Geocentricity may hold more weight than you think. What perspective do we have of the universe, but a geocentric one after all? That is beside the point however.

It is unfortunate that the first cause proof is not treated of more profoundly in common literature. But if you seriously want a good treatment of it, see Garrigou-Lagrange’s “God: His Existence and Nature” in 2 volumes.
wans:

Furthermore, even if one concedes a First Cause, I’ve never seen a proof that turns it into the Christian God; or at least, I’ve never seen such a proof robust enough that it couldn’t be used to “prove” the existence of any number of other hypothetical beings.

I don’t think the Christian God can be proven with the metaphysical certainty of the first cause. What I am going after is simply a “first cause” or “completely actual being” whose “essence is existence.” I don’t think you can deduce the Trinity from this, the virgin birth, etc. (It is odd, however, that a 2,000+ year old text has a “god” telling a man his name is “I AM WHO AM” . )

Thank you for your response.

 

[Pieman333272]

Wanstronian - You commit a strawman by saying, if I’m reading you right, that the FSM could fill the requirements of the Necessary Being even if it were proven to exist (though the possibility of it not being God is left open). The problem is it doesn’t, is considered a strawman even by some atheists. You didn’t show how it equated God, or how it filled the requirements, but compared it to God as serving the task as Necessary Being. This, according to my self-teaching in philosophy, is right up the alley of a strawman.

Now, for circular reasoning, I confess I may have misread you, but this is based on how I interpreted it. You said theists can’t define God’s personality and properties until his existence is proven. But if this is right, we can never prove God because we don’t know what God is, how he acts, or any other properties he has! By this logic, I can live my entire life being agnostic towards oranges (the fruit).

If I misinterpreted you, or these don’t fit under the fallacies I put them under (or are totally flawless arguments), then please tell me with something substantiative.

 

[tonyrey]

Is there any explanation in terms of tangible objects?

How precisely do brain processes explain truth?

As usual, you’re demanding a complete and precise scientific answer, yet offering only a vague and unverifiable supernatural one.

On the contrary, it is a precise, verifiable experience you can discover if you venture to explore what is occurring in your mind.

You are not able to provide the level of precision you are demanding from me, so your standard argument from ignorance is also an argument from hypocrisy.

Your addiction to abuse remains uncontrolled!

It is beyond the scope of scientific explanation but that is not the only valid form of explanation.

It’s the only form of independently verifiable explanation.

Is it? Do you mean verifiable by the senses? If so how can we verify that you’re not mindless?

Truth and beauty are interdependent because - like goodness, freedom, beauty, love and joy - they presuppose persons with rational insight. Truth and beauty are different aspects of the immense value of existence.

This is just opinionated waffle, it doesn’t add anything of value at all.

Your response is just abusive waffle which does not refute my statement.

Referring to the “immense value of existence” is just vague rhetoric…

In that case you must regard your own existence, not to mention that of everyone else, as valueless…

They are all essential conditions of personal fulfilment.

More opinion. No proof. As ever!

More evasion, no refutation - as ever! Can you explain why truth, freedom and love are **not **essential conditions of personal fulfilment?

Your mind is an equally supernatural, undetectable, unexplainable, unknowable, unpredictable and unprovable entity!

I can prove my mind exists with far more certainty than you can prove your “Supreme Being” exists.

How? At least give us some indication.

Is there a “more economical explanation”?

Given that neither hypothesis can fully explain the processes, origin etc. of these attributes, the more economical explanation is one that doesn’t invoke unnecessary supernatural hocus-pocus.

It would be equally facile to refer to unnecessary natural hocus-pocus. BTW How do you define “natural”? Is truth natural?

Kant’s starting point was not the existence of God but the convergence of teleleological laws, i.e. the purposes which are evident in the universe.

Which are? None have been shown to exist, as far as I’m aware.

You don’t consider that living organisms are purposeful, that the universe provides a basis for purposeful activity, that your own activity is teleleological?

The common origin of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, joy and love. How do you explain them?

What you’ve done here is quote someone who (baselessly) states that there is a purpose to the Universe, then simply assert that this “explains” your mystical “common origin.”

You are implying that the universe serves no purpose whatsoever - which is blatantly false.

Not anecdotal but historical fact when the role of Aristotle - amongst others - is taken into account in the development of science. Belief in a chaotic universe is hardly a sound basis and incentive for scientific investigation. And modern scientific endeavour is hardly an adequate explanation of purpose.

The point, which you have not addressed, is that modern science does NOT presuppose an overall purpose behind the Universe.

My point is that the development of science was based on belief in an orderly and intelligible universe.

The science of today is not the same as the natural philosophy of Aristotle’s time.

That is hardly surprising because modern science is fragmented but it is still based on the assumption that the universe is orderly and intelligible. And in medicine and biology teleological explanation is still valid.

You have got one thing right though- modern scientific endeavour is not an adequate explanation of purpose. Nothing is - there is no evidence of purpose, no reason to suppose a purpose… so why would science attempt to answer a question that doesn’t exist other than in the minds of those credulous fools who want to believe in superstitious nonsense?

The only credulous fools who want to believe in superstitious nonsense are those who believe science has dispensed with purpose when in fact to do so would be defeating the purpose of scientists: to explain.

If the success of science is best explained as the ultimate result of fortuitous events it is indeed a non sequitur. But the onus is on you to explain why a multitude of fortuitous events are more adequate and credible than one rational, purposeful Being.

Well, as I’m sure you know, there’s actually no onus on me to disprove your outrageous claim - the onus is on you to prove it.

Do you mean you reject the explanation that life originated as the result of a “fortuitous concourse of atoms”, that random events have played a dominant role in the development of rational beings and that the universe is purposeless? That would amount to two outrageous claims on your part:

(1) You deny that is what you claim.
(2) You affirm that it is a more adequate and credible claim than the claim that one rational, purposeful Being is the ultimate explanation.

To put it in a nutshell, you attribute your power of reason to that which lacks the power of reason, i.e. you perform a metaphysical conjuring trick!

 

[awatkins69]

No, I observed and flagged the common theist rearguard action of claiming that the argument is too complex or subtle for the atheist to understand. I then pointed out that the reason such arguments are difficult, if not impossible, for critical thinkers to understand isn’t because they are too complex or subtle, but because they are not robust, nor coherent. I think I understand the argument as far as it goes, I’m just not prepared to make the leaps of assumption that theists do to convince themselves that the argument is sound.

So now you understand the argument? Fair enough. You say you’re not prepared to make some assumption. Which assumption is that: (1), or (2)?

To make life easy, I’ll do away with the necessary being idea, and just use God. We’ll take God to be a being which is omniscient, omnipotent, all-good, and supreme in every possible world.

1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God is not impossible.
3. Therefore, God is necessary.

The argument is valid. Therefore, you must deny some premise. So don’t dodge the question; deny a premise.

For (1), God can’t be contingent, by definition, since the attributes of God hold in all possible worlds.

I don’t think you can deny (2), at least if you’re being consistent with what you said earlier, viz.:

The atheist does not say, “This cannot be correct,” he/she says, “there is no reason to suppose it is correct.”

Of course, our opinions change. My point however, from the very beginning, was to say that an atheist must deny that God is even possible. And that switches the burden of proof to them to show some logical contradiction in the idea of God.

By “reasonable,” do you mean, “in agreement with my argument?” If so, bye-bye!

No. I mean denying a premise and stating why you deny it, which is something you have avoided doing for a very long time. Which premise do you deny here, (1) or (2)?