There is no God

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

sure. and that may or may not be a workable mathematical model. workable mathematical model. but it’s not science, unless you do science by fiat.

PS: Are negative numbers scientific? Or are they only a workable mathematical concept?
If you take four apples out of a box containing three apples, you must put one apple back to make the box empty. That does not occur in reality, yet negative numbers are used nearly everywhere.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

Nor have I attacked the moral character of anyone in this forum… EVER.

excellent.
Gilbert Keith:

You are self righteous and rude here. Clean up your act.

if i have been like this, i apologize.
Gilbert Keith:

I suppose next you’ll be scolding the Psalmist for pointing out that the fool in his heart says there is no God.

i wouldn’t presume to “scold” anyone - i would observe, though, that posting that particular quote in such a way that one could reasonably understood as calling someone else on this forum, a fool, is unchristian.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

PS: Are negative numbers scientific? Or are they only a workable mathematical concept?
If you take four apples out of a box containing three apples, you must put one apple back to make the box empty. That does not occur in reality, yet negative numbers are used nearly everywhere.

numbers aren’t “scientific” - they’re just numbers. what isn’t scientific is formulating a consistent mathematical model and then simply declaring that it stands in a 1:1 correspendence with reality; i.e. that all of the entities in the discourse broadly speaking “refer” to entities in the world.

so. to use your example, though i understand what -1 means, i would say that your theory makes no sense if it stipulates that it would be possible for a basket actually to contain “-1 apples”.

in the same way, it is literally senseles to speak of an “imaginary” amount of time.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

I won’t say that. Take complex exponential functions in wave equations for example. That is a mathematical model using imaginary numbers, and that works so well and so easy, that someone using trigonometric functions instead must be a fool or has too much time at hand.

right - they’re useful as tools - i.e. instrumentally. but there is no such thing as an ontology of imaginary numbers such that it would be possible to have 3i apples.

AnAtheist:

No one should. But it is worth to think about, perhaps at some near of far day it will lead to a new theory regarding the beginning of the universe.

i totally agree. but what seems typically to happen is that i read these kinds of conjecture as being presented as defeating reasons for arguments articulated by theists for their beliefs, arguments which are based on enormously more certain premises.

it’s often as if, in response to the inference that allows me reasonably to conclude that i am actually here in my office in front of my computer, someone responds, “sure, but maybe one day we’ll be able to demonstrate that you’re in the matrix. so i’m not going to believe in a real world because of the possibility of such thoroughgoing deception”.

AnAtheist:

Yes that makes sense. The term “the beginning of time” could be seen as a semantic antinomy I suppose, even perhaps as a category error…

well, maybe it could be seen that way, but i would suggest that it wouldn’t make much sense to do so. i mean, colloquially, the (absolute) beginning of something is the first moment of its existence. and time has that: at t=1.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

Nor have I attacked the moral character of anyone in this forum… EVER.

ok, i was just going to let this go out of a fear of getting into a mud-slinging match, but i’m hoping that we don’t have to go that route…

i apologize if i was unclear about this, but by suggesting that some people make attacks on the moral character of other individuals on this forum, i did not mean to say that people were naming names and then saying “you’re evil”; there are ways to slight someone other than to do so directly.

for instance, gilbert, you have said these two things in this thread:
Gilbert Keith:

As I have pointed out to you so often in other forums, this is not the basis for comparison. The basis for comparison is to look at the vast majority of people in prison and see that very few of them ever had any real religion in their lives. Yes, Christians go to prison too, but they are the vast minority in prison, they are among the few who go to chapel, and their recidivist rate is much much lower than that of prisoners who are a (without) theist (God).

and
Gilbert Keith:

There are not more Christians in prisons than atheists.

and
Gilbert Keith:

I work in the prison ministry. I have never seen an atheist volunteer in the prison ministry. I have never seen an atheist in the prison trying to persuade the men that they can develop sound moral principles without God. Real empathy would demand they visit the prisons to do just that.

the obvious implication of these statements - intended or not - is that atheists are more often criminal than christians, or that atheists more often immoral than are christians.

now, if you’re speaking to an atheist and say something like that, how can they not reasonably understand you to be saying to them “atheists are more often worse than christians; you’re an atheist; therefore you’re more likely to be worse than us”? and how is that not an attack on their moral character?

making arguments based on the likelihood of people leading good lives is a bad idea because it invariably implicates some of those engaged in the argument, of leading bad lives. and that strikes me as a terrible pastoral technique, at the very least.
Gilbert Keith:

You are self righteous and rude here. Clean up your act.

look, technically speaking, self-righteousness is to be assured of one’s own righteousness, and i can tell you without equivocation that i have no such assurance; on the contrary, i struggle with a great many aspects of the moral life and fail probably more often and worse than anyone here.

but one doesn’t have to be self-righteous in that way to make an observation that someone else is perhaps doing something questionable.

i disagree that i have been rude.

but whatever. i know we have obviously deep disagreements on this subject, gilbert, so let’s just leave it right here, right now. please.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

in the same way, it is literally senseles to speak of an “imaginary” amount of time.

I see it this way: In a Minkowski-space there is no “imaginary” time. What we call time is the imaginary part of the time-axis. Meaning, time is still real but the axis is imaginary to get Lorentz-invariant impuls vectors using Euclidean scalar products.
p =(it,x,y,z)
In GRT a 4th spacial axis is introduced to describe a bend space, thus a point in space would be p=(it,x,y,z,w), this perfectly matches the observable universe. A sphere p0²+p1²+p2²+p3² = x²+y²+z²-t² = r² in such a vector space describes an object with a finite yet unbound time coordinates. Perhaps the universe could at some day scientifically identified with such an object.

Perhaps what we perceive as time is possibly just a by-product of the (4-dimensionally) expanding universe, something like x²+y²+z²-t² = r(w)².

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

*the obvious implication of these statements - intended or not - is that atheists are more often criminal than christians, or that atheists more often immoral than are christians.
*
The record of atheists promoting wholesale slaughters in the 20th century speaks for itself. I was pointing this out because atheists are so quick to point out just the opposite … that it is really the Christians who have been behind so much evil in the world. If you don’t think this is true, read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian.” This is a gratuitious assault on Christianity by trying to claim it is the source of much evil and unhappiness in the world. Read Clarence Darrow’s autobiography, or anything by H.L. Mencken on the subject of Christianity, and you will find the same efforts to slime our faith. Answering these charges seems to you a forbidden policy. Not at all. The facts of history are not anything we should shy away from. That you find them repulsive and insulting to atheists generally is too bad. Facts are facts. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao persecuted all religions. If you want to argue the contrary, you are free to do so. But you are not free to forbid discussion along this line so that atheists can have the floor all to themselves.

Christians in Germany and Russia during the last century were tortured and executed by atheist leaders. The Chinese government (atheist) still persecutes the true Catholic Church in China. Tell me when the dominantly Christian government of North America ever persecuted, tortured, or executed atheists.

When these facts are brought to your attention, you cry foul. You even take a quote from Scripture, apply it directly to members of this forum, and call it unChristian … yet another example of self righteous indignation.

Likewise, the record of prisoners also speaks for itself. That you choose to be uncomfortable with that record is certainly puzzling to me. It’s as if you can’t deal with unpleasant facts of reality and prefer to ignore them. You say such remarks concerning atheists are insulting. Please learn to distinguish between insults and the painful truth. Atheists for a long time have taken pleasure in sliming Christians, and they don’t just do it in reaction to their being slimed first. They do it as a matter of policy and hatred for our faith. The self-proclaimed atheist Marquis de Sade was only the tip of that awful iceberg.

But if an atheist in this forum slimes Christians, you rise up angry that someone dares to answer him.

Yes, I’m all for stoping this personal feuding, but I’m not going to do so at the cost of letting you censor my thoughts and speech.
You and I have been at this for some time, in other threads too, and I see no end to it unless you stop rudely correcting my efforts to set the historical and sociological record straight.

the obvious implication of these statements - intended or not - is that atheists are more often criminal than christians, or that atheists more often immoral than are christians.

And if this happens to be true, why shouldn’t it be said, painful as it may be to say it?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

I said:

The redivism rate for prisoners who never go to chapel is strikingly higher than for those who do (theists).

You said:

Going to need some hard statistics for this, if you don’t mind.

themasterspen.com/archives/000346.html

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

You said:
Going to need some hard statistics for this, if you don’t mind.

themasterspen.com/archives/000346.html

That article talks of religious commitment, religious activities, and church attendance. Do you think that lack of those things qualify for the classification “atheist”?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

That article talks of religious commitment, religious activities, and church attendance. Do you think that lack of those things qualify for the classification “atheist”?__________________

Yes. A (without) **Theos **(God) = Atheist.

One does not have to be a self-declared atheist to be one. One does not have to actively champion the cause of atheists to be one. Some people drift from theism into atheism without even being conscious that they have done so, just as one can drift from atheism into faith without being conscious that the process is at work.

To be “without God” either in your head or heart, or both your head and heart, is sufficient cause to be called atheist. This accounts for why so many ostensible Christians (in name only, seeking for their own advantage the image but not the reality of Christ) are not really Christians. Jesus was not afraid to tell them the painful truth by calling them “vipers.” It was the Christian thing to do.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

I see it this way: In a Minkowski-space there is no “imaginary” time. What we call time is the imaginary part of the time-axis. Meaning, time is still real but the axis is imaginary to get Lorentz-invariant impuls vectors using Euclidean scalar products.
p =(it,x,y,z)
In GRT a 4th spacial axis is introduced to describe a bend space, thus a point in space would be p=(it,x,y,z,w), this perfectly matches the observable universe. A sphere p0²+p1²+p2²+p3² = x²+y²+z²-t² = r² in such a vector space describes an object with a finite yet unbound time coordinates. Perhaps the universe could at some day scientifically identified with such an object.

Perhaps what we perceive as time is possibly just a by-product of the (4-dimensionally) expanding universe, something like x²+y²+z²-t² = r(w)².

and the 26 spacetime dimensions of bosonic string theory is consistent with the observable world…consistency with the observable world is cheap, in the end.

i get the math, it just doesn’t make any real, physical sense to me (in more ways than one), you know? so i can’t imagine (pardon the pun) believing in it as an accurate representation of the world.

and all of these doxastic contortions just to avoid an initial singularity…weird.

 

[AnAtheist]

That article talks of religious commitment, religious activities, and church attendance. Do you think that lack of those things qualify for the classification “atheist”?__________________

Yes. A (without) **Theos **(God) = Atheist.

One does not have to be a self-declared atheist to be one. One does not have to actively champion the cause of atheists to be one. Some people drift from theism into atheism without even being conscious that they have done so, just as one can drift from atheism into faith without being conscious that the process is at work.

To be “without God” either in your head or heart, or both your head and heart, is sufficient cause to be called atheist. This accounts for why so many ostensible Christians (in name only, seeking for their own advantage the image but not the reality of Christ) are not really Christians. Jesus was not afraid to tell them the painful truth by calling them “vipers.” It was the Christian thing to do.

So you admit, that your definition of “atheist” differs from the common one? Last time I checked, one has to disbelieve in all kinds of god to be an atheists. And not just a passive Christian, who has stopped going to church.

 

[buffalo]

Atheism

 

[EnterTheBowser]

How about this:
1: Belief that there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of an entity reasonably called God, and believing that there are good reasons for disbelieving in such an entity
2: The lack of belief in such an entity

1 is strong atheism, 2 is weak atheism, as they are called. What’s tricky is sorting out the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism; luckily I don’t worry too much about that, because I’m a strong atheist. Note that being angry at God, or wanting to go to hell, immediately disqualifies one from being an atheist. You can’t be angry at something which you don’t think exists, or want to go to an imaginary hell.

The definition that you provided, by the way, is rather amusing, because it apparently states that I do not exist. “Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school.” Yes, it is amusing to read a definition of atheism that asserts that no thinking person could possibly seriously hold to (strong) atheism. Should I be providing definitions of theism that state that all theists are either liars or idiots?

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

EnterTheBowser:

How about this:
1: Belief that there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of an entity reasonably called God, and believing that there are good reasons for disbelieving in such an entity
2: The lack of belief in such an entity

1 is strong atheism, 2 is weak atheism, as they are called. What’s tricky is sorting out the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism; luckily I don’t worry too much about that, because I’m a strong atheist. Note that being angry at God, or wanting to go to hell, immediately disqualifies one from being an atheist. You can’t be angry at something which you don’t think exists, or want to go to an imaginary hell.

Unless we don’t subscribe to a belief in science, your "Note that being angry at God, or wanting to go to hell, immediately disqualifies one from being an atheist" doesn’t stick. Modern psychology (science) proposes the existence of defense mechanisms (first proposed by Freudians, but generally supported by such different and currently valid authors such as Aaron T. Beck, Albert Ellis, Albert Bandura and Arthur Staats). This means atheists can still be angry at God, fearful of God, or acting on guilt.
Note that I am saying that the existence of defense mechanisms (fear, guilt and anger to God as a motivation for atheism) invalidates your argument, but still no one can say for certain, that you in particular have such motivations.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

Perhaps this is a matter of teminology. What do you mean by “a god”?

A being that exists out of the natural realm, and has the traits of a God as defined by man.

In the sense that Christians deny the existence of pagan gods, we are also atheists. I would agree it is not logical to believe in the heathen gods.

Is it more logical to believe in a Christian God? If so, why?

We define God as: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection.

Is that the kind of God you say is not logical?

This isn’t the Christian God, however. This isn’t a God that intervenes in the life of man. This isn’t a sentient God. This isn’t a loving God.

It seems logical to me for there to be such an infinite source providing our own instances of power, time, dimensions, intellect, will, and etc. Let me explain by way of analogy where people already accept such a thing.

What, then, created this infinite source? Why is a universe created by an infinite God more logical than a universe that is infinite? Using a creationist favorite, Occam’s Razor, it would be more logical to assume that the universe is infinite than to assume an infinite creator.

Analogy of Numbers

You’ve changed the meaning of God to that of existence, and the analogy isn’t used properly. A set of infinite integers is not the source of those integers, it is those integers. All numbers from the smallest to the largest make up the infinite number set (referred to as INS), not vice versa. The INS is created from the numbers within it. Essentially, you’ve given us an analogy for existence with a few other factors added on to it. These other factors are flawed. Numbers can not provide an infinite number of possibilities, they are a concept attached on to those possibilities. Numbers are not able to distinguish individual elements of themselves, we distinguish them. The INS is not able to choose anything, we do that. And the INS is not complete or perfect, it is infinite, without end. You could say it’s all-encompassing though.

Such a similitude of God as the set of all possible particular instances of existence (natural, spiritual, conceptual, etc.) provides a perspective that might allow you to see the logic in believing in God as the source of all of them.

The problem of a source still arises. It is entriely logical to believe in an infinite existence, something that contains all that can be. However, existence is not the source of existence. It is existence. Every part of the whole is contained in the whole, but that does not mean the whole is the source of the parts. Every part of being is contained by existence, this does not mean that existence (or God changed to mean existence) created those parts. To say that God is the source of existence would still require a jump not backed by logic. It would still require one to assume many different traits before it becomes a God in any sense, much less one in the Christian sense.

It is totally logical to be grateful to the very God from which we take our existence.

This is the only part of your arguments that I still have a problem with, as you can probably see already. We don’t take our existence from existence. We make up existence. For instance, 23 is part of the INS, the INS did not create that number. God, if applied in the scenario you’re suggesting, is simply another word for existence.

And even our personality is made from it.

Not made from it, but rather a part of it as a whole.

–

The rest of your post goes on to elaborate, so discussing it would be redundant and wouldn’t add anything. I did read it all, however, and found it to be both interesting and thought-provoking in other ways than you probably intended.

Thanks for taking the time to reply with a well thought out post that’s worth reading over quite a few times.

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

Pretty much where you’ve pinned it. When we begin to assume that nothing is real, you can’t prove or disprove it. There is no proof or reason.

Thanks.

The idea of our senses lying to us (or believing that way) is what is unreasonable, not the results of it. Though some results are.

I don’t think they’re lying to us, and very well, things that are beyond our normal perception, it isn’t a case of our senses lying, as in, deceiving us (although we do interpret this as deception, because we often don’t know better), but rather, that they are inadequate to perceive the information they are attempting to process.

It essentially falls under the same principle I used earlier. When we question our senses and end up with only one reasonable cause, it becomes unreasonable to say it’s anything else. When we question our senses and end up with more than one reasonable cause, we consider all of them until one is proven unreasonable. There can be varying degrees or certainty, but to be reasonably sure you must be sure the other options are unreasonable.

My problem is more the assumption that our senses must be right. Why must that be the assumption?

We have no reason to assume any of our perceptions are false though. It would be unreasonable to assume any are. Of course, if we find evidence of our perceptions being wrong, then it does become reasonable to assume they’re wrong.

By the same token, why should we assume the contrary, that they are reliable? It seems to be just as bad of an assumption either way, even if practically we realize that our senses are reliable.

 

[Alois]

Gilbert Keith:

The record of atheists promoting wholesale slaughters in the 20th century speaks for itself. I was pointing this out because atheists are so quick to point out just the opposite … that it is really the Christians who have been behind so much evil in the world.

…

Only after you accused us of being behind so much evil in the world. Just bite the bullet and stop being hypocritical.

If you don’t think this is true, read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian.” This is a gratuitious assault on Christianity by trying to claim it is the source of much evil and unhappiness in the world. Read Clarence Darrow’s autobiography, or anything by H.L. Mencken on the subject of Christianity, and you will find the same efforts to slime our faith.

Right, because Christians have never tried to pin evil on atheists. There have never been any attempts by the religous to slander the non-religous merely because they exist. [/sarcasm]

Get real, I can turn on my television right now and pick up five stations that slander atheists and the “secular agenda of death” at this very moment. Can you point me to the atheist station that does so?

Answering these charges seems to you a forbidden policy. Not at all. The facts of history are not anything we should shy away from. That you find them repulsive and insulting to atheists generally is too bad. Facts are facts. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao persecuted all religions. If you want to argue the contrary, you are free to do so. But you are not free to forbid discussion along this line so that atheists can have the floor all to themselves.

Hitler was NOT AN ATHEIST. He was, in fact, a Christian. He preached of a society that was Christian Nationalism, a state government based around the “goodness” of Christianity. He used Christianity to persecute the Jews, to persecute the homosexuals, to persecute the atheists, and to persecute anyone who wasn’t Christian. Hitler himself declared that he was on a mission from God to preserve his perfect race. Under the guise of ‘Positive Christianity’ and Order of Creation, Hitler worked with the churches in Germany to produce anti-Jewish propaganda. The Vatican itself assisted Croatian Nazis throughout the war, and the Pope even gave Ante Pavelic (the leader of the Nazi regime in the Balkans) a blessing on his deathbead. It wasn’t a Christian crusade by any means, but to classify Hitler and his counterparts as atheistic is a disgusting bastardization of history on par with those who claim the Holocaust never happened.

Tell me when the dominantly Christian government of North America ever persecuted, tortured, or executed atheists.

Nice cop out, remove North America and you have a valid comparison.

They do it as a matter of policy and hatred for our faith.

Drop the paranoia complex. I hate nothing in these debates but the ignorance people hide behind in order to justifiy their faith. (or lack thereof, if thats’ the case) Most here have shown that they are willing to discuss civilly, you have not.

But if an atheist in this forum slimes Christians, you rise up angry that someone dares to answer him.

One only has to look back to the origin of this thread to see where the slime starts. Once again, get real. You’re disconnected with reality.

to set the historical and sociological record straight.

Wow… just… wow…

 

[Alois]

RobNY:

I don’t think they’re lying to us, and very well, things that are beyond our normal perception, it isn’t a case of our senses lying, as in, deceiving us (although we do interpret this as deception, because we often don’t know better), but rather, that they are inadequate to perceive the information they are attempting to process.

This may very well be the case, but if we are unable to perceive the deception, then it is irrelevant. It could never do anything to us. Unless you suggest that we can detect them given an upgrade in technology, in which case they would then be natural and detectable anyway.

My problem is more the assumption that our senses must be right. Why must that be the assumption?

When you don’t, you become the man standing on the tracks wondering if the train will kill you. Our senses have been shown to be accurate through verification by others, and they have not been shown to be innaccurate through the verification of others.

And yes, there are cases of color-blindness and such, but we have such a large base with set normals of perception that the idea of the fault not being caused by the error detected within those humans is almost worthless.

By the same token, why should we assume the contrary, that they are reliable? It seems to be just as bad of an assumption either way, even if practically we realize that our senses are reliable.

It’s the same issue. Your senses have proven to be accurate time and time again, like I said earlier, you trust your life on them. The world still “is” around you, or there wouldn’t be a source of the energy causing these perceptions. That your existence (sentiently) in this world hasn’t been ended by something you haven’t sensed is evidence that suggests trust in our senses.

 

[Alois]

This means atheists can still be angry at God, fearful of God, or acting on guilt.

On the same token, I could suggest that all Christians are angry and fearful of reality, and that they really know there is no God. Therefore, they’re not really Christians. It would be just as invalid.

The case in question is very rare anyway, do you suggest that all atheists are afflicted by it?