Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

Legion

And yes to be immaterial and exist is a contradiction in terms - unless you play a little fast and swift with your definitions. It is a simple point, and was well made. I re-stated it myself - but you ignored it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, the God in question is Yahweh in case you hadn't figured that out.

So you read his source? Every proof he gives has a footnote to one of the two sources he paraphrased and simplified it from. And it most certainly isn't restricted to YHWH, but your welcome to demonstrate how the source it is taken from (which full of reprinted papers, and thus the original source if from a journal) was about Yahweh.

his proof is composed of many elements. You are just obfuscating.

Why do you use the singular while he refers to "disproofs"?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

And yes to be immaterial and exist is a contradiction in terms - unless you play a little fast and swift with your definitions. It is a simple point, and was well made. I re-stated it myself - but you ignored it.

Immaterial means not made out of matter. Photons are immaterial. Photons exist. Q.E.D.

Anger exists. Anger is immaterial. The immaterial exists. Q.E.D.

 

[Bunyip]

So you read his source? Every proof he gives has a footnote to one of the two sources he paraphrased and simplified it from. And it most certainly isn't restricted to YHWH, but your welcome to demonstrate how the source it is taken from (which full of reprinted papers, and thus the original source if from a journal) was about Yahweh.

You are welcome to demonstrate that he did not. Good luck with that - but is another diversion.

Why do you use the singular while he refers to "disproofs"?

Because I explained that his argument is composed of many elements several times. I made it perfectly clear.

 

[Bunyip]

Immaterial means made out of matter. Photons are immaterial. Photons exist. Q.E.D.

Anger exists. Anger is immaterial. The immaterial exists. Q.E.D.

Ok, so God exists as a concept - no worries. I concede that the concept of God exists. I thought you meant 'exists' as in having a material presence - you know, being real.

But sure, God 'exists' in the way abstracts like concepts exist - no problem. Nothing for the NS to challenge or worry about there.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Are you sure that immaterial means made out of matter? (Post #463) Pretty sure it means the opposite.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are welcome to demonstrate that he did not. Good luck with that

Here's his source for the example I gave:
Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey

After the 10th "proof" in the link, the author specifically (for the first time), refers to the Christian God as a way in which the proof given can fail:
"I have heard it said by Christians that the way God judges offenders depends on whether or not they are true believers. If they are, then he is lenient with them, but if they are not, then he treats them with exactly the severity they deserve (which can be pretty bad). By this Christian way of speaking, God is said to be both an all-just and an all-merciful judge...This way of viewing matters would be an attack on both premise 3 and premise 4, above.."

This is the source whence Stenger obtained his "proof". In that source, the author gives other proofs (3 of which are in Stenger's book), and in the 10th one he notes how it can fail if the God is a Christian God, because (as noted in the opening) the list of attributes is intended to capture as many conceptions of God as possible.

Because I explained that his argument is composed of many elements several times. I made it perfectly clear.

It isn't his argument. These are proofs he quotes from others.

Are you sure that immaterial means made out of matter? (Post #463) Pretty sure it means the opposite.

You're right. That was a typo.

 

[Bunyip]

You're right. That was a typo.

No prob.

 

[Bunyip]

Here's his source for the example I gave:
Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey

After the 10th "proof" in the link, the author specifically (for the first time), refers to the Christian God as a way in which the proof given can fail:
"I have heard it said by Christians that the way God judges offenders depends on whether or not they are true believers. If they are, then he is lenient with them, but if they are not, then he treats them with exactly the severity they deserve (which can be pretty bad). By this Christian way of speaking, God is said to be both an all-just and an all-merciful judge...This way of viewing matters would be an attack on both premise 3 and premise 4, above.."

This is the source whence Stenger obtained his "proof". In that source, the author gives other proofs (3 of which are in Stenger's book), and in the 10th one he notes how it can fail if the God is a Christian God, because (as noted in the opening) the list of attributes is intended to capture as many conceptions of God as possible.

Sure. Agreed. But not all conceptions - only a given subset. So it makes no difference.

It isn't his argument. These are proofs he quotes from others.

Quibbling.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You are going to have to clarify which god it is you are referring to when you use the term please? Obviously I made a false assumption - so which God is the God you are referring to?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quibbling.

Let me get this straight. You previously claimed the following:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

Stenger quotes the following disproof of God's existence:
"If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist."

The author he quotes from is quite specific that this isn't a particular god, just one with the attribute of being "immaterial" (as you put it) or "nonphysical". It is a proof of the universal absence of any such god (or the disproof of the existence of such a god; the two are equivalent).

So, how does this me quibbling when you are asserting things about sources you didn't read and making claims about what they refer to and their scope that do not exist, and finally when I give you the source Stenger obtained 3 of his proofs from, including the disproof you stated was impossible?

EDIT: you simply meant it was quibbling to point out it wasn't his proof? Fair enough. But my whole point was whether or not you made claims about what was impossible to prove and whether Stenger argues to have offered proof where you stated it was impossible.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are going to have to clarify which god it is you are referring to when you use the term please? Obviously I made a false assumption - so which God is the God you are referring to?

Whichever one you were referring to here:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

 

[Bunyip]

Let me get this straight. You previously claimed the following:

Stenger quotes the following disproof of God's existence:
"If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist."

The author he quotes from is quite specific that this isn't a particular god, just one with the attribute of being "immaterial" (as you put it) or "nonphysical". It is a proof of the universal absence of any such god (or the disproof of the existence of such a god; the two are equivalent).

So, how does this me quibbling when you are asserting things about sources you didn't read and making claims about what they refer to and their scope that do not exist, and finally when I give you the source Stenger obtained 3 of his proofs from, including the disproof you stated was impossible?

Sure, immaterial means that it doesn't exist - other than as a concept. So sure.

 

[Bunyip]

Whichever one you were referring to here:

Great, Yahweh is the God the NA are interested in, and the one Stenger sold millions of books about. But sure, immaterial personal Gods are the category in question.

And yes, small 'g' unspecified conceptions of god can not be universally disproven.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure, immaterial means that it doesn't exist - other than as a concept. So sure.

Wait. So before, this was true:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

Now, it is a synthetic/a priori claim to say "the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity" is necessarily true (by definition)? Why, then, is it impossible to prove? If immaterial means non-existent than the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity would be a tautology.

 

[Bunyip]

Wait. So before, this was true:

Now, it is a synthetic/a priori claim to say "the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity" is necessarily true (by definition)? Why, then, is it impossible to prove? If immaterial means non-existent than the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity would be a tautology.

Exactly. It is moot. So why would the NA be at all concerned with such non-existent entities? How could the prospect of such a non-being's being be of any interest?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Great, Yahweh is the God the NA are interested in

So his frequent references to other gods and religions, such as Allah and Islam (and the same for Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris), indeed entire chapters and sections devoted to such other religions, are included in these works because the authors are interested in Yahweh?

And yes, small 'g' unspecified conceptions of god can not be universally disproven.

But you did specify, or enough to prove (according to Stenger and now apparently you too) that your previous claim was false. You specified that no matter what conception of god you meant here:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

...that god was an immaterial entity. Stenger gives a disproof of all such entities, and you just stated that immaterial means non-existent, making it impossible for their to be "an immaterial entity - a god" as you described. The statement "the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity- a god" is tautologically true (true no matter what) granted your assertion that immaterial means non-existent. That is, granted your assertion that immaterial means non-existent, you must be able to prove what you stated we can't.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

What do you mean by 'entity' exactly? Just for the sake of clarity.'

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Exactly. It is moot.

If it is moot, why did you insist that it can't be proven? Especially given that it is necessarily true and thus must be capable of being proven?

So why would the NA be at all concerned with such non-existent entities?

The new atheists believe that gods don't exist, and therefore that all gods are non-existent. All of their work is devoted to what they believe are non-existent entities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

What do you mean by 'entity' exactly? Just for the sake of clarity.'

Whatever you meant here:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.