Atheism does not exist

[Falvlun]

I could beat him.

I have no doubt. This was written 4 or so years ago. I'm not nearly as antagonistic towards the man as I was back then. "The follies of youth..."

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As I've said, its very existence may cause some young and impressionable college students to begin believing that 'true' can actually be determined by humans.

If it can't be determined by humans, then it can't be determined at all. But you're clearly being disingenuous; if your wife asks you whether its true that you went to the grocery store earlier, you will have no hesitation answering her query.

But I think there's a bigger problem with the definition. On the end of it needs to be tacked, "IN X's OPINION."

Why? This adds nothing? Just because truth is always judged from some particular perspective or other doesn't mean that all judgments are equal- that whatever something believes is true actually is...

This is the Great Question which makes journeymen JTB fighters quake in their wrestling tights!

Only in your fancy. Nobody is quaking here, your question has very little force since it is aimed at a strawman.

Evidence is not capable of distinguishing anything. You're confused about that. Only humans can distinguish one belief from another and make judgments about their veracity.

Obviously. And what do we make judgments about truth on the basis of? Evidence. Give yourself a hand here.

And evidence tribunals don't float about in the ether, either.

Another astute observation.

People differentiate beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

It isn't, I've said as much.

I have explained it repeatedly. If you would like me to use smaller words, I doubt I can. Maybe I could draw and post some pictures for you?

Nah, just use whatever words you're capable of, and actually give an argument, rather than posting a bunch of nonsense about how you're the "Big Questioner", despite being woefully out of your depth and blundering about this conversation like a drunk in a china shop.

Well, I've proven the uselessness of the JTB definition of knowledge and have shown how it's adherents suffer such confusion that they run away from simple questions about it. At least I've done that.

In your fancy, perhaps.

How utterly droll. "Be brave," the frantically fleeing man shouts over his shoulder at the Big Bad Questioner.

At least we can see what's going on here- you're desperate for an ego-pump; hence such silly (and ironically inapt) phrases as "the Big Bad Questioner" and your frequent patting yourself on the back (for having done nothing but blow smoke)...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What did you mean by that the cat is actually on the couch? I think you meant exactly what I thought you meant, and now you're over-thinking (you've become the Aristotle to Plato's JTB).

Again, you're ignoring context. I meant that the truth of the claim "the cat is on the couch" is not determined by a poll, but rather the location of the cat (i.e. "whether the cat is actually on the couch"). Do we have any infallible, absolute access to the location of the cat? No- and thats the point- we have our sensory evidence, which is fallible. If all the evidence points to the cat being on the couch, then for our purposes, the cat is "actually" on the couch.

***

Rather, the JTB definition of knowledge is of limited use.

Limited to... discussions about knowledge.

Not much of a limitation.

So why not use a defintion that is actually useful?

"Useful" how? What else do you want a definition of knowledge to do besides characterize knowledge, which JTB does?

And honestly, can we move past arguing over whether the grass is really green or whether 2+2 really equals 4? That JTB is an adequate characterization of knowledge is not really up for debate, nor is it the topic of this discussion, but rather the obvious fact that atheism exists, as well as the less obvious fact that atheism is true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And honestly, can we move past arguing over whether the grass is really green or whether 2+2 really equals 4?

How marvelous to have another actual prophet of God among us -- even though, as usual, an undeclared one.

That JTB is an adequate characterization of knowledge is not really up for debate,

Sorry, bud. You're going to have to show us some extreme miracles before any of us will accept your personal truth as God's Truth.

... but rather the obvious fact that atheism exists, as well as the less obvious fact that atheism is true.

I know that atheism doesn't exist because I have a belief that atheism doesn't exist, and my belief is both justified and true.

So the non-existence of atheism is not really up for debate. Sorry.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I know that atheism doesn't exist because I have a belief that atheism doesn't exist, and my belief is both justified and true.

Only it is neither justified nor true, so it is not knowledge. Fail, once again.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In any case, pseudo-objections from posters who wish to feel important notwithstanding, on o the meat of the thread- why atheism is true, and why it constitutes knowledge.

All the various religions, and all the various mystics, ascribe transcendence to their respective god- even when immanence is predicated of a god, as in Christianity, it is subsumed under transcendence as the sine qua non of god; it is fair to say that transcendence is what distinguishes or characterizes god from non-god.

Now, trascendence consists in a variety of specific things; transcending language (ineffability), reason (incomprehensibility), and the universe (i.e. being, conditions, relations). Any X that transcends the universe, and is nonconditional and nonrelational, transcends existence/non-existence, and is thus a non-being. It cannot exist, by definition.

(there are additional difficulties with respect to particular gods, such as the problem of evil for the Christian deity, which I won't elaborate on).

To argue from the opposite direction, to exist is to have conditions and relations with other existing things. Existence entails relatedness, and entails cause-and-effect relations. So a god which exists must stand in various relations, including cause-and-effect relations, with the world. Such relations necessarily leave evidence. Now, the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily lack of evidence. The fact that no gods satisfy the following query- "what changes in the world are uniquely accounted for by your god/gods?" suffices to show that no gods exist.

***

This is just the tip of the iceburg, but I'm tired of this pedantic off-topic tangent seeking to create controversy where none exists so I figured I'd move the discussion along.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Only it is neither justified nor true, so it is not knowledge. Fail, once again.

Are you watching, Penguin? You've agreed that there is no ultimate authority who decides true vs false. And yet -- to all appearances -- that very ultimate authority seems to have fallen among us even as we speak.

Let's try an experiment. It's one of my favorites. Whenever I meet an apparent prophet of God, and he denies that he is a prophet of God, I ask him a particular question and see how he answers.

So let's ask Enaidealukal My Question:

Enaidealukal, could you be wrong or mistaken? Could my belief about the non-existence of atheism actually be true?

I'm not asking if it's true. I'm asking if it's possible that it's true.

Is it possible that my belief is true?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nah, just use whatever words you're capable of, and actually give an argument, rather than posting a bunch of nonsense about how you're the "Big Questioner", despite being woefully out of your depth and blundering about this conversation like a drunk in a china shop.

For whatever it might be worth to anyone out there, here's my advice on proper debate behavior:

Never flinch in the face of an attack. Don't run behind a wall and curse the attacker. Instead, stand and let the attacker smack you around. You'll survive, and the next time someone makes that same attack, you'll be stronger and readier to handle it.

Answer every direct question about your worldview, no matter how you may fear the consequences of answering.

For whatever that might be worth to anyone out there.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Are you watching, Penguin? You've agreed that there is no ultimate authority who decides true vs false. And yet -- to all appearances -- that very ultimate authority seems to have fallen among us even as we speak.

You can't address anything I say without constructing a strawman, can you?

If only I was actually saying what you are wishing I was saying...

There is no "ultimate authority". But there needn't be. Evidence is public. My judgment is subject to the judgment of everyone elses, and they're entitled to disagree, but oftentimes there is no room for rational disagreement after examining the evidence. Here's how it works, as we all know intuitively from experience (which is why the whole pretense of arguing against the JTB definition is silly to begin with)- you say "the cat is on the couch". I disagree. Well, let's look at the evidence- what does the couch look like? Do we see a smelly furry creature sitting on it? If we do, and we haven't been taking LSD or anything (i.e. there is no reason why our sight should be completely untrustworthy), presumably this is sufficient evidence to establish that the cat is in fact on the couch, sufficient evidence to warrant this particular conclusion. And since, not only does the evidence show the claim is true, this evidence is sufficient for holding the belief that the cat is on the cat, and thus this counts as knowledge.

Let's try an experiment. It's one of my favorites. Whenever I meet an apparent prophet of God, and he denies that he is a prophet of God

Cute... Still stroking our ego with hyperbole...

Enaidealukal, could you be wrong or mistaken? Could my belief about the non-existence of atheism actually be true?

I'm not asking if it's true. I'm asking if it's possible that it's true.

Is it possible that my belief is true?

Again, asked and answered. Of course it is possible, at the very least in the strict logical sense of possibility.

Any more irrelevant and redundant questions you'd care to ask since you're determined to continue on this off-topic tangent?

Or are you ready to tackle the real issue yet? Surely the "Big Bad Questioner" is up to the challenge...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

For whatever it might be worth to anyone out there, here's my advice on proper debate behavior:

That's like GW Bush giving advice on public speaking ("How to Talk Gooder 101")... Forgive us if we take it with a grain of salt.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's like GW Bush giving advice on public speaking ("How to Talk Gooder 101")... Forgive us if we take it with a grain of salt.

It makes you feel better to say 'we'... yes? I've noticed that you do it a lot.

Minds are so interesting.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is no "ultimate authority". But there needn't be. Evidence is public. My judgment is subject to the judgment of everyone elses, and they're entitled to disagree, but oftentimes there is no room for rational disagreement after examining the evidence. Here's how it works, as we all know intuitively from experience (which is why the whole pretense of arguing against the JTB definition is silly to begin with)- you say "the cat is on the couch". I disagree. Well, let's look at the evidence- what does the couch look like? Do we see a smelly furry creature sitting on it? If we do, and we haven't been taking LSD or anything (i.e. there is no reason why our sight should be completely untrustworthy), presumably this is sufficient evidence to establish that the cat is in fact on the couch, sufficient evidence to warrant this particular conclusion. And since, not only does the evidence show the claim is true, this evidence is sufficient for holding the belief that the cat is on the cat, and thus this counts as knowledge.

If you really believe all of that, go back and answer my Msg #788. Answer it thoroughly.

In particular, address this question: What if 65% of your fellows declare there is no cat on the mat but you yourself are sure that you see a cat on the mat. You can't give up your truth claim in the face of a consensus against you, so what do you do? You declare yourself the final arbiter of truth, don't you? What other option is there.

 

[Falvlun]

All the various religions, and all the various mystics, ascribe transcendence to their respective god- even when immanence is predicated of a god, as in Christianity, it is subsumed under transcendence as the sine qua non of god; it is fair to say that transcendence is what distinguishes or characterizes god from non-god.

Now, trascendence consists in a variety of specific things; transcending language (ineffability), reason (incomprehensibility), and the universe (i.e. being, conditions, relations). Any X that transcends the universe, and is nonconditional and nonrelational, transcends existence/non-existence, and is thus a non-being. It cannot exist, by definition.

I haven't decided whether I agree with transcendence as the defining feature of gods yet. It would preclude god concepts such as pan(en)theism, for one. And I don't see why it should be preferred to immanence.

I don't really have a good grasp of what "transcendence" means, but in its most basic form it just means "beyond" with a connotation of "greater".

So, if you transcend existence, it means you are beyond existence, have something greater than existence.

So, you are simply making a semantic-- rather meaningless-- argument when you claim that, by definition, something that is transcendent cannot exist. We'd need another word for what it is doing, if you are going to be pedantic about it, but whatever something that "transcendently exists" is doing, it is certainly something different from the connotation of "not existing"-- which is what you then erroneously conclude.

To argue from the opposite direction, to exist is to have conditions and relations with other existing things. Existence entails relatedness, and entails cause-and-effect relations. So a god which exists must stand in various relations, including cause-and-effect relations, with the world. Such relations necessarily leave evidence. Now, the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily lack of evidence. The fact that no gods satisfy the following query- "what changes in the world are uniquely accounted for by your god/gods?" suffices to show that no gods exist.

What changes in the world are uniquely accounted for by my dog? And yet, I can assure you that my dog exists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It would preclude god concepts such as pan(en)theism, for one.

Sure, but the gods of pantheism fail the evidence test, not the conceptual coherence test. I'm talking about the god (singular) of (mono)theism.

I don't really have a good grasp of what "transcendence" means, but in its most basic form it just means "beyond" with a connotation of "greater".

Not "greater" in any normative sense, but "beyond" rather.

So, if you transcend existence, it means you are beyond existence, have something greater than existence.

No, not "greater than", but you are certainly doing something other than existing, namely not existing.

So, you are simply making a semantic-- rather meaningless-- argument when you claim that, by definition, something that is transcendent cannot exist. We'd need another word for what it is doing,

We have a perfectly good one; "not existing".

if you are going to be pedantic about it, but whatever something that "transcendently exists" is doing, it is certainly something different from the connotation of "not existing"--

How so then?

which is what you then erroneously conclude.

If it is an error, that remains to be seen. Your bare assertion certainly won't cut the mustard.

What changes in the world are uniquely accounted for by my dog?

The dog poop in the yard+ the missing dog food in the dog bowl+ the vet bills on your table+ the sensory evidence of this furry thing in your house... I'd imagine the list goes on for quite some time.

Try again.

 

[idav]

I haven't decided whether I agree with transcendence as the defining feature of gods yet. It would preclude god concepts such as pan(en)theism, for one. And I don't see why it should be preferred to immanence.

I like that word immanence. Works well and I do not have so much issue with transcendence as much as I have issue with a description of god being beyond existence which would mean exactly non-existent. So that there needs to be some sort of limitation of this transcendence so that immanence is also present.

 

[Falvlun]

Limited to... discussions about knowledge.

Not much of a limitation.

But it isn't even working in this discussion about knowledge, since to date, no one has been able to tell us how truth is determined-- or rather, how anything can ever be known to be knowedge.

"Useful" how? What else do you want a definition of knowledge to do besides characterize knowledge, which JTB does?

And honestly, can we move past arguing over whether the grass is really green or whether 2+2 really equals 4? That JTB is an adequate characterization of knowledge is not really up for debate, nor is it the topic of this discussion, but rather the obvious fact that atheism exists, as well as the less obvious fact that atheism is true.

Personally, unless an argument works out in the real world, I don't think much of it. My goal isn't to find out about stuff in an artificial setting, but how it works in the big bad world.

You say that JTB is an adequate characterization of knowledge. Are you really just ignoring all of the issues that have been brought up about it? Namely: What constitues adequate justification, and how do you know if something is true or not?

And if adequacy and characterizations are what's required, then my own definition of knowledge characterizes it in an adequate way too.

 

[Falvlun]

Sure, but the gods of pantheism fail the evidence test, not the conceptual coherence test. I'm talking about the god (singular) of (mono)theism.

Not "greater" in any normative sense, but "beyond" rather.

No, not "greater than", but you are certainly doing something other than existing, namely not existing.



We have a perfectly good one; "not existing".

How so then?

If it is an error, that remains to be seen. Your bare assertion certainly won't cut the mustard.

And your bare assertions do?

Just think about it. If you say that something is transcending existence, then that means it does "exist"... just in a different way. I don't know how you go from "It is transcendent" to "Therefore, it doesn't exist." If it doesn't exist, then what were you just talking about? What were you just describing as "transcendent"?

Regardless, your whole argument is just based upon your take on a definition of "transcendent". I really don't think that some definition would get in the way of God existing, if god really existed.

The dog poop in the yard+ the missing dog food in the dog bowl+ the vet bills on your table+ the sensory evidence of this furry thing in your house... I'd imagine the list goes on for quite some time.

Try again.

You said uniquely. None of that is unique to my dog. All dogs poop, rack up vet bills, and eat food.

 

[Falvlun]

I like that word immanence. Works well and I do not have so much issue with transcendence as much as I have issue with a description of god being beyond existence which would mean exactly non-existent. So that there needs to be some sort of limitation of this transcendence so that immanence is also present.

I don't think our brain can conceive of something "beyond existence". Just because some religious people like to describe god as "beyond existence" isn't a good reason, imo, to believe that god therefore can't exist.

There's more options:
1. Religious people simply have come up with a suitably mysterious description of god that shouldn't be taken literally-- since it's humanly impossible to do so. In this case "transcending existence" means roughly "God exists but in a more marvelous and mysterious way than the rest of us do."

2. God really has a way to "exist" beyond "existence" and in that case, the mere fact that we can't conceive or it, or do not currently have the correct words to describe whatever the heck it is he's doing, also shouldn't be taken as evidence of his inexistence.

 

[idav]

I really don't think that some definition would get in the way of God existing, if god really existed.

Nothing is more powerful than a god than exist and not exist at the same time. The issue is God being separate and distinct from existence not existing as far as we are concerned in our non-transcendental existence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You say that JTB is an adequate characterization of knowledge. Are you really just ignoring all of the issues that have been brought up about it? Namely: What constitues adequate justification, and how do you know if something is true or not?

I click my heels together and spin around three times. If I wind up facing myself, then the item is true. But if I'm facing my butt, then it's false.

Other people simply exclaim, "The grass is green, and the cat is on the mat! It's just so obvious what is true!"

But I find that to be a silly argument.