Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[Tiberius]

Well Tiberius, I never claimed it was the Christian God that existed. Just a God.

This God could have two attributes. One is that it is in a higher dimension and because we can not travel into these other dimensions it's impossible for us to look inside of them. So yes, we may have insufficient tools. Secondly, I never said this God had to interact with man at all. It may have nothing to do with us.

So, if these two things were the case there is no way we could ever possibly find It. It's not a testable hypothesis and is forever safe. We just can't disprove this God.

I think this is why theists have made up these attributes for God. They kept pushing God backward until It went outside of logic, in a way. Have they moved the goal-post? Of course they have. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe there is a God? Of course not. Still, this definition of God is unfalsifiable and unfortunately makes claiming the non-existence of God to be a certain truth or even highly probable a fallacy.

You would have to show beyond any doubt that you are looking in the right place with the right tools. Even though this God supposedly has the power to hide Itself.

We just have to face it. How God is defined today is illogical and is forever safe from being disproven.

However, it is also nothing more than a philosophical argument and is about as applicable to the real world as the idea that your bathtub has a full grown blue whale in it whenever you aren't looking.

In other words a nonsensical idea that can't be shown to have anything at all to do with the real universe. On this point alone, you claim as about as snesible as saying that my bathtub has a blue whale in it right now - and that's pretty much nonsense. Unless you can provide more than a fanciful "What-if" situation, your claim that strong atheism is a fallacy falls flat on its face.

Your other claim is just about as bad. You claim that maybe there is a god that doesn't interact with Humans at all, maybe in some other dimension or something. Firstly, I think you are sorely misinformed about the definition of "dimension". it's not some higher plane of existence like in Star trek or Dr Who. A Dimension is something like height or width or time. To talk about a higher dimension means exactly the same thing as to talk about a higher width. It's just nonsensical buzzwords. And if this god lived in an alternate reality, parrallel timeline or a different universe, then it doesn't exist in our universe. Have you got any reason why I should believe in the possibility of a being that can't even exist in our universe?

You've provided yourself with a backdoor to explain away the flaws in your arguments, but by doing so, you're required to accept the possibility of illogical nonsense. You've even admitted it, yet you claim that I am the one commiting a fallacy?

Care to have another go?

 

[Prometheus]

Firstly, I think you are sorely misinformed about the definition of "dimension". it's not some higher plane of existence like in Star trek or Dr Who. A Dimension is something like height or width or time.

I know. People of "Flatland" would probably think we were Gods.

That's beside the point. I want you to show me how your belief is not the argument from ignorance. That's all you have to do, but you haven't. All you've done is point out the flaws in my argument. That does not justify the flaw in your's.

You claim that God is false because there is no evidence that God is true. This is a known fallacy. I'm guilty of using this same fallacious reasoning myself.

If you truly understood logic, you could admit that you're in the wrong. I don't want anyone to believe in God any more than you do, but I also don't want to see fellow Atheists using a common fallacy to argue their points. Because, trust me, one of these days you're going to be caught on it and then your credibility will go down the drain.

 

[Tiberius]

You claim that God is false because there is no evidence that God is true. This is a known fallacy. I'm guilty of using this same fallacious reasoning myself.

Okay. Listen very carefully. If I ever have to repeat this to you, I'm going to conclude that you are just refusing to listen to me.

I do NOT say that God is false because there is no evidence that God is true.

I say that God is false because the evidence which SHOULD be there if God - any described god - exists is ABSENT.

IF X MUST CAUSE Y AND X ALWAYS CAUSES Y, THEN THE ABSENCE OF Y INDICATES AN ABSENCE OF X.

Do you understand that? I trust that this shows you that I am NOT using the argument from ignorance. That argument is very different to the argument that you stated I used. This is called a STRAWMAN. I'm sure you know about it. And I'm sure you know why it's stupid. So don't try to use it against me.

Allow me to give you an example.

I can clearly say that every person who has posted on here has used a computer at some point in their lives. I don't need to examine every moment of their lives to know this. I know this because it is impossible to post on this website WITHOUT using a computer.

Do you see how this fits in with the argument that I am using?

Likewise, if we have a God, and that God has interacted with this world, there must be evidence of that interaction. And if that evidence is absent when it should exist, then we can conclude that such a god does not exist.

The only way around this is to claim that God has never interacted with this universe at all. But this means that any claim of such a God is nothing more than a guess.

And you'll forgive me if I don't waste my time entertaining the possibility that everything ever guessed by everyone actually exists somewhere in a different universe or something.

If you can suggest a reason for me to entertain such possibilities, feel free. But you'll have to do a hellovalot better than, "Well, maybe it's somewhere in another universe or something..."

And again, don't try to use stramen against me. It ****** me off.

Nope, I'm a Weak-Aleprechaunist.

And please tell me why you consider the existence of magical little men dressed in green is possible? Particularly since magic would violate the known laws of the universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay. Listen very carefully. ...

I say that God is false because the evidence which SHOULD be there if God - any described god - exists is ABSENT.

Then it is incumbent upon you to show us why such evidence "SHOULD" exist. You'll fail.

 

[Prometheus]

Unnecessarily large text!

There's no reason at all to type like this. It makes it look like you're talking down to me. I don't argue with anyone who talks down to me.

Also, I think I should clarify something.

Likewise, if we have a God, and that God has interacted with this world, there must be evidence of that interaction. And if that evidence is absent when it should exist, then we can conclude that such a god does not exist.

I said,

Secondly, I never said this God had to interact with man at all. It may have nothing to do with us.

I will grant you that I said "man" and not "this world and/or universe", so you didn't actually straw-man my argument, but you came close.

If I defined a God that existed yet had no interaction with this world or any part of the universe that we have so far detected, that can't be falsified using your argument.

Your computer analogy is logically consistent because we know If A then B, A, B.

The existence of a God which neither interacts nor is detectable can't be disproven with that kind of logic.

It's ridiculous, but saying something isn't so because it's ridiculous is yet another fallacy.

 

[Yerda]

I do NOT say that God is false because there is no evidence that God is true.

I say that God is false because the evidence which SHOULD be there if God - any described god - exists is ABSENT.

Perhaps your expectations are faulty.

 

[Tiberius]

Then it is incumbent upon you to show us why such evidence "SHOULD" exist. You'll fail.

Feel free to describe a religion that claims there is a God that doesn't provide any evidence of himself at all.

There's no reason at all to type like this. It makes it look like you're talking down to me. I don't argue with anyone who talks down to me.

Sorry, it just really annoys me when people twist my words around. I had already clarified my position in an argument that was clearly NOT the argument from ignorance, and yet you claimed I WAS using the argument from ignorance. Surely you can see how that would be a little frustrating, yes?

If I defined a God that existed yet had no interaction with this world or any part of the universe that we have so far detected, that can't be falsified using your argument.

But you'd also have no way to show that such a God is anything but a figment of your imagination. If I am to acept that a figment of your imagination is possible, I'd have to accept that every figment of any imagination at any point in time is possible, and I'm sure you can see how that isn't a valid way to go through life. If you have evidence that such a God exists, feel free to present it. Otherwise, isn't it just a "What if" situation?

Your computer analogy is logically consistent because we know If A then B, A, B.

Huh? In English please?

The existence of a God which neither interacts nor is detectable can't be disproven with that kind of logic.

And such a God is completely indistinguishable from a figment of the imagination. If there's no difference between the real thing and an imaginary version, doesn't that mean that the real thing IS imaginary?

It's ridiculous, but saying something isn't so because it's ridiculous is yet another fallacy.

Then feel free to name something else which is completely ridiculous and yet exists. You can't. Ridiculous means that it doesn't work according to the laws of the universe, and such a thing can't exists in this universe.

Perhaps your expectations are faulty.

The Bible, for example, gives us plenty of indications of evidence which should exist. The tablets with the ten Commandments written on them. The remains of Noah's Ark. Eyewitness accounts of people who saw Jesus perform miracles. And not only is there no evidence at all of these things, there is very strong evidence that the history of the world according to the Bible is just plain wrong - the fossil record. Radiometric dating which indicates a world several billion years old. These evidences from the real world invalidate the claims from the Bible. This casts doubt on the accuracy of the Bible, and when we consider that the claims regarding God show that evidences which are claimed in the Bible to exist yet do not exist, and that God has qualities which are contradictory in nature, the Bible can't be used to provide support of the existence of the Christian God. hence, I can say that the Christian God does not exist. And this is also applicable to other religions - islam, Judaism, hinduism etc... I've yet to find a religion that provides any evidence which presents a compelling case for the existence of the deities that it claims exist. When I consider this, I am forced to conclude that if a god exists, it has not interacted with the known universe in any way. And since such a god is indistinguishable from no god, then Occam's razor indicates that there is no God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Feel free to describe a religion that claims there is a God that doesn't provide any evidence of himself at all.

Having first experienced the 2.6%, it now appears that much of the remaining 87.4% is avoidance.

 

[UnTheist]

97.4%*

 

[des]

Though I am not an atheist, I see a fallacy in this argument. You are using an analogy of a scientific/mechanical device that is a. the wrong tool for the job a. even if the guy were looking for a ring say, if he didn't find the ring you could logically say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absense".

But in the case of God, I think we are dealing with something outside of science/reason. If you believe that there is a certain limit to how far outside of science/reason you can go, then I think strong atheism is quite rational and not fallacious. If you believe that there is no limit to how far outside of science/reason you can go then you might take a very legalistic pov. There are, of course, views in between, where a lot of people live (myself) included, but I don't that these people are atheists.

You could take numerous scientific metaphors and push them, say the discussion of quantum particles, but I think your analogies will always suffer when dealing with the more or less supernatural.

You could argue that atheism is a belief , I think (there are lots of quite logical beliefs) but this is a realm of debate not for DIR. But I don't think you can reasonably argue that there can be no strong atheism. I think that you my be making a statement on the nature of belief?

--des

To demonstrate how I think this is a fallacious position, I will give an analogy of a man on a beach.

A man with a metal detector is walking along a beach searching for a plastic ball buried somewhere in the sand. The man's metal detector is extremely powerful. As powerful as a metal detector may be, in fact. The man visits this beach every day with his metal detector searching for this plastic ball. He does this for 50 years and never finds it. Therefore, the man concludes, the plastic ball doesn't exist because all his exhaustive efforts to find it so far have shown no evidence of it.

However, logic would tell us that it's still possible that this plastic ball is there. Just because there's no evidence of it doesn't prove its non-existence. To assert so would be the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The best we can say about God is that we don't know. Of course, we should still go on with our lives as if there is no God. We can still disbelieve that there is one. We merely can not assert that there is no God.

 

[Tiberius]

Having first experienced the 2.6%, it now appears that much of the remaining 87.4% is avoidance.

Care to debate without ad hominims?

 

[bluestone]

If I defined a God that existed yet had no interaction with this world or any part of the universe that we have so far detected, that can't be falsified using your argument.

Your computer analogy is logically consistent because we know If A then B, A, B.

The existence of a God which neither interacts nor is detectable can't be disproven with that kind of logic.

It's ridiculous, but saying something isn't so because it's ridiculous is yet another fallacy.

Would a god that had no interaction with this universe and was not detectable be truly considered a god? It seems fairly typical of gods, if you believe in gods anyway, that they are powerful, like to be worshipped, and make themselves known. The idea of a god who has had no interaction with this universe doesn't quite fit in with what we know of gods that are worshipped here, or with what seems to make a "god."


The belief that such a god doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it where there should be is completely logical.

 

[des]

Of course, some people believe in such a god. It's (well it certainly isn't a he or she) major promoter/philosopher was Spinoza. And the god Einstein discussed was clearly a Spinoza god. It is not a Christian god, there is no worship, etc. The idea is essential that there are no need for miracles because the universe IS the miracle. I find that idea fairly attractive. But I don't think many people would.

So for discussion perhaps you would have to pretty much not include this kind of god. I have various atheist discuss Spinoza. I wouldn't say it is particularly provable. The thing you basically need to do is to establish a way that the universe gets created in the first place. Once you do that you can rule out a Spinoza god (as I think Dawkins does). I might consider his explanation equally unlikely.

But most god descriptions do require that the god(s) get something-- worship, respect, awe, fear, etc. *I* personally find the idea that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god needs anything at all from us very irrational but there you have it.


--des

Would a god that had no interaction with this universe and was not detectable be truly considered a god? It seems fairly typical of gods, if you believe in gods anyway, that they are powerful, like to be worshipped, and make themselves known. The idea of a god who has had no interaction with this universe doesn't quite fit in with what we know of gods that are worshipped here, or with what seems to make a "god."


The belief that such a god doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it where there should be is completely logical.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In hinduism (and I suppose in Buddhism also) we have an entity which makes the substrate of the universe, causes us to see as if it is acting but does not, constitutes all things (living and non-living), is the cause of space and time. It is non-sentient, does not interfere, goes with its own ways, does not have human attributes (kind, cruel, miserly, magnanimous). We do not call it God or worship it. We call it 'Brahman'.

 

[Random]

The causal link between fallacious thinking and Strong Atheism is established by a vote of two-to-one in favour as follows:

1) If Objectivism is True absolutely, then Strong Atheism is not a fallacy.

2) If Subjectivism is True absolutely, then Strong Atheism is not a fallacy but rather the result of one.

3) If neither or BOTH Objectivism and Subjectivism are True absolutely, which is the case, then Strong Atheism is not a fallacy but rather must be the result of one.

I predict no-one here is going to understand the above reasoning, with all due respect.

You must think on all levels and senses, which those who espouse the existence or non-existence of things, any-thing (including GOD), generally do not.

 

[Jistyr]

I find it impossible to disprove the existence of a God entirely.
Here is where I turn to Russell's Teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

But then there is also the fact that in some way, one will be able to find proof even for the most ridiculous things. This is the purpose of the Law of Fives from Discordianism:

ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.

[A] way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

I don't believe in God, but I think it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely because those who believe in it will find something (perhaps absurd) to prove it. And in many respsects they will be right.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't believe in God, but I think it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely because those who believe in it will find something (perhaps absurd) to prove it.

No, "it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely" because there are no scientific protocols for dealing with the supernatural. From the standpoint of science, the existence of God is simply out of scope.

 

[Prometheus]

No, "it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely" because there are no scientific protocols for dealing with the supernatural. From the standpoint of science, the existence of God is simply out of scope.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. I just don't have a great deal of articulateness.

In my original analogy, the metal detector basically represented science, logic, and all of our observational technology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't believe in God, but I think it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely because those who believe in it will find something (perhaps absurd) to prove it.

No, "it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely" because there are no scientific protocols for dealing with the supernatural. From the standpoint of science, the existence of God is simply out of scope.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. I just don't have a great deal of articulateness.

Whether one can 'prove' the absence of God(s) is a different issue than is whether or not ontological naturalism is reasonable or warranted. I believe with great legitimacy in many unprovable things.

 

[Random]

Whether one can 'prove' the absence of God(s) is a different issue than is whether or not ontological naturalism is reasonable or warranted. I believe with great legitimacy in many unprovable things.

Emphasis added.

What "things", Jay? And in what way is your belief warranted? I would be very intereted to know, thanks.