If God exists, who invented him?

SeantheMan

dclane wrote: »

Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator?

He doesn't , and humans created their own to suit themselves, and their value systems.
For me, all religion is made clear when you watch the below vid (watch fullscreen)

Peregrinus

Memnoch wrote: »

If we stick to the letter of the issue all we can say about something for which we have no conclusive evidence is that we don't know whether or not it exists.

Memnoch wrote: »

However when it comes to most imaginary creatures, like the ones I listed in my previous post, most reasonable people are happy to assume that because there is no evidence for their existence, they are works of fiction and probably do not exist. One can argue that strictly speaking this is a position of faith. But it doesn't seem unreasonable because if we spent our entire loves worrying about the existence of all manner of things for which there is no proof of their existence (since it's technically impossible to prove the non-existance of anything) we wouldn't get very far. This is also a position taken up by the religious.

I don't think you'll see religious people trying to argue for example that because there is no proof of his lack of existence Santa Claus does exist.

Nor am I seeing any religious people arguing that because there is no proof of his lack of existence god does exist. (They may argue that he exists despite lack of proof, not because of it.)

No offence, but by bracketing God with the “imaginary creatures” and arguing from that premise, are you not guilty of assuming your conclusion?

More seriously, by bracketing God with “creatures” you are, intentionally or otherwise, restating the question in the OP in terms which admit only of the answer you want. (I.e. you are assuming your conclusion.)

The god postulated by Christianity is not a creature. He is not in any meaningful sense analogous to Santa Claus or the invisible pink unicorn. He is not of the universe in a way that Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns, if they exist, are. We have no reason to think that the techniques which we use for observing the universe will be of any use at all for observing the god postulated by Christianity if, indeed, he does exist. Consequently we can draw no conclusions about his existence from our inability to observe him. It’s not just that we cannot use his untestability to disprove his existence; we cannot even use his untestability to draw inferences of any kind about the likelihood of his existence. His complete untestablity is wholly consistent with his existence. You may well point out that this is highly convenient for Christians. The obvious riposte is that it is highly inconvenient for atheists, but that’s not really an argument against it.

Arguing that god does not exist, or probably does not exist, or is less likely to exist, because we cannot observe him is a fundamental category error.

It seems to me that god’s untestability raises other problems. If god is so wholly “other” from us, does it matter whether he exists or not? Why should we care? Is there any value in our reflecting on the question? Etc, etc. But those are arguments that interest Deists or agnostics more than atheists, I think.

philologos

SeantheMan wrote: »

He doesn't , and humans created their own to suit themselves, and their value systems.
For me, all religion is made clear when you watch the below vid (watch fullscreen)

As far as I'm concerned this is a sheer display of God's majesty. It's a rather poor argument against Christianity as I would see it. The fact that God can create such a vast universe and yet consider our ways is just that amazing.

This is probably one of the poorer arguments I've seen from atheists.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the decision to be an atheist is much more about a dislike of Christianity or the Christianity that many Christians have presented above and beyond rational reasons.

I've certainly never met any atheist who dislikes religion and then manages to convince themselves that the deity doesn't exist so that they can "justify" their dislike. Atheists and other fact-based people don't tend to redefine reality based upon their likes and dislikes. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Though I do completely accept that with religion, something analogous does happen -- people think that the religion explains something, then go on to convince themselves that whatever deity the religion describes actually does exist.

No, Jakkass, with atheists, disbelief in one or more deity figures is what defines atheism. And it's usually quite independent of dislike of the religion and the terrible effects it has upon people and society.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would be surprised if any poll suggested otherwise.

Well, put it to the poll and find out!

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the decision to be an atheist is much more about a dislike of Christianity or the Christianity that many Christians have presented above and beyond rational reasons. I would be surprised if any poll suggested otherwise.

J you are surely clever enough to realise there is more than one theistic religion in the world. Atheism may sometimes be in reaction to "oh I hate that church" which is frankly silly, but to claim that atheism in general is based on a dislike of your particular religion is so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

The amount of theists that claim atheists are just disliking god or denying their true inner belief is just daft. They don't believe a god exists. That's it. It's a simple as that. It's not couched in self-denial just because you personally don't agree with them.

What people feel isn't the best way of determining what is true.

:rolleyes: Indeed

Peregrinus

bluewolf wrote: »

J you are surely clever enough to realise there is more than one theistic religion in the world. Atheism may sometimes be in reaction to "oh I hate that church" which is frankly silly, but to claim that atheism in general is based on a dislike of your particular religion is so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

And yet . . .

While there are many theistic religions in the world, most of us are exposed only to one or two, and this does tend to shape our views and our understanding. For believers, of course, the result is that most end up the faith they are raised in, or one closely related to it. For nonbelievers, this seems to me to manifest itself in their thinking about religion being highly coloured by the particular religion they have been exposed to. I can’t count the number of posts I’ve seen on this board in which people make broad statements about religion which are clearly generalizations of an observation of Christianity, or even of some particular flavour of Christianity.

Robindch makes the point above that he’s “never met any atheist who dislikes religion and then manages to convince themselves that the deity doesn't exist so that they can "justify" their dislike”. Fair enough. But I’ve met a great many atheists whose own account of their atheism starts with their dislike of, unhappy experience with, alienation from religion. And that, of course, is always rooted in an experience with some particular manifestation of religion.

I don’t think you can assert that atheism in general is based on someone’s dislike of their particular religion. But I do think you can say that it frequently starts from that, and is frequently shaped by it.

Hell, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that people’s understanding not just of others’ religion but of their own atheism is frequently influenced by religious perspectives. There’s a debate going on in another thread about the atheism and agnosticism and the proper line to be drawn between them, and the significance of belief - in particular, the significance of believing that there is no god, versus not believing that there is a god. This emphasis on the centrality of belief to one’s situation and identity reflects a philosophical stance which goes back, I think, to the Protestant reformation i.e. people are arguing for a characteristically Protestant notion of atheism. And this in turn is because in the English-speaking world atheism emerges from a historically Protestant culture.

And this is also manifested in the census discussions, where some atheists argue strenuously that people who do not believe what the Catholic church teaches should not identify as Catholic. What we see here is atheists arguing that Catholics should self-identify through a Protestant paradigm. Ironic, no?

Just because someone abjures religion doesn’t mean that his thinking is not profoundly influenced by religion.

burrentech

Religion is the creation of Man. Any Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc. God is created.

The true God is within YOU, not within a building where a man (or woman) preaches about what God is, and how you should behave to please their concept of God.

Only You can decide how to please your God, as he is indeed, Your God; not a Corporate God.

All religions are the same. They profit from your hopes and fears. Mostly they profit from your fears. There is no money in your hopes.

Waking-Dreams

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hell, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that people’s understanding not just of others’ religion but of their own atheism is frequently influenced by religious perspectives.

Well, yeah, that does tend to be the case when most atheists are former believers because it was taught to them from birth. When you are told, from a young age, that this is how the world works (according to whatever religion it is) you are obviously going to be influenced by that religious perspective when it comes time to question the whole thing and “unlearn” that which was thrust upon you.

Did you ever wonder though why it is more common for people to defect from their religion instead of being ‘born again’ and turning from a non-believer into a devout follower or whatnot?

Peregrinus

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Did you ever wonder though why it is more common for people to defect from their religion instead of being ‘born again’ and turning from a non-believer into a devout follower or whatnot?

Is it more common? I don't know. We have some data on the numbers of people who reject a religious identification, but I don't think we have any comparable data on the numbers of people who question their religious identification and then reaffirm it, or who intensify an existing religious identification. Nor, I think, do we have any data - at least, from the census - on the numbers of people who exchange one religious identification for another.

And, if it is more common, I'm not sure what conclusion I'd draw from that, or what conclusion you might be inviting me to draw. That if more people reject religion than reaffirm it, this gives their position some objective validity? Nah, I'm not seeing that.

Waking-Dreams

No, no, the numbers of anything doesn’t necessarily grant a position objective validity (approx. 124million Americans think creationism is true – would you say that number adds weight to the position?). I was just responding to your point about atheism being frequently influenced by religious perspectives and why that is (because of the ‘indoctrination’ of young minds).

The comparison is between: people who are raised in a particular faith and later defect…

and

A born atheist (which technically we all are), who is given no religious education or taught any specific edicts becoming religious later in their life when they discover it for themselves as a young adult.

seyeM

The rational and logical mind seeks evidence to believe ideas. The argument of the possibility of the existence some all powerful creator that pre-dates the universe and its laws... it's an arbitrary scenario created by a human mind.
There has been no compelling evidence offered to give us reason to believe it. Unexplained phenomena should not be claimed as proof of a God either; they are simply occurrences that are not yet understood.
This leads to the question why do so many people buy into these ideas that are without reasonable evidence? Herd mentality? Fear of death? Raised into x/y/z religion from birth?

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

The god postulated by Christianity is not a creature. He is not in any meaningful sense analogous to Santa Claus or the invisible pink unicorn. He is not of the universe in a way that Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns, if they exist, are.

How dare you! I mean just how dare you! :mad:

Everyone knows that the invisible pink unicorn is an interdimensional being who came from a different universe to spread joy and love.

By comparing him to Santa Clause you just show the bankrupt nature of your argument, completely miss understanding what Unicornists claim about the most holy unicorn.




... see how silly that type of argument is :pac:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Consequently we can draw no conclusions about his existence from our inability to observe him.

Umm, I wonder how many theists would agree with that? :pac:

This is a good example of what people were saying to Jimitime. This "God is not testable/understandable" argument is only pulled out to counter arguments against his existence.

It is never used by theists to actually say "Well actually I can't know what I think I know about God so I'm going to stop believing it"

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not just that we cannot use his untestability to disprove his existence; we cannot even use his untestability to draw inferences of any kind about the likelihood of his existence. His complete untestablity is wholly consistent with his existence. You may well point out that this is highly convenient for Christians. The obvious riposte is that it is highly inconvenient for atheists, but that’s not really an argument against it.

But thats the thing. It isn't convenient for Christians at all, since by the same logic you are using Christians shouldn't be able to say anything about God with any confidence, and thus should relegate God to just another possible thing that might exist but that we can never demonstrate does, along with Santa Clause and invisible pink unicorns from another dimension.

Some what unsurprisingly Christians don't do this.

The God is untestable argument is only ever used to shoot down any argument against God. It is not deployed, as it rightly should be, to shoot down arguments for God or belief in God.

I put this down to a lot of theists not really understanding their own argument or the ramifications of it.

This is why atheists find this type of arguing frustrating as it is unjustifiably one sided, like a Creationist attacking flaws in evolution but then refusing to use the same attacks against Creationist claims, happily ignore the problems with Creationism that they just attacked when found in evolution.

Most atheists on this forum would say that their atheism is not a positive statement about the non-existence of gods, but rather a negative statement about the claims of theists. The notions of gods after all are only found in the claims of the believers, they are not found in the natural world to be tested or observed. Theists cannot know what they claim to know, cannot justify what they claim to justify. It is a rejection of theist claims as fiction that justifies most atheists. It is possible, though very unlikely (see below) that theists just happened to randomly make up something that matches something that actually exists, but this is so unlikely to hardly bare considering.

Theists get frustratingly close to actually understanding how their own beliefs are not justified when they use the logic above, but fail to go the final step in realizing because of this they really have no reason for believing what they believe.

Atheists like myself propose that this is where emotion and cognitive compartmentalization comes into play, similar to how a theist can see the ridiculousness of other religions but fail to see the same in their own religion (or again the Creationism example above)

Peregrinus wrote: »

Arguing that god does not exist, or probably does not exist, or is less likely to exist, because we cannot observe him is a fundamental category error.

Not really. The things that don't but could exist is a much larger set than the things that do exist.

God has equal likelihood among those imaginary things of existing, but each one of those imaginary things do not have the same likelihood of existing as things that have versions that already do exist.

Or to put it another way, the odds of something we make up actually existing are low compared to the odds of something we don't make up existing. They increase the more that this thing we imagine is based on things that actually exist.

If you are looking at a closed door the odds that there is a horse being that door are far greater than the odds that there is a unicorn behind the door. You can't prove a unicorn won't be there when you open the door. But it would be foolish to think he will.

If God is unobservable then no notion we have of him is based on anything that already exists. Therefore they are all imaginary and he is less likely to exist than things that do exist. He is the unicorn behind the door. He may exist, but if he does it is because of a cosmic fluke that humans just happened to imagine a being that actually does exist.

This is why increasingly people prefer the natural explanation of religion based on mental and cognitive quirks in our brain, since we already know our brian exists and produces quirks. This explanation produces a more plausible explanation for religion than the existence of a deity.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

J you are surely clever enough to realise there is more than one theistic religion in the world. Atheism may sometimes be in reaction to "oh I hate that church" which is frankly silly, but to claim that atheism in general is based on a dislike of your particular religion is so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

I'd suspect if one took a poll in general society with no knowledge of what may be expected from it (which is why I won't do it here now that you know the expectation) that it would fall largely to a dislike of religions rather than intellectual disagreement.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd suspect if one took a poll in general society with no knowledge of what may be expected from it (which is why I won't do it here now that you know the expectation) that it would fall largely to a dislike of religions rather than intellectual disagreement.

I would also suspect that few of those people would identifiy themselves as atheists.

Heck when the RCC scandal was going on people wouldn't even leave the Catholic Church to go join another Christian church. They still boycotted mass and protested the Pope.

I would agree with Peregrinus that dislike of religion can lead someone to atheism, but I would also agree with Robin I know no atheists who I would say still believe in the existence of the Christian God but are just disgusted by the behavior of religious people so claim to be atheists. That would not seem to be the way it works.

Memnoch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nor am I seeing any religious people arguing that because there is no proof of his lack of existence god does exist. (They may argue that he exists despite lack of proof, not because of it.)

I don't get the significance of this point. How could you argue that something exists BECAUSE there is no proof, surely that would be purile. What the religious are arguing is that proof of existence should not be a factor in deciding whether or not believing the existence of something is credible. Which is bad enough, but worse is that if you actually say that you don't think something exists because there isn't any proof that it does, that this then becomes a leap of faith... I don't see the logic in that, I really don't.

Since when do I require faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no proof?

No offence, but by bracketing God with the “imaginary creatures” and arguing from that premise, are you not guilty of assuming your conclusion?

I'm not bracketing anything. I'm making the argument and taking the position that belief in God is no different from belief in an invisible pink unicorn in any way that matters.

If this is unsettling for you or the religious then that's not my problem.

What makes one imaginary creation different from another. Please explain to me how God is different?

More seriously, by bracketing God with “creatures” you are, intentionally or otherwise, restating the question in the OP in terms which admit only of the answer you want. (I.e. you are assuming your conclusion.)

And you are building a strawman, saying I made an arguement I didn't make. I make no distinctions between ideas of creatures/beings that have no proof of their existence.

If anyone is assuming their conclusion it is the religious who are giving 'God,' special status for no other reason than their NEED to believe.

The god postulated by Christianity is not a creature. He is not in any meaningful sense analogous to Santa Claus or the invisible pink unicorn. He is not of the universe in a way that Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns, if they exist, are. We have no reason to think that the techniques which we use for observing the universe will be of any use at all for observing the god postulated by Christianity if, indeed, he does exist. Consequently we can draw no conclusions about his existence from our inability to observe him.

And please tell me what makes the rest of the 'imaginary,' creatures immune to this argument? As wicknight has pointed out already.

Personally, if the religous were to say, we can't reliably know that god exists or not, that would be honest enough for me. But they say that God definitely exists.

It’s not just that we cannot use his untestability to disprove his existence; we cannot even use his untestability to draw inferences of any kind about the likelihood of his existence. His complete untestablity is wholly consistent with his existence. You may well point out that this is highly convenient for Christians. The obvious riposte is that it is highly inconvenient for atheists, but that’s not really an argument against it.

Nonsense. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. This whole, God is untestable nonsense is just another add on by people who want to avoid facing any scrutiny of their delusional beliefs.

The invisible pink unicorn is untestable and you must pray to it or all your children will be born with horns in their rectums.

Arguing that god does not exist, or probably does not exist, or is less likely to exist, because we cannot observe him is a fundamental category error.

This argument is a fundamental category error and made up bull**** to avoid the simple fact that when it comes to logic the religious argument has been trounced.

It seems to me that god’s untestability raises other problems. If god is so wholly “other” from us, does it matter whether he exists or not? Why should we care? Is there any value in our reflecting on the question? Etc, etc. But those are arguments that interest Deists or agnostics more than atheists, I think.

Frankly, I find your argument on this issue to be entirely arbitrary as you are creating rules to suit what you want to say while accusing others of doing the same.

Standards of proof of existence, of knowing things, aren't ideas that atheists pick out of thin air. These are tried and tested methods that WORK. To say that we should make a special exception for 'God,' because you or anyone else says so holds no water at all with me.

God is untestable but the invisible pink unicorn is not. Because you say so. And you're basis for this is?

DaDartle

Primum movens

Prime Mover

The First Cause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If God is unobservable then no notion we have of him is based on anything that already exists. Therefore they are all imaginary and he is less likely to exist than things that do exist. He is the unicorn behind the door. He may exist, but if he does it is because of a cosmic fluke that humans just happened to imagine a being that actually does exist.

HMS Philosophical Empirisicm sails on. A listing, creaking shell of a vessel perhaps. In need of constant bailing out by way of endless repetition (it is so, it is so, it is so) - definitely.

But a game old girl for all that...

oldrnwisr

DaDartle wrote: »

Primum movens

Prime Mover

The First Cause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens

Your point being ...?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

HMS Philosophical Empirisicm sails on. A listing, creaking shell of a vessel perhaps. In need of constant bailing out by way of endless repetition (it is so, it is so, it is so) - definitely.

We already discussed your argument of endless repetition with you and found it was deeply flawed, remember 1st tier questions and 2nd tier questions. You simply left the discussion.

So I think it is more that your notion that you assume you see God with a sense you assume God turned on for you and this is as valid as any other assumption anyone has ever made, is the philosophical idea that requires constant bailing out

Seanachai

If you want to embark on a journey to understand god\infinity\spirit maybe one could ingest some tried and tested organic plants or extracts of said plants as countless shaman and medicine people men have done since man became what you could call a man ( not advocating the use of illegal substances ). Or try techniques such as fasting and the sweat lodge. Trying to comprehend something or a phenomenon that is infinite with your everyday tunnel vision mind will only leave you with at best a headache or at worst some form of mental illness imo.


www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/

Dave!

Seanachai wrote: »

If you want to embark on a journey to understand god\infinity\spirit maybe one could ingest some tried and tested organic plants or extracts of said plants as countless shaman and medicine people men have done since man became what you could call a man ( not advocating the use of illegal substances ). Or try techniques such as fasting and the sweat lodge. Trying to comprehend something or a phenomenon that is infinite with your everyday tunnel vision mind will only leave you with at best a headache or at worst some form of mental illness imo.


www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/

Using drugs to help with philosophizing can lead you to believe wishy-washy bullsh*t like what Bill Hicks often came out with:

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

Joe Rogan too

Sober, rational thought FTW

Zombrex

Sums it up really

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtdoEN90eG8

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

We already discussed your argument of endless repetition with you and found it was deeply flawed, remember 1st tier questions and 2nd tier questions. You simply left the discussion.

Iirc, that was because we got into an endless regression where this > that > this > that > this > that > this > that ... and the conclusion: that we all operate according to "what feels right and good to me" at root applies to both you and me was avoided.

There's only so long you can go in circles on a topic before tiring.

So I think it is more that your notion that you assume you see God with a sense you assume God turned on for you and this is as valid as any other assumption anyone has ever made, is the philosophical idea that requires constant bailing out

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Iirc, that was because we got into an endless regression where this > that > this > that > this > that > this > that ... and the conclusion: that we all operate according to "what feels right and good to me" at root applies to both you and me was avoided.

There's only so long you can go in circles on a topic before tiring.

Fair enough. From where I was sitting we had finally got you to admit that God's existence is a 2nd tier question and thus an assumption one way or the other cannot be justified by simply appealing to the assumptions we all make about 1st tier questions.

But that's just me

As Dara O'Brien would say, "Get in the ****ing sack"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

HMS Philosophical Empirisicm sails on.

How do you know it does? Are you accepting the fallible evidence of your eyes? Or are you producing a conclusion based upon faulty (human) logic, using the empirically-dubious hardware of your brain?

Either way, I don't think you're in any position to say where HMS PE is, or could be, or whether it even exists in the first place. Even as a metaphor turned into reality.

rockbeer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Iirc, that was because we got into an endless regression where this > that > this > that > this > that > this > that ... and the conclusion: that we all operate according to "what feels right and good to me" at root applies to both you and me was avoided.

There's only so long you can go in circles on a topic before tiring.

But that isn't what happened, is it? You abandoned the discussion when faced with the fact that some of us make minimal, working tier 1 assumptions, which are open to constant questioning re-evaluation and adjustment on the basis of incremental evidence while you make huge, all-encompassing tier 1 assumptions which you feel no need to question, regardless of the evidence, simply because they 'feel right to you'.

The two positions, no matter how often you claim the contrary, are not analogous.

It was only an 'endless regression' to the extent that you refused to acknowledge the truth of the situation.

Peregrinus

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm not bracketing anything. I'm making the argument and taking the position that belief in God is no different from belief in an invisible pink unicorn in any way that matters.

If this is unsettling for you or the religious then that's not my problem.

What makes one imaginary creation different from another. Please explain to me how God is different?

The problem is, memnoch, that you are both making the argument and taking the position that belief in God is no different from belief in an invisible pink unicorn in any way that matters, and you are not making the distinction between those two things that you need to make. Your argument starts by describing god as an imaginary creature, and that completely undermines your attempts to argue that he is an imaginsry creature.

Of course if God is an imaginary creature then he is no different from any other imaginary creature. How is God different? Well, the God postulated by Christianity is neither imaginary nor a creature, so he is about as different from imaginary creatures as it is possible to be. And an argument whose starting point is that God is an imaginary creature can do nothing to establish that God is an imaginary creature. Starting from the point that you are trying to argue towards is a fundamental logical fallacy; it’s called “assuming the conclusion”.

Christianity postulates a God who is neither imaginary nor a creature. You don’t have to accept the postulate, but you are not arguing against it - you are not addressing it at all - when you say things like “what makes one imaginary creature different from another?” Far from being a devastating demolition of the Christian position, all this kind of argument does is to suggest that you haven’t understood the Christian position.

The argument which you need to advance is not that, because God is an imaginary creature, he shares the characteristic of all imaginary creatures of not existing. The argument which you need to advance is that a God who is not an imaginary creature either cannot or does not exist.

Memnoch wrote: »

And please tell me what makes the rest of the 'imaginary,' creatures immune to this argument? As wicknight has pointed out already.

If there are people who are postulating invisible pink unicorns that cannot be perceived, then indeed you cannot refute the postulate by pointing to their imperceptibility.

But this is not the devastating critique that you and Wicknight seem to think.

You came this close to understanding your mistake when you wrote:

“I don't think you'll see religious people trying to argue for example that because there is no proof of his lack of existence Santa Claus does exist.”

No. They don’t make that argument. Nor do they argue that God exists because there is no proof of his lack of existence - a point which you have since conceded. But if Christians don’t make such an argument, then what were you trying to say with your Santa Claus comment?

Your Santa Claus comment, and the tired old invisible pink unicorn that Wicknight trots out, are both attacking a straw man. Nobody is genuinely arguing that we should believe in invisible pink unicorns because of their untestability. But, if you can find a Christian who argues that we should believe in God because of his untestability, now would be a really good time to point to him.

The point about untestability is not that it validates Christian faith. It doesn’t, and at no point have I suggested that it does. You could accept everything I am saying here, everything I have said in this thread, and still declare yourself an atheist, and I would acknowledge that you were being perfectly consistent.

No. The point about untestability is the light that it casts on certain atheist positions.

Health warning: It’s always dangerous, and mostly wrong, to make generalizations about atheism. As has been pointed out more than once, atheism is characterised by a lack of something - usually, a lack of belief in the existence of god. As we know, people argue about exactly what is lacking, but the point is that it’s a characterization defined by the absence of something.

Right. So we can make general statements about what atheists don’t believe with some degree of confidence, but we cannot really make general statements about what atheists do believe.

But, with that caveat in mind, we can look at particular atheist perspectives, bearing in mind that they are not shared by all who call themselves atheist.

One such perspective is to explain a lack of belief in God - or to deride the belief of others God, as the IPU and “imaginary creature” arguments seeks to do - by reference to the complete absence of empirical evidence for God’s existence.

What this shows is one of two things:

First, the atheists concerned haven’t understood the theist position. They do not understand that, if the postulated god exists, he would be untestable. The lack of empirical evidence might tend to refute rival conceptions of a testable god, but it is wholly consistent with the conception of an untestable god.

(And - no offence - when the argument is deployed by someone describing god as a “creature”, you can’t avoid the tiniest suspicion that this person may not have fully grasped the position he is attacking. Pretty much the first thing that Christians will affirm about God is that he is not a creature. You don’t have to accept that as true, but if you want to attack Christian beliefs about God you really have to address the Christian conception of God, and not some other conception chosen because it is easier to attack.)

The second possibility is that the atheists concerned are operating off an unstated premise, which is that nothing untestable really exists, or that only the material really exists, or [you can state this a number of ways].

And - again, no offence - the suspicion that cannot but cross my base and unworthy mind is that the reason this premise goes unstated and unacknowledged might be because it is itself untested and untestable. There is no evidence for it. Nor could there be. It is not a scientific proposition. And an atheist who derides others for accepting as true an untested and untestable proposition (“God exists”) might be reluctant to admit, even to himself, that he accepts as true, and reasons from, and selects his beliefs on the basis of, an untested and untestable proposition (“only testable things exist”).

This does not prove that theism is “correct” or “true”, or that atheism is not. At most, it only suggests that a particular critique of theism, one which not all atheists would necessarily advance, is somewhat self-refuting.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your argument starts by describing god as an imaginary creature, and that completely undermines your attempts to argue that he is an imaginsry creature.

You seem to be assuming that imaginary means doesn't exist. It doesn't, it means imagined. He could exist, but it is unlikely. That is the point of Santa Claus. Santa Claus was imagined by humans. This isn't an argument that he doesn't actually exist, but if he does actually exist it is a cosmic fluke, humans accidently imagined a being that does actually exist.

You need to separate the two concepts here, the actual thing (being, creature, deity, what ever) and the human concept of that thing. The two are very different in terms of epistemology. For example I could imagine a man in Brazil called Alfredo. Now at the same time there could be an actual man in Brazil called Alfredo. Does that mean I have accurately described the Alfredo in Brazil? No it doesn't. My imagined person happens to match up with a real person, but that is not the same as me describing the real Alfredo. To describe the real Alfredo I would require some sort of access to him in order for me to form a mental notion based on reality rather than based on imaginary. This again does not mean Alfredo doesn't exist, it means there is a disconnect between my imagined notion of Alfredo and the real Alfredo. Christians have an imagined notion of God, and this is true irrespective of whether that imagined notion, by coincidence, is inline with a real deity.

Saying that Christians don't propose God is imaginary is irrelevant. Something is not imaginary because it is proposed as such, it is imaginary if it is imagined. As we have already established that God is untestable and unobservable then it is pretty easy to claim he is imaginary. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it makes it less likely as the set of possible imaginary beings is far greater than the set of things that actually exist.

Your objection to "creature" is even less relevant as "creature" is being used in the same sense as "being", and I would be happy to swap the two around.

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, the atheists concerned haven’t understood the theist position. They do not understand that, if the postulated god exists, he would be untestable.

I think atheists understand that more than theists. Theists propose this but then contradict themselves by listing off all the things the "know" about God, thus demonstrating they don't understand the ramifications of God being untestable.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty much the first thing that Christians will affirm about God is that he is not a creature.

"Being" if you prepare.

Though to be honest with you I've yet to meet a theist who can actually define what God is without resulting to meaningless generalizations (God is EVERYTHING, man! God is LOVE, man!) so really you can't blame atheists for attempting to tie down a discussion about God to something tangible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don’t have to accept that as true, but if you want to attack Christian beliefs about God you really have to address the Christian conception of God, and not some other conception chosen because it is easier to attack.)

If you think the point hinges on the term "creature" you aren't understanding what is being attacked.

The point hinges on the odds that something we happen to imagine exists (be it a creature, person, rock, transcendent creator of the universe) actually existing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The second possibility is that the atheists concerned are operating off an unstated premise, which is that nothing untestable really exists, or that only the material really exists, or [you can state this a number of ways].

Whether something really exists or not is irrelevant to use if we have no method to determine it does. We could all be brains in jars, but such imaginings have no meaning as they are untestable.

The human imagination is full of possibilities that could, though probably don't exist. Sorting fact from fiction is the important bit, not supposing without justification that any particular imagined thing may exist as each is as likely or unlikely to actually exist and thus the excerise has no meaning.

Or to put it another way, is there any reason to suppose that God exists as opposed to anything else I could imagine could exist?

If not then what is the purpose of supposing God exists?

Peregrinus

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that imaginary means doesn't exist. It doesn't, it means imagined. He could exist, but it is unlikely. That is the point of Santa Claus. Santa Claus was imagined by humans. This isn't an argument that he doesn't actually exist, but if he does actually exist it is a cosmic fluke, humans accidently imagined a being that does actually exist.

I have to admit that I did assume that “imaginary” means “doesn’t exist”. In my defence, my dictionary confirms that this is, indeed, the primary meaning (“existing only in the imagination; not real or actual”). And the meaning that you suggest (“supposed; putative”) is marked as rare, only used in the mid-17th century. So if I have misunderstood your meaning, it's not entirely my fault.

Wicknight wrote: »

You need to separate the two concepts here, the actual thing (being, creature, deity, what ever) and the human concept of that thing. The two are very different in terms of epistemology . . . . For example I could imagine a man in Brazil called Alfredo. Now at the same time there could be an actual man in Brazil called Alfredo. Does that mean I have accurately described the Alfredo in Brazil? No it doesn't. My imagined person happens to match up with a real person, but that is not the same as me describing the real Alfredo. To describe the real Alfredo I would require some sort of access to him in order for me to form a mental notion based on reality rather than based on imaginary. This again does not mean Alfredo doesn't exist, it means there is a disconnect between my imagined notion of Alfredo and the real Alfredo. Christians have an imagined notion of God, and this is true irrespective of whether that imagined notion, by coincidence, is inline with a real deity.

Fair enough. And, interestingly, Christian theology makes exactly the same point. Precisely because God (if he exists) is outside our experience or understanding, everything we can say of him is provisional, tentative. In fact, Aquinas insists, we have no language apt to talk about God; everything we can say of him can be true only in an analogical sense (including the statement “God exists”). Thus when you point out that God is “imaginary” in the sense you explain, you’re not saying anything that the Christian tradition hasn’t already acknowledged and reflected on.

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying that Christians don't propose God is imaginary is irrelevant. Something is not imaginary because it is proposed as such, it is imaginary if it is imagined. As we have already established that God is untestable and unobservable then it is pretty easy to claim he is imaginary. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it makes it less likely as the set of possible imaginary beings is far greater than the set of things that actually exist.

On the other hand, every member of the set of things that do exist is also a member of the set of things that we can and do imagine. Consequently, being imaginary (in the sense you use the word) is a universal characteristic of all existing things. Hence his being imaginary doesn’t really tell against the possibility of God’s existence, except in the sense that it also tells against the possibility of the existence of, say, the chair on which I am now sitting.

“Imaginary”, even in the sense that you use it here, is I think a red herring. Your objection to God’s existence isn’t really rooted in the fact that we can imagine him; it’s rooted in the fact that we can’t perceive him, isn’t it?

Wicknight wrote: »

Your objection to "creature" is even less relevant as "creature" is being used in the same sense as "being", and I would be happy to swap the two around.

I’m happy for you to swap the two around, and I think doing so will resolve a misunderstanding.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think atheists understand that more than theists. Theists propose this but then contradict themselves by listing off all the things the "know" about God, thus demonstrating they don't understand the ramifications of God being untestable.

Granted, but only subject to the same qualification that I mentioned earlier about atheists – i.e. your statement is true only of some theists. Furthermore I think you have to allow theists to use the word “know” in a specialist, qualified sense (given that you assert that right for yourself in relation to the word “imaginary” in such a way). But I agree with you that we cannot “know” things about God in the sense that we can “know”, for instance, that gravitational attraction between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Though to be honest with you I've yet to meet a theist who can actually define what God is without resulting to meaningless generalizations (God is EVERYTHING, man! God is LOVE, man!) so really you can't blame atheists for attempting to tie down a discussion about God to something tangible.

I certainly can’t blame atheists for wanting to tied down discussion about God to something tangible. (Nor can I blame theists for wanting that.) But I do blame atheists – well, “blame” might be too strong a word – for not acknowledging that they mustn’t. The God that Christianity proposes is intangible. If they attempt to tie him down to something tangible they cannot, with integrity, thereafter claim that they are addressing the propositions of Christianity

Wicknight wrote: »

The point hinges on the odds that something we happen to imagine exists (be it a creature, person, rock, transcendent creator of the universe) actually existing.

Yes. But as I pointed out earlier the fact that it’s “imaginary” doesn’t tell us anything about the odds of its existing. Everything that exists is imaginary. And the fact that it is imperceptible doesn’t tell us anything either, given that it is postulated to be imperceptible. The fact that it’s imperceptible is relevant only if you adopt an axiom that everything which exists is perceptible. Which, I suspect, a fair number of atheists do.

Wicknight wrote: »

Whether something really exists or not is irrelevant to use if we have no method to determine it does. We could all be brains in jars, but such imaginings have no meaning as they are untestable.

That’s an entirely different point, though. You are arguing now not that God doesn’t exist, but that it doesn’t matter to us whether he exists or not. Which, as I have previously acknowledged in this thread, is to my mind a more serious argument (i.e. it’s a greater challenge to theists, or those of them who argue that God does matter).

Wicknight wrote: »

Or to put it another way, is there any reason to suppose that God exists as opposed to anything else I could imagine could exist?

There is no empirical reason.

Wicknight wrote: »

If not then what is the purpose of supposing God exists?

An excellent question, and one which probably requires a separate thread. I think, for every believer, his reasons for belief will be personal (as will every atheist’s reasons for unbelief).

I don’t think an atheist/agnostic forum is the proper place for “witnessing”, so I don’t want to go into details about my own reasons for belief, or the experiences which shaped those reasons. But I will say this; I think my belief is based at least in part on the fact that theist propositions provide a foundation for meaning and significance, and I prefer to live in a world with meaning and significance than in one without. It provides existence with a coherence and a dimension which it would otherwise lack.

I freely accept that those reasons are entirely personal, and based on subjective preferences, which need not be shared by you or anyone else. I also accept that others derive all the meaning and significance they want or need from non-theist beliefs. Still, that’s the best (short) account I can give of why I am drawn to belief.

The lack of empirical evidence is not an obstacle to me, since I am not particularly drawn to the axiom that only empirically verifiable things can be real, though I think I understand why others might be.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to admit that I did assume that “imaginary” means “doesn’t exist”. In my defence, my dictionary confirms that this is, indeed, the primary meaning (“existing only in the imagination; not real or actual”). And the meaning that you suggest (“supposed; putative”) is marked as rare, only used in the mid-17th century. So if I have misunderstood your meaning, it's not entirely my fault.

In these sort of examples I always just read it as imaginable, rather than imaginary, thus making the argument "god is imaginable (ie its possible to make up an idea of god- just see any other religion), the concept has no more evidence than any imagined concept (eg santa claus, lord of the rings etc) therefore it is about as likely to exist".

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, every member of the set of things that do exist is also a member of the set of things that we can and do imagine. Consequently, being imaginary (in the sense you use the word) is a universal characteristic of all existing things. Hence his being imaginary doesn’t really tell against the possibility of God’s existence, except in the sense that it also tells against the possibility of the existence of, say, the chair on which I am now sitting.

“Imaginary”, even in the sense that you use it here, is I think a red herring. Your objection to God’s existence isn’t really rooted in the fact that we can imagine him; it’s rooted in the fact that we can’t perceive him, isn’t it?

Unless you are arguing that the set of things that do exist is roughly half the size of the set of things we are capable of imagining, I think this logic is flawed. We are capable of making up a far greater number of ideas than there are actually existing things, every time someone day dreams they are making up something that doesn't exist.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I certainly can’t blame atheists for wanting to tied down discussion about God to something tangible. (Nor can I blame theists for wanting that.) But I do blame atheists – well, “blame” might be too strong a word – for not acknowledging that they mustn’t. The God that Christianity proposes is intangible. If they attempt to tie him down to something tangible they cannot, with integrity, thereafter claim that they are addressing the propositions of Christianity

I wonder if tangible is not exactly the right word here. I think that "set entity" might be better. I'm not bothered either way whether god is supposed to be tangible or not, but its irritating when theists of supposedly the same religious beliefs come out with wildly different ideas of what god is, usually attributing something to god that can be more sensibly attributed to something else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But as I pointed out earlier the fact that it’s “imaginary” doesn’t tell us anything about the odds of its existing.

Of course it does, if all you have is that it is imagined then the likelyhood of it existing is going to be tiny. Otherwise you would have to argue that the likelyhood of any book, tv show or movie being actually real is 50:50.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Everything that exists is imaginary.

Wrong in two ways. Firstly your implication that the reverse logical statement is of reasonable possibility is just ludicrous. Secondly, it assumes that we have imagined everything that exists and given the size and age of the universe the possibility of something existence that we have no comprehension of is quite high (changing imaginary to imaginable might avoid this second problem, but the first is still there).

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the fact that it is imperceptible doesn’t tell us anything either, given that it is postulated to be imperceptible. The fact that it’s imperceptible is relevant only if you adopt an axiom that everything which exists is perceptible. Which, I suspect, a fair number of atheists do.

If something isn't in any way perceptible then it is indistinguishable from something that just doesn't exist and therefore it makes no sense (and wont benefits our attempts to understand reality) to assume it does.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s an entirely different point, though. You are arguing now not that God doesn’t exist, but that it doesn’t matter to us whether he exists or not.

Wicknight said that it doesn't matter if we have no way to tell whether or not god exists, which I think is a key point and shouldn't be left out as it ties in with the previous part on how you think atheists approach god and its perceptibility.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t think an atheist/agnostic forum is the proper place for “witnessing”, so I don’t want to go into details about my own reasons for belief, or the experiences which shaped those reasons.

Why not? Afraid of getting a contradictory statement thrown your way? Just too close minded?

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I will say this; I think my belief is based at least in part on the fact that theist propositions provide a foundation for meaning and significance, and I prefer to live in a world with meaning and significance than in one without. It provides existence with a coherence and a dimension which it would otherwise lack.

I'm sure that a lot of theists from contradictory religious beliefs would agree that there beliefs come from the same reasons. Of course thats what happens with wish washy self aggrandising nonsense, it can be used to justify a vast array of contradictory waffle.