Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

Even without fossils, evolution is a better explanation for the diversity of living things and the genetic links between them than a god.

How is it "better," except that you consider it aesthetically more pleasing to you?

Well, where two or more hypotheses are empirically equivalent, there is no need to choose between them, but doing so is an aesthetic choice.

I doesn't account for more. It doesn't even account for nearly as much.

Well, that's the thing; evolution and god are not empirically equivalent, because they simply do not make the same sort of claims So, for example, on being shown a flower that would require a creature with a 12 inch tongue to reach the nectar, Charles Darwin predicted that such a creature must exist. And he was right. Evolution predicts antibiotic resistance, and that is what is happening. Christianity predicts that when we die, we shall be judged, or if not then, at the day of judgement. As of yet, there is no data to support either prediction.

But it's also irrelevant to the present question. You could be a Theistic Evolutionist. Why, then, do you choose to be an Atheist?

I am an atheist because I am not a theist.

An interestingly evasive response.

I suspect you don't know nearly as much about interesting as you'd like me to suppose you do. Nor meaning: look up atheist.

I suspect you don't know nearly as much about the fossil record as you'd like me to suppose you do. But it's irrelevant again: you could choose to be a Theistic Evolutionist, go with whatever you think the fossil record to show, and keep all your whole faith in that theory. So why is it you're opting for Atheism instead...

Ah well; this will soon all be over, some evidence for a merciful god, perhaps. But once more for old times sake: I am not what you call an "Atheist", I'm just your regular not theist atheist. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend there are sound arguments or compelling evidence that demonstrate the existance of a god. It is an hypothesis I am happy to entertain, but I don't believe it.

...since Atheism can't even suggest any answer to why the universe exists...

You're looking for the door marked cosmogony, mate; my strain of atheism doesn't suggest anything.

...and surely falls afoul of the no-infinite-regress-of-causes logic, empirical observations and mathematics?

You know what I think of that bollocks.

[Immanuel Can]

Even without fossils, evolution is a better explanation for the diversity of living things and the genetic links between them than a god.

How is it "better," except that you consider it aesthetically more pleasing to you?

Well, where two or more hypotheses are empirically equivalent, there is no need to choose between them, but doing so is an aesthetic choice.

Well, an aesthetic choice is only that: aesthetic, not ontological or even epistemological. But Atheism generally tries to be much more than aesthetic, in my experience of it.

I doesn't account for more. It doesn't even account for nearly as much.

Christianity predicts that when we die, we shall be judged, or if not then, at the day of judgement. As of yet, there is no data to support either prediction.

Oh, I think there's data to prove it. The Bible offers the Resurrection as that proof (Acts 17:30), as well as all the judgments of history (Jude 5-15), things which those who are themselves under judgment are most keen to disbelieve.

But, of course, that doesn't mean they aren't the data. It just means the data's being ignored.

An interestingly evasive response.

I suspect you don't know nearly as much about interesting as you'd like me to suppose you do. Nor meaning: look up atheist.

I'm familiar with the evasive definitions of "Atheist," as well...such as "lacking belief in God." But that's a very vulnerable definition: if all it says is "I lack belief in God," then no Atheist can say anything about the real existence of God, or of whether anybody else can know God, without going outside the declared parameters of his Atheism. Yet Atheists often want to say, "There is no God." And they want others to believe it, too, and to feel their experience is obligatory for all.

So you can see that such evasive 'definitions' don't really "define" their position at all.

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend there are sound arguments or compelling evidence that demonstrate the existance of a god.

That's the sort of Atheist claim I'm talking about. Think about what burden of evidence that claim places on the speaker. How has he arrived at the conclusion that "It is intellectually dishonest to pretend there are sound arguments or compelling evidence that demonstrate the existance of a god"? Has he examined those arguments? Has he exhausted them all? Does he know he has? What marvelous experiment has he performed to show him, beyond any doubt, that there's no such evidence or arguments anywhere in the universe, and never has been? How does he claim to know what others can know about that?

It is an hypothesis I am happy to entertain, but I don't believe it.

That is a completely different claim, and much more modest. "I don't believe it" is unsurprising. If you did believe it, you wouldn't be an Atheist. You wouldn't even be an agnostic. But the lacking of belief by one man, if you'll forgive me, is not a weighty argument against anybody else. It's not even an argument that that same person could not stumble on new evidence, and have to give up his Atheism. So again, it's a much weaker claim than most Atheists seem happy to venture.

my strain of atheism doesn't suggest anything.

This is quite true, it seems. Atheism is entirely an implausible, null hypothesis, and offers no information about anything at all...not about morality, not about truth, not about origins, not about science...it's a pretty dead stick. All it says is "I refuse to believe in God, and I deny any evidence." But we knew that about Atheism, so it says nothing not trite at all.

...and surely falls afoul of the no-infinite-regress-of-causes logic, empirical observations and mathematics?

You know what I think of that bollocks.

I know that you say you think it's bollocks. That's as much as can be said about that. Either way, the truth is always the truth, despite what we wish to believe or "think" about it.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not what you call an "Atheist", I'm just your regular not theist atheist....my strain of atheism doesn't suggest anything.

Well, broadly speaking, there are only two types of Atheist.

1. Strong, silly Atheism.

2. Weak, reasonable but irrelevant Atheism.

First, strong Atheism. Strong Atheism makes the assertive claim that God does not exist. It's "strong," in the sense that it assumes it has consequences in disbelief, not only for the speaker but for all reasonable hearers, as well. It says, my Atheism is rational, and any belief to the contrary is a delusion.

However, it's manifestly silly, as well. And the reason for this is it claims to say what other people can know, and on no basis whatsoever. To be rational, the strong Atheist would have had to investigated every part of the universe, run every possible test and experiment, done it in all times and places, and discovered thereby that no God or gods had ever existed, do ever exist, or could ever exist. If that isn't a silly pretension, I don't know what is.

So I'm glad you say you're not of that type, Will. There's no reason anybody ever could be, and be a rational person while doing so. I'm assuming you to be rational, if not always right.

Type two Atheism has none of strong Atheism's pretensions. It does not say, "There IS no God." It says, instead, something like "I know of no evidence for a God or gods," or "I lack the belief in God," or "I am open to hear arguments that God exists, but until further notice, I disbelieve." This type is clearly modest, reasonable and honest. It does not pretend to say more than it's possible for us, as reasonable hearers, to believe is true. It does not pretend to evidence it does not have. It's not dogmatic about what others can or cannot be allowed to know.

But that's the problem. The statement, "I don't personally know anything about God" does not remotely imply anybody else cannot. It does not suggest there's no evidence for God. It does not suppose Theists must be irrational. It doesn't dictate anything to or about them. All it is, is a statement about the present moment, and one man's state of knowledge. And one man's disbelief counts for nothing, in regard to anybody else.

I might disbelieve in Boston. But Boston will not oblige me by disappearing, if I do. I may truly say, "I have not been to Boston, have no knowledge of Boston, and am a Boston-skeptic." But so what? None of that suggests no Boston exists, or that no evidence for Boston exists, or that I could not even, myself, discover Boston by flying there.

Also, of course, Boston will not pop into existence merely because I choose to believe in it. If it were not a real city, it would remain unreal, no matter how passionately I committed to thinking it did. But that's precisely the point: the nature of one Atheist's current beliefs does absolutely nothing in the real world, and has no implications for anybody else.

So number 2 is safe as far as making the speaker out to be rational; but it's useless for the purposes Atheists usually desire to be Atheists -- namely, to challenge the beliefs of others, or even to make a firm commitment about what's possible for oneself to believe, should new circumstances appear. That's what makes it weak.

Atheism, of any kind, and no matter how one nuances it, is thus a weak/foolish belief. Agnosticism is more measured, but has its own problems. But Atheism's are terminal and obvious, I would say.

[Walker]

If you don’t know how you conjured you into existence, then all you’ll know is the shadowland of the vague.

Layers of meaning, sometimes called vagueness, limits the concept of ineffable less than precise language does, keeping in mind that language cannot communicate what the ineffable ... is.

We can observe the stars outside this solar system, but not the planets. So far the existence of planets other than earth, beyond the galaxy, is just a best-guess inference based on ambiguous data, scientific reasoning, and human notions of probability which may or may not jive with the perspective of what cannot be described by mere mortals. Of course, advances in technology could verify the theory of planets existing in other solar systems and galaxies in order to settle the science. Until then, no limits on the ineffable suggests that God may have, or could have, created the universe just for us.

[Will Bouwman]

...where two or more hypotheses are empirically equivalent, there is no need to choose between them, but doing so is an aesthetic choice.

Well, an aesthetic choice is only that: aesthetic, not ontological or even epistemological.

Of course; the options wouldn't be empirically equivalent if one were ontologically or epistemologically weighted.

But Atheism generally tries to be much more than aesthetic, in my experience of it.

Given that your experience of atheists will include their responses to you calling them irrational, it doesn't surprise me that the atheists you experience are more robust than they might be, were you to show them some respect.

Christianity predicts that when we die, we shall be judged, or if not then, at the day of judgement. As of yet, there is no data to support either prediction.

Oh, I think there's data to prove it. The Bible offers the Resurrection as that proof (Acts 17:30)...

Did I mention that I'm an atheist? 'It says so in a book' is evidence of the flimsiest kind; certainly not proof.

...as well as all the judgments of history (Jude 5-15), things which those who are themselves under judgment are most keen to disbelieve.

This is you in your rude useless wånker hat. I am not keen to disbelieve anything, and I doubt many atheists are.

But, of course, that doesn't mean they aren't the data. It just means the data's being ignored.

That is rude. I'm not ignoring the data; I just don't find it compelling.

I'm familiar with the evasive definitions of "Atheist,"...

More rudeness.
Mr Can, it seems to me that you genuinely do not understand how the language you use affects how people respond to you; that in turn clearly has affected your opinion of "Atheist". Your rudeness has created a feedback loop. If you don't know you are doing it, you might get yourself tested for autism. If you do know you're doing it, well, you get the "Atheist" you deserve.

[Immanuel Can]

...where two or more hypotheses are empirically equivalent, there is no need to choose between them, but doing so is an aesthetic choice.

Well, an aesthetic choice is only that: aesthetic, not ontological or even epistemological.

Of course; the options wouldn't be empirically equivalent if one were ontologically or epistemologically weighted.

But Atheism generally tries to be much more than aesthetic, in my experience of it.

Given that your experience of atheists will include their responses to you calling them irrational, it doesn't surprise me that the atheists you experience are more robust than they might be, were you to show them some respect.

You've got it backward, I'm afraid. I encountered Atheists first because they were prostelytizing for their Atheism. They can't help themselves: they want to preach that "God is a delusion," and that "religion is the opium of the masses," and that "God is not great," and what not. And they shout it proudly, as if it's some intellectual achievement to have said it. It was the weakness of their position that has made it obvious they were shouting into a void.

But the men themselves? I always try to respect the person, even when their ideology is foolish.

Did I mention that I'm an atheist? 'It says so in a book' is evidence of the flimsiest kind; certainly not proof.

As I said: it's of no particular weight that you are an Atheist if Atheism, as I have reasoned out for you, is always either foolish or weak. It's not a great claim. All it means is that the evidence still exists, but one is insisting on ignoring it.

I am not keen to disbelieve anything, and I doubt many atheists are.

Then you haven't read many Atheists, I must conclude. I have. I can quote Nietzsche, Hume, Marx, Freud, Darwin...and a whole bunch of today's lightweight Atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens, and even better ones, like Weilenberg or Margolis, because I don't hesitate to read them. And I read the famous agnostics, as well...like Hardy et al. I'm not afraid of any of their growlings or preachments, because they're wrong, and I've thought through the implications of their skepticism and can point out where their weakness and foolishness is located.

Know your opposition, I say. Let me quote another famous Atheist, J.S. Mill, on that point, saying one of the smart things Atheist have occasionally said: "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that." I completely agree. And I've listened to the famous Atheists, weighed them in the logical balance, and found them wanting...for exactly the reasons I laid out in my last message, not because of
any personal animus toward them.

I'm familiar with the evasive definitions of "Atheist,"...

More rudeness.

No, I'm not being rude, actually. I'm just stating how it is. I've given the reasons why I find those definitions evasive, but let me fill that out, so you'll see I'm not speaking rudely.

Atheists preach. They love to evangelize their non-faith. They love to scoff. A few are content simply to be personal Atheists, and say no more; but far too many want to self-present as intellectual and superior. They're not just happy to personally be Atheists, but they often want to make others Atheists as well. (Do I need to give examples? I've already listed some, above, but I'm certain that if you move among Atheists, you know I'm right about that anyway.)

When Atheists preach, they open themselves to scrutiny, examination and critique. And when we do that, we find that Atheism hasn't got a leg to stand on. We find it out pretty early and easily, too, if we think at all. Their whole schtick depends on putting others on the defensive, and offering no side of their own to be attacked. They say, "I just disbelieve, now you prove..."

When they want to attack somebody else, however, such as Theists, they invariably choose to self-present as knowing something. They don't just want to say, "I am personally unconvinced," but also, "You should be personally unconvinced," or even "You're a fool or deluded or propagandized if you believe anything else but Atheism." Yet when called upon to defend their Atheism, they turtle-up. They say, "Well, I just disbelieve, so I don't have to answer for my position."

I don't admire their cowardice in that. Nevertheless, I keep my respect for the person, because even good people can be wrong. So I don't attack the Atheist as a person, and I don't need to be rude -- I attack his Atheism only, his ideology and his claims, not the man himself. Likewise, if you and I were with each other, I'd buy you a beer, Will...and still challenge you as to why you believe what you believe.

But I'll give you your chance now, if you like: if you know a better kind of Atheist, one I've never encountered, then speak for him. Tell me how he can justify his Atheism. And tell me how he justifies telling other people what they are allowed and not allowed to know. Or tell me how he grounds morality. Or how Atheism would enable him to organize a society and shape its policies and laws. Or what hope for his soul his Atheism grants him, and what meaning for his life it imparts.

And if he's got none of that, why is this person an Atheist? He's got no evidence, and no goods from his Atheism. What's he thinking?

P.S. -- Just to confirm the point that I feel absolutely no animus toward people who are Atheists, no matter how much I deplore their Atheism, and to signal the kind of conversation I favour, here's an example. It involves an Atheist I wish I could meet, and a Theist I actually have met, both of whom have my respect for their honesty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G5iYMoNlLU

[Fairy]

If you don’t know how you conjured you into existence, then all you’ll know is the shadowland of the vague.

Layers of meaning, sometimes called vagueness, limits the concept of ineffable less than precise language does, keeping in mind that language cannot communicate what the ineffable ... is.

We can observe the stars outside this solar system, but not the planets. So far the existence of planets other than earth, beyond the galaxy, is just a best-guess inference based on ambiguous data, scientific reasoning, and human notions of probability which may or may not jive with the perspective of what cannot be described by mere mortals. Of course, advances in technology could verify the theory of planets existing in other solar systems and galaxies in order to settle the science. Until then, no limits on the ineffable suggests that God may have, or could have, created the universe just for us.

Or God could have, may have, created the universe just for cockroaches. It’s obvious that nothing outside of human awareness is ever experienced as something other than being a human. I mean a human is not a cockroach. Same applies to a cockroach, there’s nothing known outside of their experience of being a cockroach.

[Will Bouwman]

...if you and I were with each other, I'd buy you a beer, Will...and still challenge you as to why you believe what you believe.

Well, I'm up for that, but given how unlikely it is, let's pretend. We're in a pub/bar; both with a beer in front of us. All very congenial. You ask:
"Why do you believe what you believe?"
To which I respond:
"What do you think I believe?"
What is your answer?

[Immanuel Can]

...if you and I were with each other, I'd buy you a beer, Will...and still challenge you as to why you believe what you believe.

Well, I'm up for that, but given how unlikely it is, let's pretend. We're in a pub/bar; both with a beer in front of us. All very congenial. You ask:
"Why do you believe what you believe?"
To which I respond:
"What do you think I believe?"
What is your answer?

"It's a funny question to ask," I'd say, "why would you ask ME what I think you believe, when you can simply say what you do believe, and we can get it right?"

So I'd sip my beer and wait to hear you tell me.

[Will Bouwman]

"What do you think I believe?"
What is your answer?

"It's a funny question to ask," I'd say, "why would you ask ME what I think you believe, when you can simply say what you do believe, and we can get it right?"

So I'd sip my beer and wait to hear you tell me.

To which I would say I am not an atheist because I "do believe" something; I am an atheist precisely because there is one thing I do not believe.
And I would remind you that you would "challenge me as to why I believe what I believe". What belief are you challenging?

[Immanuel Can]

"What do you think I believe?"
What is your answer?

"It's a funny question to ask," I'd say, "why would you ask ME what I think you believe, when you can simply say what you do believe, and we can get it right?"

So I'd sip my beer and wait to hear you tell me.

To which I would say I am not an atheist because I "do believe" something; I am an atheist precisely because there is one thing I do not believe.

"Well, I'd say, "if you'll forgive me saying so, there isn't anything helpful in that description. After all, all Atheists believe in a whole bunch of things. The only thing they absolutely agree on is the non-existence of any God or gods. So you might be describing a garden-variety Atheist, for all I'm able to tell from that." And I'd add, "Can you give me something more clear and distinct, so I don't mistakenly assume you agree with Atheists in some matter in which you do not?"

And I would remind you that you would "challenge me as to why I believe what I believe". What belief are you challenging?

I would reply, "It's logical to have a 'why' for anything we believe, if it's a matter of any significance. If it's just which flavour of ice cream you prefer, which football team you support, or which music you listen to, I can't see you needing a 'why' -- though you might still have one, if you choose. But if it's something as important as to the very essence of the universe we inhabit, well, we all need a 'why' for that sort of belief. Too much is at stake to hold a fundamental conviction of that sort, and we should all want to know our important beliefs are well-grounded."

"So what is it you believe about God?"

[Walker]

If you don’t know how you conjured you into existence, then all you’ll know is the shadowland of the vague.

Layers of meaning, sometimes called vagueness, limits the concept of ineffable less than precise language does, keeping in mind that language cannot communicate what the ineffable ... is.

We can observe the stars outside this solar system, but not the planets. So far the existence of planets other than earth, beyond the galaxy, is just a best-guess inference based on ambiguous data, scientific reasoning, and human notions of probability which may or may not jive with the perspective of what cannot be described by mere mortals. Of course, advances in technology could verify the theory of planets existing in other solar systems and galaxies in order to settle the science. Until then, no limits on the ineffable suggests that God may have, or could have, created the universe just for us.

Or God could have, may have, created the universe just for cockroaches. It’s obvious that nothing outside of human awareness is ever experienced as something other than being a human. I mean a human is not a cockroach. Same applies to a cockroach, there’s nothing known outside of their experience of being a cockroach.

That indicates that superior numbers do not prove the power of dominion, but the power to wipe out all the cockroaches does ... although that would have unintended consequences likely worse than the innate reaction caused by the sight of the crusty critters.

[Will Bouwman]

...all Atheists believe in a whole bunch of things. The only thing they absolutely agree on is the non-existence of any God or gods.

Ah, that's not quite true. Some atheists believe there is no god; others don't believe there is one.

"It's logical to have a 'why' for anything we believe, if it's a matter of any significance...

Well, as an undergraduate, one of the modules I chose was Philosophy of Religion. That involved two years of rigorously examining the 'why' of belief which left me believing that the ontological and cosmological arguments are unsound, the moral argument is circular and the teleological argument is circumstantial. Inspection of the Bible shows it to be a hotchpotch of myths that were common around the Mediterranean and Middle East at the time; virgin births, divine offspring, resurrections, angels and demons were two a penny.

"So what is it you believe about God?"

That it is an underdetermined hypothesis. Cheers.

[Immanuel Can]

...all Atheists believe in a whole bunch of things. The only thing they absolutely agree on is the non-existence of any God or gods.

Ah, that's not quite true. Some atheists believe there is no god; others don't believe there is one.

I can see you're indicating some difference you perceive there...can you make it explicit? How is the former substantially distinct from the latter, in your view? And which would you regard yourself?

"It's logical to have a 'why' for anything we believe, if it's a matter of any significance...

Well, as an undergraduate, one of the modules I chose was Philosophy of Religion. That involved two years of rigorously examining the 'why' of belief which left me believing that the ontological and cosmological arguments are unsound, the moral argument is circular and the teleological argument is circumstantial. Inspection of the Bible shows it to be a hotchpotch of myths that were common around the Mediterranean and Middle East at the time; virgin births, divine offspring, resurrections, angels and demons were two a penny.

It sounds to me like this happened a few years ago. And I honestly have to say that if those are the only conclusions you came away with, then your professor(s) didn't do a fair job of representing the arguments. They clearly left you with the impression that there wasn't a serious "other side" to be considered. That's the problem with much Modernist teaching in the matter of "religion," as they call it: it was terribly shallow and self-satisfied, driven, as it was, by the deep conviction that secularism was bound to prove true, and "religions" couldn't ultimately be substantially distinct or offer any special information, being all either "human artifacts" or "delusions" doomed to disappear through the secularization process. It's hard to study something seriously when one's educators begin with the prejudice that it's bound to turn out to be bunk, even before one examines the data. One is almost certain to be satisfied with the first critique, and not to feel there's any point in pushing through to further answers.

They were wrong, as we now know: the so-called "Enlightenment Project" was itself about to crumble, Modernism was about to be subverted by its offspring, Postmodernism, and people were not going to secularize and become less "religious," but rather, were going to turn out to be durably involved in that area. It was secularism that was going to prove increasingly vapid and devoid of means to orient the goals and projects of human societies, and was about to come under heavy critique.

But to catch up with the present state of scholarship, I would highly recommend The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It's not cheap, but it's much cheaper than two years of undergrad, and would give you much better and newer scholarly information that would call your undergrad prof's knowledge into serious question.

"So what is it you believe about God?"

That it is an underdetermined hypothesis.

You seem to feel this is an important criticism. But I can't quite see why you are thinking that. Maybe you can develop that thought.

[Dubious]

It was secularism that was going to prove increasingly vapid and devoid of means to orient the goals and projects of human societies, and was about to come under heavy critique.

...and yet it is secularism if not outright atheism which continues to out-distance theism in the Western World philosophically and societally. A devolution of theism has been and continues to be the trend if not by overt atheism only but by simple indifference to what religious institutions throughout history have sought to teach and endorse.

This, btw, is not an opinion but a statistic, denounce it as you will.

If a core understanding of god remains, which I believe is probable, it would likely be interpreted as a pure metaphysical concept than one denoted by any antique version of it. It would be a god perspective more in tune with modern cosmology than any old standard of blood atonements the ancients specialized in.