Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Fanman]

Seeds,

To clarify (and keep the waters clear).

1. I have stated more than once on this forum that I do not discuss or make claims about the nature or attributes of God. I have also explained why: God, if it exists, exists in a different category from human beings. I cannot speak knowledgeably about it because I have no knowledge of God. That is how I exercise category discipline.

2. As I have also stated, my posts on the omnipotence paradox discuss omnipotence conceptually. I have explained how I am using the term and have referenced the definition I am working from.

3. I am only discussing the paradox according to its wording and formulation. I have no interest in discussing anything outside that context.

4. If you have any concerns regarding the coherence, logic, cogency, reasonableness, or soundness of my arguments, I am happy to discuss them. However, outside the omnipotence paradox as formulated, no dice.

My interest is in the paradox itself and, in particular at the moment, the proposed limiting condition introduced by the paradox.

Update to my post: I was discussing the particulars of the paradox and the responses I received from the interlocutors with Microsoft's Copilot. It formulated this as a potential critique, which, on the surface, seems to hold water: "The physics-based analysis fails because omnipotence, as employed in the paradox, is not constrained by physical reality." My initial response to that was: "I would argue that the only reason it is a paradox is that it engages [conceptually] with physical reality."

[promethean75]

"I have stated more than once on this forum that I do not discuss or make claims about the nature or attributes of God"

It's too late for that. That would only work for a child in the early language stages. Unfortunately for you, you are way past that stage, and your head has been filled with 'god language'. This means that even when you think you are thinking skeptically about god, you are not. You're just playing with the god-words that have been planted in your head.

The appropriate answer to the question "What is and what is not god" can only be "sorry, i don't understand the question."

Even our atheists are too religious.

[MikeNovack]

...... and your head has been filled with 'god language'. This means that even when you think you are thinking skeptically about god, you are not........

Even our atheists are too religious.

That last is not unusual. Often people think they are atheists because they have come to disbelieve in the existence of a god, god being defined by the "god words" they have internalized. It is only when they have become aware of conceptions of god very unlike those they were raised with that they reconsider and decide that they are at most, agnostic.

[Immanuel Can]

...... and your head has been filled with 'god language'. This means that even when you think you are thinking skeptically about god, you are not........

Even our atheists are too religious.

That last is not unusual. Often people think they are atheists because they have come to disbelieve in the existence of a god, god being defined by the "god words" they have internalized. It is only when they have become aware of conceptions of god very unlike those they were raised with that they reconsider and decide that they are at most, agnostic.

That's a tidy summation of Dawkins' position.

By his own recounting, he began, at age 17, well before becoming anything like a scientist, to believe he was an Atheist. But he came to realize that that position was vulnerable, in that it cannot be defended with sufficient evidence. It's just not at all scientific, and he had learned about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

So he reverted, in later life, to calling himself a "Strong Agnostic,"( i.e. somebody who admits they don't know God doesn't exist, but who strongly believes He does not), even though that position is just as deficient in evidence as is Atheism...for why would one be "strong" about something, while not having some "strong evidence" warranting the taking of a "strong" position?

Now he's thrown that over, too. And for pragmatic and political reasons, including his anxiety over the excesses of Islam, has called himself a "cultural Christian," meaning "a cultural participant in an ethos that has Christian ethical assumptions and traditions, but who does not necessarily believe any of Christianity is true."

So he's now a sort of "Christian-acting Agnostic of unspecified intensity," still without sufficient evidence to warrant any particular position. It's a very odd place to land, indeed.

Of course, Atheism is a "religious" position, if one explains what one means by "religious." That is, it has certain traits that Atheism itself often criticizes in religions. For example, it is an ideology solely preoccupied with one question, the existence of God. Most such are religious. Secondly, it is non-scientific and non-evidentiary, in that it lacks sufficient evidence for the conclusion it demands, and so has to be believed without sufficient evidence, which is one definition Atheism offers of "faith." So it's now a faith position taken by those preoccupied with the God question. Then, why would anybody be an Atheist, except if they believe it to be the truth? So it has its dogma, as well. All very "religious," in those senses.

One need not extend the metaphor to speaking of its "saints," such as Nietzsche, Marx, Freud and Darwin, among others, though that's not an impossible extension to make. And one does not have to speak of its discipline of its disciples, such as the scorn it heaps on all those who dissent. One could go much farther and speak of the reverential trust many who are actually not well-informed have conventionally invested in the "priesthood" of St. Christopher, St. Richard and St. Sam, among others. But there are many Atheists for whom the mere invocation of The God Delusion or God is Not Great is sufficient to drive the demons of belief from the sacred public square, even without really knowing what those books contain. Sacred scripture is not far from the Atheist heart, apparently.

So there's much religious about Atheism.

[MikeNovack]

Of course, Atheism is a "religious" position, if one explains what one means by "religious." That is, it has certain traits that Atheism itself often criticizes in religions. For example, it is an ideology solely preoccupied with one question, the existence of God. Most such are religious. Secondly, it is non-scientific and non-evidentiary, in that it lacks sufficient evidence for the conclusion it demands, and so has to be believed without sufficient evidence, which is one definition Atheism offers of "faith."

Quite so, strong atheism is more or less a belief/faith. Except a case can be made .....

a) It is almost impossible to prove a negative regardless of evidence. What would even BE evidence for "no god or gods exist"?

b) That is, however not a good reason to believe in a god or gods. Just because we have no conclusive evidence against the existence of pink unicorns is not reason to believe pink unicorns exist. The number of things that do not exist is infinite. We do not usually argue those denying the existence of pink unicorns are being irrational, just going by belief/faith.

c) Weak atheism (strong agnosticism) may be taking the strong position that evidence of the existence of a god or gods OR evidence of non-existence are both impossible.

[phyllo]

The "non-religious" atheists are not wasting their time writing books, evangelizing or posting on social media.

[Walker]

The "non-religious" atheists are not wasting their time writing books, evangelizing or posting on social media.

How do they waste their time?

[Immanuel Can]

The "non-religious" atheists are not wasting their time writing books, evangelizing or posting on social media.

You mean like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris? Or like yourself, right now?

That's another similarity: Atheists can't stop "evangelizing." They cannot accept that people believe in God; they just seem compelled to quarrel with them, and to adopt a patronizing posture, relative to anybody who does believe something.

Why do they care? Why should they? If other people want pleasing delusions, then given secularism, why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?

Anyway, they have a big problem in regard to morality, because secularism warrants none. So it cannot be, by their own lights "wrong" for a person to believe anything at all. So it's all rather inconsistent, actually.

[promethean75]

Sir, why do you keep trying that tired old canard "secularists can't be moral"? And here you're even trying it as an offensive against bros like Hitchens and Harris, who have made the brutal history of both Islam and Christianity quite clear. Modern Christianity less so, obviously, unless you count millions of dollars extorted from unwitting sheeple by crafty televangelist as being on par with suicide bombers.

Nonetheless, nothing but a very bleak history is evidenced by Christianity if we pay any attention to it after dismissing it as a credible scientific documentation of anything at all. This is reason enough to be rid of it. It's like an intellectual dead duck, the disposal of which can cause no harm. Might even help, mmhm.

Or maybe Christianity is true but our understanding of it isn't complete. There may be a christian Jewish god... but it would be a lower ranking god on account of its incompetence.

[Immanuel Can]

Sir, why do you keep trying that tired old canard "secularists can't be moral"?

I haven't. I've said secularism has no concept of morality. That's a statement about an ideology, not about particular persons.

As for secularists, I've pointed out that those who do not moralize are being consistent, and those that do are being hypocritical, relative to secularism. That's also discernable as true, merely by examining the ideology.

But as for secularists, whether they do or do not moralize is up to them. I know some rather nice ones, though I can't say their secularism has anything at all with them choosing to be nice. They do it without any instruction to do it from secularism itself, for sure.

You seem to have a terrible confusion between a criticism of an ideology, and a statement about particular persons. You should have that checked.

[FlashDangerpants]

Recently mister Can informed us that there was absolutely no such thing as Capitalism because it has no "manifesto", so it can't be an ism if there is no bible for it.

I wonder what the "manifesto" of "secularism" might be that entitles mister Can to talk about it as a thing that could exist? As a secularist myself, I think perhaps it's unlikely that we could be furnished with an agreed text to use for this purpose.

[MikeNovack]

Recently mister Can informed us that there was absolutely no such thing as Capitalism because it has no "manifesto", so it can't be an ism if there is no bible for it.

I wonder what the "manifesto" of "secularism" might be that entitles mister Can to talk about it as a thing that could exist? As a secularist myself, I think perhaps it's unlikely that we could be furnished with an agreed text to use for this purpose.

NOT just secularism. It is possible that IC would deny religions that had no sacred texts (though of course religions appear to have existed before writing).

[promethean75]

The cool thing about economic isms is that unlike their bedfellow philosophical isms, they ARE actually real. You can even reach out and touch them with empirical fingers. On the other hand, you can't be so sure if a guy is a Berkeleyean or a Kantian unless he says he is. Like you couldn't tell from anything he did which way he rolled; straight-up solipsist or transcendental idealist.

In some economist circles, not being able to distinguish a capitalist economy from a feudal or communist economy is punishable by severe intellectual reprimanding. You have to imagine tall, pale, skinny intellectuals in suits cracking jokes about their classmate's IQ while in the cafeteria. Think of bro in Good Will Hunting with the pony tail in the bar. The asshole guy. That's how an economist would come at you in the university lounge if you said some shit like 'capitalism doesn't exist'.

[Immanuel Can]

In some economist circles, not being able to distinguish a capitalist economy from a feudal or communist economy is punishable by severe intellectual reprimanding.

Only Marxists do that, and they are ideologues, not economists.

[promethean75]

Well shit now that you mention it, Marx and many marxist writers have done a fantastic job at examining history and the course of the material and intellectual ideas of particular societies that develop those cultures. They even have their own ism called Historical Materialism. You guys are in there, too. How religious ideas developed over time and led to enabling the ruling bourgeois class to mindfuck the peasant and working classes so they could prevent revolution. Nine times out of ten, it's worked... from ancient egypt to your modern-day baptist church, where emotionally exhausted, overworked, lower, and middle working class patrons huddle together, hoping for redemption and certainly not preparing themselves for an armed insurrection.

Once in a while, it doesn't work... as we have seen in Russia. Fancy monarchs who incompetently rule over half starving christianized peasants better watch out. Vlad will tell you all about it.

Fun fact. The vast majority of bolsheviks were christian not jewish. The tsar had become the new Constantine until trouble showed up called Vlad and Leon.

But anyway, hell yeah, historical materialism is like the philosophical necronomicon. It stands at the Smithsonian like the monolith in 2001. Monotheism gets a chapter, and all your guys are in there. They'd have given you two chapters, but the history of religion isn't so terribly exciting as to warrant a second chapter.

Again, though, you've got a thing perfectly backward. This means you are at least consistent. Marxist are the forensic experts that spot ideology and capture it. Your's, religion, was like the original Night Stalker (DeAngelo) of ideologies. It took like fifty years to get him because he was so good at concealing himself and moving from community to community.