Definition of God: First cause, prime mover, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow. I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the christian or islamic god.
Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1)one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
The argument against weak atheism:
Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the lack of belief that god probably exists, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist.
The following is a brief summary of the evidence for a general finding that a god of some kind exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized (one can generally look up these arguments and evidences using google or bing):
1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs or answers to prayers to god, or the ability to manifest or positively affirm such events through free will intention;
2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena
3) The various Cosmological Arguments for the existence of god
4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument
5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in the strong anthropic argument in #4;
6) The Moral Arguments for the existence of god.
7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god of some sort, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm, and the apparent agreement of afterlife entities that a god and human purpose exist; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc.
While the various arguments listed (all of which, to some degree, begin with empirical evidence) have been subject to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero evidence (to my knowledge) or rational argument (to my knowledge) that no such god (as defined above) exists.
[Note: One may argue that the Christian god doesn’t exist because of certain contradictions contained in the expressed nature and actions of that entity (or of the Islamic god); and there are such arguments – but this thread is not about such gods, so please adhere to the stated premise.]
The rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments do not make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.
Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.
If a “weak atheist” claims to “lack of belief” because there is “no” evidence for god, they are necessarily being intellectually dishonest, because they certainly aren’t privy to all potential or available evidence. They cannot claim to not know of the evidence for god after having perused the above evidence.
If the “weak atheist” is not aware of any compelling evidence, then any categorical claim they make about the available evidence they are not privy to – that it is not credible or convincing – is again intellectually dishonest because they are making a categorical claim about something they have no knowledge of.
If we have a weak atheist who is aware of the existence of the above evidence and agrees that there might be more evidence they are not privy to; and who does not categorically assert problems with the evidence they have not yet seen; and who does not categorically dismiss the available evidence as “non-evidence” (such as: hypocritically accepting testimonial evidence as evidence when it supports what they already believe, but dismissing it when it supports the existence of god) but rather states that the available evidence they have seen is not compelling towards a conclusion that god exists; then one must ask the following:
In the face of such huge amounts of evidence – thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories; many sound arguments based on empirical evidence and apparently necessary logical premises and inferences; and the complete lack of any attempt to make a sound argument that god (as described above) in fact does not exist – one must ask: how can any intellectually honest person come to any conclusion other than that god probably exists, even if god is poorly and diversely defined, and even if the experience of god is open to interpretation and misunderstanding?
As an analogy: even if one has never personally experienced “love”; in the face of thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories that love exists, and empirical evidence supporting that certain physical states correspond to assertions of experiences of love, would it be intellectually honest to “lack belief” that love exists, or would it be intellectually honest to hold the view that even though one doesn’t experience love (or using the same argument, color, joy, dreams, etc.), that love probably exists – even if people are widely disparate in their explanation, description, or presentation of what love is?
That I am aware of, there is zero evidence, no argument, and no anecdotal or testimonial evidence that god does not exist (because lack of experience of a thing isn’t evidence the thing doesn’t exist), and there is a vast array of logical, anecdotal, testimonial and empirical evidence that god does exist.
Even if one doesn’t find that evidence compelling for for a final conclusion that god exists, it is at least, if one is intellectually honest, compelling to the point that when one weighs the balance of the evidence for and against, that one must admit that it is more probable that god exists that that god does not exist, which cannot be said to be an atheistic point of view at all.
The argument against strong atheism:
Strong atheism is defined as the assertion that no god or gods exist whatsoever.
First, it is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove (not in the absolute sense, but in the “sufficient evidence” sense). There may be evidence that certain gods, or kinds of gods, do not exist; but there is certainly no evidence or argument (that I’m aware of, anyway) that no significant, meaningful god or gods whatsoever exist.
Instead, strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden.
Strong atheism is a sweeping, categorical, negative assertion that something does not exist at all, anywhere. However unlikely one fineds it, it might be true that a god of some sort exists, so the strong atheist position would be excluding a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.
What is the useful point of a metaphysical position that excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration? What does strong atheism bring to the table of debate other than the potential for intractable error and denial of potential truth for the sake of a sweeping, unsupportable, universally negative assertion?
Conclusion: atheism of any sort is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a valid position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a pseudoskeptical, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for god based on ideological bias.
(Reposted here from a post I previously made under another name, in another forum, with a few minor edits and additions.)
Is it possible for a solipsist to commit suicide?
yes, but it’s also genocide on a grand scale.
WJM, when you started posting here, did you believe you would be able to convince anyone?
As I have explained several times, most recently in this very thread, I have no interest in convincing others of anything.
No, that’s not my concern.
The problem with trying to address your posts, and the posts of others here, is that they are so incongruent with anything I’ve argued that they’re not even wrong, they’re complete, conceptual non-sequiturs.
As I’ve said, I realize now that the differences between the two sides is conceptual, including entirely different epistemological & ontological frameworks. It’s really not surprising, given that disparity, that the communicative gulf is so wide and leads to distrust and frustration on both sides.
It is very difficult to get a grip on, but I don’t think that anyone is being deliberately deceptive; it just appears that way when two entirely different conceptual frameworks meet.
The only thing I’ve ignored is your insistence that somewhere, someone else has meaningfully addressed my ontological challenge. If you have a case you’d like to make or paraphrase here, do so. Perhaps if you do so, I’ll simply insist that somewhere, someone has addressed and rebutted those views, and see how you react.
The axiomatic premise only exists as an axiomatic premise; if the thing the axiomatic premise refers to actually exists outside of myself, then of course it would be something more than an axiomatic premise.
You are conflating the “thing itself”, if it exists, with the axiomatic premise thereof.
The process of avoiding delusion is, **if** there exists a so-called “perfect, external judge” of true statements, it would require a formal, objective, mental existence that our minds have access to. The fundamental form of this is logic; logic must be held as objective, formal, and true, or else all else is lost.
Which is, in essence, why materialism cannot be held as true; if logic is not formal, objective, eternal, and independent, our dialogue and arguments are nothing more, essentially, than monkeys flinging feces at each other, or trees rustling in the wind.
Come on william, you’ve mentioned “the several cosmological arguments” – how about you post one of them that you think holds up to scrutiny?
William J Murray,
Let’s take this one point at a time.
What follows from this is, “**if** there does NOT exist a so-called “perfect, external judge” of true statements, there would NOT be a formal, objective, mental existence that our minds have access to.
Let’s explore this side of the coin and see where it leads.
I’d start by saying humans would then actually have “free will” instead of being “biased” by an outside entity.
In short, atheism leads to “more free will” than theism does, **if** the external judge does NOT exist.
External to what?
Maybe I missed something along the line. Why are we discussing “Truth” when empiricism ans science do not claim to establish truth.
The situation is entirely analogous to the way “facts” are established in courts of law. I was recently on a jury, and we were not tasked with finding “truth,” just facts beyond reasonable doubt.
This is one of those annoying things about IDists and creationists when they complain about evolution being a fact. Evolution is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt. It has won ever court challenge.
It is not truth as defined by Plato or whoever, but it is fact. WJM admits that he governs his life — crossing the street, etc — by the same standards established by science. Since no one here is interested in absolute truth or makes claims about absolute truth, I don’t see what the discussion is about.
The discussion is about WJM. Notice how long he can keep attention focused on himself without saying anything containing any substance whatsoever. It’s all a word-gaming rope-a-dope.
Is that a true statement?
No, I didn’t.
Is this an implication that I am not arguing in good faith?
I don’t think so. I think Elizabeth has carefully distinguished between good faith and sound mind.
Well it seems accurate to me so far as you are avoiding any challenges put to you
I wonder if God has endless metaphysical arguments with himself? “I know I’m a necessary being … but why am I necessary? What am I necessary for? I know I’m the ultimate arbiter of Truth … but how do I know that that truth is true? The only rational option is for me to believe in an overarching meta-being, whether or not there really is one … Help!” Which is why God is now hopelessly untrustworthy. He’s a mess.
William J Murray,
I’d say atheism does allow more free will so in that sense, I would say it is more rationally justifiable than theism, which brings an “external judge”, into the picture.
That’s a really good point!
Infinite regress on the metaphysical level!
WJM, how do you resolve god’s “arbiter of truth” and external judge?
Why is this question even relevant? You have claimed several times that you aren’t trying to convince anyone of anything; yet the rope-a-dope continues.
External to what though?
I think WJM means “external to the material world”.
This is the same sort of position ID/creationism takes on the world “natural” to the point that the word loses its meaning completely.
One example I offered: Jaegwon Kim, Physicalism, Or Something Near Enough, Princeton University Press, 2005. Others were cited in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to which linked several relevant entries.
Great, now you can drop the ridiculous – and FALSE – claim that Atheism (and not some percentage of atheists) lack a rational ontology, or as you initially stated:
It’s a well known fact that if the guys you’re debating with right now on the internet can’t provide an immediate rebuttal to your claims, you win.
WJM:” The axiomatic premise only exists as an axiomatic premise; if the thing the axiomatic premise refers to actually exists outside of myself, then of course it would be something more than an axiomatic premise. You are conflating the “thing itself”, if it exists, with the axiomatic premise thereof.”
I am not conflating anything. You apparently did not understand my question. You don’t know whether the thing itself actually exists. Thus, the thing itself cannot function as an actual arbiter. All you have is your axiomatic premise of the thing.
WJM: “The process of avoiding delusion is, **if** there exists a so-called “perfect, external judge” of true statements, it would require a formal, objective, mental existence that our minds have access to.”
You can’t avoid delusion by a conditional statement the premises of which are nothing but axiomatic assumptions! I can’t believe that you don’t see the absurdity of this! What you are doing here boils down to assuming that you are not delusional!
WJM: “The fundamental form of this is logic; logic must be held as objective, formal, and true, or else all else is lost.”
How many times does it need to be said: All logic can do is help you discern between logically valid and logically invalid statements; it cannot help you discern between true and false statements; what you need to do to tell true from false statements is investigate the truth or falsity of the premises!
madbat said: “What you don’t get about *ontological requirements* in the philosophical sense that you are insisting on using is that they do nothing but define *meaning* into existence in relation to an assumed entity.”
WJM: “The problem with trying to address your posts, and the posts of others here, is that they are so incongruent with anything I’ve argued that they’re not even wrong, they’re complete, conceptual non-sequiturs.”
Nice cop-out. Just like I predicted: label the comments you don’t have an answer for as *non-sequiturs* and duck out of the conversation….
I offered him several examples of philosophical arguments for atheism (as opposed to rebuttals against specific theistic arguments) as well, one with a very specific citation, earlier in this same thread. Yet he keeps blissfully insisting that all atheists are intellectually dishonest because he personally is not aware of any positive arguments for atheism. WJM has a lot of practice in this intellectual dishonesty thing…
I didn’t say you could.
I don’t see what your point is. No view can avoid the possibility of delusion – none. I’ve never contested that. Delusion is always a possibility and nothing saves you from that possibility, and nothing can indemnify you from the possibility. My argument isn’t that there is something that functionally and factually saves anyone from the possibility of delusion; my argument is and always has been about whether or not a worldview offers the potential for deliberately avoiding a delusion, which serves as the logical basis for the expectation that we are not operating in a delusional state.
Materialism offers no such hypothetical, premised potential. My view does.
We premise many such things; we assume other people have thoughts in their head, that they dream like us, have feelings, etc. There’s no way to prove or show that they are conscious entities, but we assume it to be – again, even though it might be delusional – to make sense of our experiece and to be functional. We assume an exterior world exists independent of our experience.
My argument is that without corresponding premises of free will and a means (potential) of objectively arbiting true statements, then our philosophy/worldview provides no means by which to believe that we are not living in a delusion. One can believe it, but it has no basis in their worldview.
One might not have those premises, and believe they are not living in a delusion, and believe they can discern true statements from false by using logic, but without those premises, their belief that they can do so is logically insupportable and without any necessary basis.
Are you implying that I am not arguing in good faith?
I sure as hell would not care to be in an emergency situation in a submarine, waiting for you to decide what reality is. I, or any other submariner, would deck you right on the spot, kick your unconscious body aside, and do the job you were expected to do. And, if we survived, you would be court-martialed.
I have no idea what enjoyment WJM gets out of playing these word games. There are billions of people on this planet who confront reality every second of their existence; and some of that reality is not pleasant. There are millions of people who have faced realities that demand their total, undivided attention; otherwise they and the people around them die.
Obviously it is not possible for a pseudo-philosophical navel-gazer to understand any of this. The notion that one can construct any reality one wants is a fantasy of Disney Land where wishing will make it so.
Yet this has become a characteristic of the ID/creationist movement ever since the 1970s; and it became almost the norm after “scientific” creationism morphed into “intelligent” design after 1987. Now all these rationalizations by hard-core ID/creationists attempt to change the meaning of reality. When they are cloistered in plush, well-funded offices and shielded from reality, apparently the habits become so ingrained that they can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy. And anyone who attempts to jerk them back into reality is demonized as being mean.
If you were to accidentally provide an argument, this might be the case. But I’ve concluded that you are not BLATHERING in good faith. After enough posts, when there is no longer any doubt, why give the benefit of that lack of doubt?
My statement is pretty explicit, no implications needed. It is a clear description of your method of discussion.
Since you refuse to be pinned down to what you actually believe, and have spent your entire tenure here taunting us with hints and then denying that we have it right, I have concluded that you are not posting here in good faith.
If you were, you would take every opportunity to explain and expand on your position and what your intentions and expectations are, rather than simply denying that we have it right.
But that’s just my opinion.
WJM: “No view can avoid the possibility of delusion – none.”
Yes. Empiricism can. Unless you define delusion in relation to something that is inaccessible and inconsequential to what empiricists call reality. In which case the word *delusion* loses any discernible meaning.
WJM: “My argument isn’t that there is something that functionally and factually saves anyone from the possibility of delusion; my argument is and always has been about whether or not a worldview offers the potential for deliberately avoiding a delusion, which serves as the logical basis for the expectation that we are not operating in a delusional state.”
You don’t have a *basis for the expectation that you are not operating in a delusional state*. If there is nothing that functionally and factually can be used to avoid delusion, then delusion cannot be deliberately avoided. It is that simple.
WJM: “There’s no way to prove or show that they are conscious entities, but we assume it to be – again, even though it might be delusional – to make sense of our experiece and to be functional. We assume an exterior world exists independent of our experience.”
False. There are many ways to show that there are conscious entities and a reality outside of ourselves (empiricism isn’t in the business of proofs; leave that to math and philosophy). For simple starters: The fact that I don’t have the faintest idea how to compose music, and yet can experience an amazing variety thereof is pretty strong evidence that someone other than me has done the composing…
WJM: “I didn’t say you could.”
???????????????
Yes, you did!
Right here: “The process of avoiding delusion is, **if** there exists a so-called “perfect, external judge” of true statements, it would require a formal, objective, mental existence that our minds have access to.”
WJM: “One might not have those premises, and believe they are not living in a delusion, and believe they can discern true statements from false by using logic, but without those premises, their belief that they can do so is logically insupportable and without any necessary basis.”
This is a spectacularly self-defeating statement.
In order to reach true conclusions two things are necessary:
1) a logically valid inference
2) a true premise
If the truth of the premise cannot be established (because the premise is nothing but an axiomatic assumption), the truth of the conclusion/statement cannot be discerned!
How could one conclude otherwise?
WJM: “My argument is that without corresponding premises of free will and a means (potential) of objectively arbiting true statements, then our philosophy/worldview provides no means by which to believe that we are not living in a delusion.”
You are using the word *potential* wrong. A potential means of objectively arbiting true statements would be a means that is capable (under certain circumstances) of being an actual means of objectively arbiting true statements. In your philosophy, there are no possible circumstances under which you have an actual means of objectively arbiting true statements (in your own words: “Delusion is always a possibility and nothing saves you from that possibility”). Thus, your worldview does not offer the potential for deliberately avoiding a delusion. A *potential* that is a priori impossible to be realized is not a potential at all.
I have described in detail what I believe, and how I hold those beliefs, in great detail whenever asked, even though I had a good idea that expressing those views would expose me to quite a bit of condescension and ridicule. That you have trouble parsing what I believe, and how I believe it, to fit into your pre-existing conceptual structure is hardly my fault.
Because you cannot know that you are objectively arbiting statements for truth-content and veracity doesn’t mean that you factually aren’t objectively arbiting them. You’re conflating “knowledge of & factual implementation” with “Belief of & factual implementation”. I’ve only said we can do the latter, and I’ve said we cannot do the former.
You also cannot know that cars exist outside of your experience or that other people you are interacting with are conscious entities. You can only believe it. That you only believe it doesn’t change the fact that what you are interacting with is either an objectively valid interaction or it is not.
We either have access to (potential) an objective arbiter, or we do not. That doesn’t mean we know it is an objective arbiter, any more than we know the person we are talking to is a conscious entity. You either believe it is, or you do not. If you do not believe you have access to an objective arbiter (whether you can ever know it or not), then all of your posts are hypocritical, self-conflicting rhetoric because you post as if you can arbit a true statement from a false and and your explicit implication is that others should reach the same conclusions.
Unless one accepts that the capacity to discern true statements is an objective, transcendent agency, they have no logical way to expect anyone else to parse true statements as they do. They have no basis by which to implicate the truth of their statements and the falsity of other statements except with the caveat of that being only their personal, subjective, non-binding conceptual structure, non-translatable to others, and certainly not imposable upon others.
As I have said, every post a materialist makes in such a debate is self-contradictory and self-defeating.
You are again confusing the premise of a thing with the actual existence of the premised thing. I’m not saying that “the premise” in itself, as a concept, has the potential to deliver us from anything other than an incoherent belief system. The only thing that has the power to potentially prevent delusional beliefs is if the thing the premise is about actually exists.
Not if empiricism is a delusion.
The simple logical fact is, unless one believes that true statements can be deliberately arbited from false, they cannot make meaningful (non-rhetorical) arguments. Since there is no way to be meaningfully deliberate without assuming free will, or to meaningfully arbit truth-values without assuming logic to be objectively valid and binding, all arguments necessarily (even if unconsciously and under conscious protest) reference non-compatibalist free will and objectively-existent, formal, uncaused, universally-binding logic.
William
You posted a reply to a comment of mine up-thread but didn’t answer the question posed. I am committed to the free exchange of ideas and the right of free speech (wherever this does not impinge on the rights of others). I wondered if you cared about that.
However, to be interesting, a conversation ought to include the exchange of new ideas, the possibility and opportunity to gain new perspectives, new insights, the opportunity to reflect on one’s own prejudices and misconceptions and, above all, the opportunity to learn something.
This thread never managed to become interesting in my view. But, to answer your original question:
Is Any Form Of Atheism Rationally Justifiable?
Yes because it is the null hypothesis. There is no religious dogma that bears up under a moment’s scrutiny. There is no factual testable religious claim that can be verified and many that can be shown to be bogus. Human invention is powerful enough to have created the myriad cults and dogmas that have arisen over human history and, I suspect, pre-history.
The simple logical fact is, unless one believes that true statements can bedeliberately arbited from false, they cannot make meaningful (non-rhetorical) arguments.
The problem is labeling statements as true or false. That is certainly done ineveryday life, but when closely examined, what we mean is that we have confidence — to varying degrees — that statements are true or false.
You apparently wish for certainty, but it isn’t available.
Can a solipsist die in a car crash? If so, is it an accident or is it a suicide?
Can fire burn a solipsist?
Is it possible for a solipsist to grasp the concept of materialism?
When a solipsist argues, with whom is he arguing? Who is he trying to convince?
When a solipsist asserts that something is false, how can it be false if he knows about it?
From where does a solipsist get his computer? Where do the words that appear on his computer screen come from?
madbat: “Yes. Empiricism can.”
WJM: “Not if empiricism is a delusion.”
I have addressed this: “Empiricism can. Unless you define delusion in relation to something that is inaccessible and inconsequential to what empiricists call reality. In which case the word *delusion* loses any discernible meaning.”
It is really exasperating that you only ever address the points you would like people to have made, instead of the points they are actually making.
WJM: “Because you cannot know that you are objectively arbiting statements for truth-content and veracity doesn’t mean that you factually aren’t objectively arbiting them. You’re conflating “knowledge of & factual implementation” with “Belief of & factual implementation”. I’ve only said we can do the latter, and I’ve said we cannot do the former.”
I am, again, not conflating anything. I didn’t claim that one may not happen to be *objectively arbiting statements for truth-content and veracity* under your philosophy. I said that one has no (reliable) means to do so. You keep missing the point that the implementation of a process for the avoidance of delusion cannot deliberately succeed if it does not have a component that allows assessing its success! What your statement above means is that, according to your philosophy, one may happen to hit the mark and happen to be *objectively arbiting statements for truth-content and veracity*. But one would not know whether that is factually the case. “Belief and factual implementation” is just factual, deliberate implementation of your belief, not of what your belief refers to! The thing your belief refers to (the avoidance of delusion) may only be achieved by happenstance, not deliberately. And that is, after all, what you have been claiming: that your philosophy creates the potential for deliberate avoidance of delusion. It doesn’t, because a potential is something that can be realized under certain circumstances (and as you have admitted yourself, there are no circumstances in your philosophy that permit it)!
It’s actually pathetically immature; stalled somewhere around the emotional/intellectual age of 10 or12. WJM’s “reasoning” behind his answer to the question he posed in the original post is a pretty revealing look into the growth-stunting subculture from which he draws his “worldview.” His “definitions” guarantee the answer he wants; and he is apparently imagining that everyone else in the world is bamboozled by his rope-a-dope “philosophy” tactics.
Go over to AiG, for example, and watch many of the videos over there. Nearly every talk starts out with a string of definitions and a bunch of phony etymology. The conclusions they want to assert are thereby guaranteed (in their own minds anyway). One of the funniest is the video of Werner Gitt’s “In the Beginning Was Information.”
All ID/creationists leader wannabes seem to operate this way. Whenever they pontificate and dispute reality, they start by making a bunch of definitions that will get them to the answer they want. Watching their talks is like watching someone talking down to children.
They are like little kids standing in the middle of the room with their eyes closed, thinking that they are invisible. I would suggest that they aren’t even as sophisticated as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.