God cannot exist...sue me!

[elliebean]

How can an "entity" not have attributes? That just seems completely incoherent to me. Or do we mean to say "no known attributes"?  

If the definition of "entity" is "a thing that exists", then obviously the universe was brought about by some kind of entity or entities; but calling that a god is no more meaningful than calling it an orange.

Less, actually; at least it's possible to express, without contradiction or redundancy, some meaningful idea of what an orange is.

The more I look at deism, or any form of theism, the more of a "hard atheist" I become.

[Inevitable Droid]

How can an "entity" not have attributes? That just seems completely incoherent to me. Or do we mean to say "no known attributes"?  

No known attributes.

If the definition of "entity" is "a thing that exists", then obviously the universe was brought about by some kind of entity or entities;

Unless it was always here.

but calling that a god is no more meaningful than calling it an orange.

Less, actually; at least it's possible to express, without contradiction, some meaningful idea of what an orange is.

But since the thing that made our universe, if something did, would have to exist in some other universe than ours, it would have to be unknowable to us, and its attributes likewise would have to be unknowable.  Unknowable or non-existent, those are the choices.  Either way, irrelevant, so yawns of apathy ensue.

The more I look at deism, or any form of theism, the more of a "hard atheist" I become.

Thinking about what I wrote above, I now have another way Deism could be disproved.  That which made our universe would have to exist in some other universe, since it couldn't exist in ours, since its existence had to precede ours.  Therefore, if there is no multiverse, there is no God.  Physics has posited a multiverse but not all physicists support the notion.  Disprove the multiverse and we disprove God.

The other way to disprove God is to prove our universe was always here, which would mean it wasn't created.

[elliebean]

Unless it was always here.

Or that, yes. Lol.

As for multiverses, even if there was another universe outside of our own, which contained a thing that makes universes, and we discovered it, wouldn't the god label still be something we hung on it out of convenience? As in... "Well, I suppose that's close enough. There ya go."

I was assuming a single universe that had not always been there, because the usual definitions of the word "god" posit one creator of everything (whatever number of universes), existing before everything else, or something like that, which has its own obvious problems; ie, where did it come from; why is this thing necessary to explain existence, when it's existence is yet unexplained; how can something exist prior to existence itself; etc.

[Stevil]

how can something exist prior to existence itself; etc.

Also, how can that something know everything about everything when nothing exists yet?

It's simply one of those mystery questions like existence itself.

[radicalaggrivation]

Creator but not Ruler, yes. I agree that most want God to be Ruler of something, but to me, Creator is enough. I have always deemed the question of whether there is a God to be the question of whether the universe was created. If the universe was always here, then it wasn't created, so there's no God. But I appreciate your point. Certainly the usages in my Random House Webster's College Dictionary all imply some sort of Rulership.

I hear you on this. I went through a few definitions and the more ambiguous ones still lend some quality of dictation to a god. That is what I am attacking- the widely held and accepted definition is the one the one that should pose no doubt to one who disbelieves.

Imperfect design would still be design. Many people find intelligent design hard to swallow due to their assumption of specific perfections the intelligent designer would have to have. None of these perfections are logically necessary. Wisdom, power, benevolence, all could be imperfect, and indeed the last could be lacking entirely. No, the valid reason for dispensing with the intelligent design premise is that we don't need it. All unnecessary premises should be discarded on principle. But to really put the nail in the coffin, we need to show that even the most astonishing complex order could be plausible given the time allotted. We aren't there yet but we're getting there. Along the way we may discover that complex order is far more likely than we ever imagined, due to natural laws we haven't yet identified. Natural laws, of course, are simply a way of describing attributes of energy. If the universe was always here, then energy was always here, and its attributes have defined the parameters of all history in all places. We might as well call energy, God, for we are ruled by energy's attributes.

Great point. I am sure once scientists have completed most or all of the animal genomes on the planet and can show specifically where each living organism branches off and from what organism we all branch, it will leave little doubt as to the origin of life's complexity. The universes complexity, as it stands now, is also coming along well. I just hope that our creator is not a guy named Jeb, who drinks beer in a lawn chair, watching Sienfeld reruns in his underwear. If we judged by our perfection though, its probably as good a bet as any.

Deism isn't a religion. As for theology, it counts as that, because it makes two statements about God: (1) it exists; (2) it created the universe. That's theology of the barest bones variety, admittedly.

Some deists certainly participate in their beliefs as if it were a religion. Praying and going to a deist church may not qualify you as a religion legally but it certainly borders that territory.For the sake of an honest argument, however, I will give you that since there is no central doctrine or tenets saying to do so.

Deists typically don't care what anyone believes. That's why I can tolerate them, and even welcome them as allies in the culture war against Abrahamists.

I hope that, in my lifetime, I will see things come to a head between the popular religious cults and secularists. I do not doubt that they would make great allies. That is only if someone does not come along to posit some tenable/zealous doctrine and attempt to make it an official religion.

What it amounts to is the refusal to accept an uncreated universe. Astonishing complex order compels some to be Deists. Most of them move on from there to very happily leave advancement of our knowledge of the universe to science. In fact many Deists become scientists themselves.

While this may be true what would deist beliefs have to contribute to our observations of complexity. If they attribute the complexity to a god then they are lending some formative quality to god aside from just being the prime mover. I am not extensively familiar with deists beliefs; is that what a deist would be taught from their handful of tenets? If so then they are certainly a fair target.

Fair enough.  Do you think there's a source to the universe?  I actually don't.  But I can't prove it.  It's just intuition and an untestable one at present.

If by source you mean something outside of the universe that created it: possibly. I have to wait until around 2012 to decide. There has been some interesting findings in the cosmic microwave background radiation this year. Check the story out here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/
If this is indeed proof of other universes, then we will all have to consider some very interesting things about how this came to be. Our particular universe could very well be the evolutionary offspring of other universes that continue to optimize conditions for life. It is clear that our universe is, as a whole, not conducive to life as we know it, which would explain the Fermi Paradox. Perhaps we are just an intermediate step in a process to evolve the perfect universe for life. This is all speculative of course but the possibilities are so interesting. One thing is certain in my eyes - if we live long enough as a species we will discover the answer.

Exactly correct unless/until we finally learn from science that the universe had no beginning. I really don't think it had one. But for now it's a mystery.

That is the big question, isn't it? I hope I live long enough to see the answer.

[gsaint]

Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup. I would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

Now lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

The prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

[LegendarySandwich]

Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup. I would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

Now lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

The prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

God gave us free will, the ability of rational thought, and a significant amount of intelligence, yet he punishes us if we use traits and come to a conclusion he doesn't like. Sounds like a great guy, that Jesus.

[Inevitable Droid]

Some deists certainly participate in their beliefs as if it were a religion. Praying and going to a deist church may not qualify you as a religion legally but it certainly borders that territory.For the sake of an honest argument, however, I will give you that since there is no central doctrine or tenets saying to do so.

Hmm.  As much as it pains me to do so, I guess I'll have to start talking about strong Deism, which I'll have to define as, "the belief in a Supreme Being who created the universe and then left it to its own devices, not governing, not intervening,  not observing, not listening to prayers, and not revealing truths."

I hope that, in my lifetime, I will see things come to a head between the popular religious cults and secularists. I do not doubt that they would make great allies. That is only if someone does not come along to posit some tenable/zealous doctrine and attempt to make it an official religion.

I'll take this opportunity to clarify my perspective on Abrahamism versus Deism by listing the various Abrahamist doctrines and commenting.

1. God infinite - ridiculous, as nothing infinite can be one thing, but must be everything, as anything it isn't would limit its infinity.

2. God incarnated - ridiculous, as Creator and creature are different in kind, and if the first becomes the second it will cease to be the first.

3. God judgmental - ridiculous, as everything we do is the result of genes and history, which any Creator is ultimately responsible for.

4. God merciful - ridiculous, as the universe is without mercy, so its Creator must be too.

5. God governing - ridiculous, as I detect no force governing my actions contrary to my own decisions, and to simply equate my decisions with those of some other entity is to erase any distinction between that entity and myself, and I am confident I didn't create the universe.

6. God revelatory - ridiculous, because revelation from a single source would be consistent, and such isn't the case from any perspective we choose to explore, with a deceitful God the only conceivable explanation, and claiming deceit so as to defend revelation's truth is an insurmountable Catch-22.

7. God responsive - ridiculous, because a responsive God would have to be governing or revelatory, and both are ridiculous.
 
8. God creative - possible, and this minus all of the preceding is strong Deism, the only theology that can't be refuted as ridiculous unless/until we disprove a beginning to our universe (hence no creation) or we disprove the concept of a multiverse (hence no other universe for God to exist in).

While this may be true what would deist beliefs have to contribute to our observations of complexity?

All strong Deism does is relieve the mental pressure exerted by an intuitive problem, that of order too complex to have arisen without some external impetus.  The stress relieved, our strong Deist can move on with life, even going so far as to personally respond to nature's mysteries by scientific inquiry as a professional practitioner of science's methods.  Add intelligent design to strong Deism and the mental pressure goes away completely and forever, yet science can still be exercised to learn more about how the design works and unfolds.  

If by source you mean something outside of the universe that created it: possibly. I have to wait until around 2012 to decide. There has been some interesting findings in the cosmic microwave background radiation this year. Check the story out here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/

Ah, we're getting closer, perhaps, to the universe I personally suspect to be real, which is symbolized in Hinduism as Brahma exhaling and inhaling, again and again, forever.

One thing is certain in my eyes - if we live long enough as a species we will discover the answer.

I tend to agree.

I hope I live long enough to see the answer.

Me too.  And therein lies much of my frustration with death.

[Gawen]

Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Yes, and it is still a valid argument that Christians cannot reconcile, try as they might.

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup.

No, evil comes from God.

Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

The rest of your post was an attempt at futility when compared to the scripture above.

[Cycel]

Why is it that so many atheists do not firmly commit to a disbelief in God? I guess what I am asking is what is the issue with being a strong atheist?

For myself there is no issue.  I am a strong atheist, a 7 on the Dawkins scale.  I admit to there being no possibility of the biblical God and I have no reason to believe in any of the others.  To answer your question, however, I think there are basically two reasons:

i) Dawkins himself is of the view that the probability of God is likely somewhat less than 99.9%.  He thinks he must be fair and acknowledge a minimal uncertainty, which he only admits to because of his penchant for appearing logical, and few scientists want to admit 100% certainty in anything.  He therefore labels himself a 6 on his own scale.  I think many atheists take this view and many may take it because of Dawkins himself.  I think he is that influential.

ii) On the other hand there are many atheists who are uncertain.  They fear the possibility they might be wrong and worry that Hell might await them.  Giving-up God they have no problem in doing, but fear of that old Serpent hangs on.  Peter Hitchens gives this as his primary reason for returning to belief in God (see: The Rage Against God).  It once contributed to my own uncertainty and has sniped at a few atheists with whom I have chatted.  These two points are the major reasons I would give for the seeming uncertainty of many atheists.  Only this last one, however, counts for anything.

[LegendarySandwich]

I am a strong atheist towards the Abrahamic gods, but absence of evidence is not proof of absence, so I remain a weak atheist towards the rest of the concepts of gods.

[hackenslash]

Why is it that so many atheists do not firmly commit to a disbelief in God? I guess what I am asking is what is the issue with being a strong atheist?

Well, while particular conceptions of deity are pretty comprehensively falsified by the attributes given them by their believers, those attributes do not necessarily apply to all conceptions of deity. I think that the likelihood of anything we would recognise as even remotely fulfilling the broader attributes of a deity is so unlikely as to be laughable, but it would still constitute a categorical statement, and those are to be avoided except where supporting evidence can be provided.

If I just went by the definitions that most people use to describe a god, I have no issue with saying that I know it is false. It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Not at all. I agree completely. The Judeo-Christian deity categorically does not exist, because he has been given logically absurd and impossible attributes, but they don't cover all possible conceptions of deity.

I have been baffled by the idea that it is somehow intellectually dishonest to flatly say there is no god. In the same breath people are willing to disbelief other myths with a firm degree of certainty. Am I more intellectually honest if I assert that there is no evidence for the existence of the Jolly Green Giant or can I just say that the damn thing don't exist?

Again, it constitutes a categorical assertion for which there is no supporting evidence, so honesty demands that we say we don't know.

I understand that we do not have all the answers to life and that some people would like to leave this possibility open just in case. If the universe or multi-verse was banged into existence because of some ultimate source of infinite information it still would not lend credence to the popular myths people believe today. So aren't we really giving such irrational beliefs too much middle ground to work on by not simply calling it what it is? The only time there should be any uncertainty is when we are dealing with some none popular or metaphysical prime mover. As it stands there should be no philosophical seesawing on the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God. It's a fairy tale. I don't need to reserve my judgment on flying reindeer and I don't need to do so for the current iteration of the god myths. They are not real.

Indeed, but the Judeo-Christian conception is not even a representative conception of deity in reality. It is only one of many, many conceptions of deity. Not all of them are logically absurd, although every single one I ever came across failed the test of parsimony. That's not to say, though, that a conception doesn't exist that is logical and parsimonious. This is another of those things that falls under the rubric of Hume's problem of induction.

Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In that light, I would say that you are entirely justified in taking the position you do. I'm not comfortable with it, however. Just because evidence hasn't yet been discovered to support any possible conception of deity does not mean that no such evidence exists.

[LegendarySandwich]

Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me on this. It's not proof of absence, just evidence, but pretty damn good evidence.

[hackenslash]

Not just me, but Albert Michelson and Edward Morley would also agree.

[Achronos]

Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Awesome logical fallacy bro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... of_absence