| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim07D6" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2006 12:08:43 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
I am not so much going to argue one side or the other of this, but
with to refer you to an essay at:
http://www.gtu.edu/library/Gravitas/Spring2002-7.html
I will quote the opening paragraph, and then rephrase it with what I
have in mind.
quote:
"Can God be defined in a way that would allow God to be empirically
confirmed? Taken literally, the answer is yes. I could define God as
my cat Roo and then prove (with not too much difficulty 'somebody's
eating all that cat food) that Roo exists. But the literal meaning of
the question is obviously not what is intended. The real question
being asked is: can God be defined in a way that is both sensitive to
theological depictions of God and empirically confirmable? The
question now becomes more difficult because it introduces a paradox.
The God we want to confirm is God as defined by religion. But
apparently the God of religion is defined in such a way that She is
not empirically confirmable. The question presupposes that empirically
confirming God requires a new definition. But is it possible to
redefine God and still be referring to God in any religiously
meaningful sense? If it is possible, how much 'semantic leeway' is
there?"
Rephrase:
"Can God be defined in a way that would allow *the possibility of* God
to be empirically confirmed? Taken literally, the answer is yes. I
could define God as my *hypothetical* cat Roo and then prove (with not
too much difficulty *that if* 'somebody's eating all that cat food)
that Roo *possibly* exists. But the literal meaning of the question is
obviously not what is intended. The real question being asked is: can
God be defined in a way that *Her possibility* is both sensitive to
theological depictions of God and empirically confirmable? The
question now becomes more difficult because it introduces a paradox.
The God we want to confirm *as possible* is God as defined by
religion. But apparently the God of religion is defined in such a way
that *the possibility that * She *exists* is not empirically
confirmable. The question presupposes that empirically confirming *the
possibility of* God requires a new definition. But is it possible to
redefine God and still be referring to God in any religiously
meaningful sense? If it is possible, how much 'semantic leeway' is
there?"
The key premise of my rephrase is "But apparently the God of religion
is defined in such a way that *the possibility that * She *exists* is
not empirically confirmable."
Is the *possibility* that the God of religion exists, empirically
confirmable?
As a comparison, suppose I tell you that beneath this cup is a die and
it possibly has a six face-up. Can this possibility be confirmed --
with or without confirming that there *is* a six face up? The first
way is to pick up the cup without disturbing the die, and see. But
there is a way to confirm possibility without confirming actuality:
you can shake the cup back and forth, hear the die rattle around, and
then pull the cup away, revealing a die with a six on one face. So it
was possible that the six was face up, even though we will never know
if it was face up.
So some possibilities are empirically confirmable, even when the
method of confirming possibility does not confirm actuality. Of
course, confirming actuality *does* confirm actuality.
What's the point? The point is that in the absence of evidence of
empirical confirmability, the same "lack of belief" that atheists
apply to the *actuality* of God existing, seems applicable to the
*possibility* of God existing.
Incidentally, the article I cited seems to conclude that the
possibility of God existing cannot be confirmed because any
religiously interesting definition of God makes the whole matter a
mystery.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
20 Aug 2006 03:23:27 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pj4he2dskfumua83c0f9t3o4mue9i2bsi5@4ax.com...
I am not so much going to argue one side or the other of this, but
with to refer you to an essay at:
http://www.gtu.edu/library/Gravitas/Spring2002-7.html
I will quote the opening paragraph, and then rephrase it with what I
have in mind.
(snip)
Interesting. But here's an idea: If a given defintion of a god REQUIRES that
a specific observation be present, and that observation is NOT present, then
a god fitting that description does not exist.
According to the bible, the god made several claims that constitute required
observations. For instance, any two believes are supposed to be able to move
mountains through the simple expedient of prayer, and believers can drink
any poison without ill effect. These are empirically testable claims. The
absence of such observations either means that no god exists, or no single
mountain has ever been in the way of two or more believers that wanted it
somewhere else, or that there ARE no believers.
I keep asking the believers on aa to try a drano cocktail, but so far no
luck.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
20 Aug 2006 03:47:15 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pj4he2dskfumua83c0f9t3o4mue9i2bsi5@4ax.com...
I am not so much going to argue one side or the other of this, but
with to refer you to an essay at:
http://www.gtu.edu/library/Gravitas/Spring2002-7.html
I will quote the opening paragraph, and then rephrase it with what I
have in mind.
(snip)
Interesting. But here's an idea: If a given defintion of a god REQUIRES that
a specific observation be present, and that observation is NOT present, then
a god fitting that description does not exist.
True. And, under a specific definition of god, if a specific
observation (evidence) must be present in order that the god be
*possible*, and that observation is absent, a god fitting that
definition is not *possible*.
WRT logical possibility, one specific observation required for
possibility is that all of the various definitional elements are
logically consistent with one another. The appropriate atheistic
position is to withhold belief in possibility, if this is not
observed. Given the overwhelming number of definitional claims that
can be assembled for the Biblical God, and their interpretive
flexibility, belief can be withheld forever, IMO.
According to the bible, the god made several claims that constitute required
observations. For instance, any two believes are supposed to be able to move
mountains through the simple expedient of prayer, and believers can drink
any poison without ill effect. These are empirically testable claims. The
absence of such observations either means that no god exists, or no single
mountain has ever been in the way of two or more believers that wanted it
somewhere else, or that there ARE no believers.
I keep asking the believers on aa to try a drano cocktail, but so far no
luck.
You probably get "our God is not to be tested"or some such.
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
25 Aug 2006 06:07:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:47:15 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> said:
"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pj4he2dskfumua83c0f9t3o4mue9i2bsi5@4ax.com...
I am not so much going to argue one side or the other of this, but
with to refer you to an essay at:
http://www.gtu.edu/library/Gravitas/Spring2002-7.html
I will quote the opening paragraph, and then rephrase it with what I
have in mind.
(snip)
Interesting. But here's an idea: If a given defintion of a god REQUIRES that
a specific observation be present, and that observation is NOT present, then
a god fitting that description does not exist.
True. And, under a specific definition of god, if a specific
observation (evidence) must be present in order that the god be
*possible*, and that observation is absent, a god fitting that
definition is not *possible*.
WRT logical possibility, one specific observation required for
possibility is that all of the various definitional elements are
logically consistent with one another. The appropriate atheistic
position is to withhold belief in possibility, if this is not
observed. Given the overwhelming number of definitional claims that
can be assembled for the Biblical God, and their interpretive
flexibility, belief can be withheld forever, IMO.
According to the bible, the god made several claims that constitute required
observations. For instance, any two believes are supposed to be able to move
mountains through the simple expedient of prayer, and believers can drink
any poison without ill effect. These are empirically testable claims. The
absence of such observations either means that no god exists, or no single
mountain has ever been in the way of two or more believers that wanted it
somewhere else, or that there ARE no believers.
I keep asking the believers on aa to try a drano cocktail, but so far no
luck.
You probably get "our God is not to be tested"or some such.
Which is a myraid lie.
-- Jim07D6
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
21 Aug 2006 03:50:12 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Jim07D6 poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
....
What's the point? The point is that in the absence of evidence of
empirical confirmability, the same "lack of belief" that atheists
apply to the *actuality* of God existing, seems applicable to the
*possibility* of God existing.
Much depends on the definition for the deity. A deity can be defined so
that there cannot be an absence of evidence. For a deity that is defined
as omnipotent, which is generally taken to mean that it can do all that
is possible, then clearly any empirical test could establish the
possibility of such a thing.
And, as I point out below, a deity can be defined so as to be beyond
test but not impossible.
Incidentally, the article I cited seems to conclude that the
possibility of God existing cannot be confirmed because any
religiously interesting definition of God makes the whole matter a
mystery.
Yes, the article places much emphasis on mystery. Given what I have
stated above, mystery and omnipotence would seem to be incompatible and
the article completely avoids any mention of omnipotence.
There is also this interesting claim in the article:
"But even if it were valid, and even if such intelligence could be
proved, it would still not confirm God's existence, only the existence
of a certain quality often associated with God."
The author says that confirming the properties or characteristics of a
supposed deity does not establish the existence of the deity. Given such
a restriction then there is no possible empirical test for the deity,
since you can only test for the supposed properties. In short the author
is creating a god of the gaps, with a vengeance. The author wants a
deity that is a complete mystery that reveals nothing of it's
characteristics.
Under such circumstances where the deity's properties are hidden from
you then you no longer can have a solid case for doubt of the
possibility of it's existence.
Regards,
Josef
All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are
running from, and to, and why.
-- James Thurber
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
25 Aug 2006 06:09:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:50:12 -0400, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in alt.atheism
In a message sent 'round the world, Jim07D6 poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
...
What's the point? The point is that in the absence of evidence of
empirical confirmability, the same "lack of belief" that atheists
apply to the *actuality* of God existing, seems applicable to the
*possibility* of God existing.
Much depends on the definition for the deity. A deity can be defined so
that there cannot be an absence of evidence. For a deity that is defined
as omnipotent, which is generally taken to mean that it can do all that
is possible, then clearly any empirical test could establish the
possibility of such a thing.
Which demonstrates the lack of omnipotence.
And, as I point out below, a deity can be defined so as to be beyond
test but not impossible.
Which still leaves myraid begged questions and broken logic.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism: Lacking Belief That God Is Possible |
21 Aug 2006 08:24:41 PM |
|
|
In article <pj4he2dskfumua83c0f9t3o4mue9i2bsi5@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
http://www.gtu.edu/library/Gravitas/Spring2002-7.html
I will quote the opening paragraph, and then rephrase it with what I
have in mind.
quote:
"Can God be defined in a way that would allow God to be empirically
confirmed? ...
Rephrase:
"Can God be defined in a way that would allow *the possibility of* God
to be empirically confirmed? ...
Is the *possibility* that the God of religion exists, empirically
confirmable?
What do we observe when something was possible, and actually
happened? We observe that it happened. What do we observe when
something was possible, but actually didn't happen? We observe
that it didn't happen. We observe the actual, not the possible.
"Possible" is not an empirical concept.
--
David Canzi "It is time to end the oxidationist censorship of our
children's chemistry classes and make room for other
theories." -- Institute for Phlogiston Research
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
