It would seem so. Moderators are posters–with additional responsibilities, certainly, but posters nontheless. Both of the moderators assigned to Great Debates (neither of whom is Czarcasm, BTW) participate in discussions regularly and thoroughly. The fact that “moderator” lies beneath their names and not “member” does not constitute an argument from authority, unless they are addressing Board rules and issues. And they will let you know when they are speaking as Moderator.
Forgive me if this has been covered already, but surely it’s possible to prove that something doesn’t exist purely using logic, without reference to empirical data. To wit:
There is no catalog of all books that do not catalog themselves.
There are no four-sided triangles.
etc., etc.
While one could remain skeptical as to whether a seemingly ironclad proof doesn’t contain a hidden flaw, one can, in theory at least, prove that certain things are logically impossible.
Moreover, if an atheist believes that such an argument disproves the existence of God, then his belief in based in reason, not faith, even if his reasoning is, in the end, mistaken. To argue that a belief is religious simply because it is mistaken would mean, for example, that pre-Sagan astronomers were members of a religion which required them to believe, on faith, that Venus was a swampy ocean planet.
I’d be interested in your reaction to this notion: the “problem of evil” is an atheist proof for non-existence of God (and is refered to in your earlier cite on Atheism 101). The gist of the arguement is:
A. God is benevolent and omnipotent (a definition of God)
B. There exists evil in the world (an empirical observation)
Since B is true (goes the arguement), God must not exist.
Now, I suppose you’d call someone who adopts this position a “hard atheist”. Now, you may not agree with this “proof”. You could disagree about the definition of God, or argue about the nature of evil in the world. But, and my point is, it seems to me that this is based upon reason, and supported by empirical data. I would not, then, call it “faith”, and I don’t think most people would.
Would you still insist that this kind of atheist is disbelieving in God based on “faith”? Why?
Or maybe you’d have a different word to describe this kind of disbeliever?
I would think this view indeed requires faith. To base your absolute non-existence of God on the fact that he doesn’t live up to your expectations isn’t solid or logical. It takes “faith” to believe with absolute certainty that God must be omnipotent and/or benevolent (both of which are required for this “proof”). Someone who defines God as such and makes this argument could perhaps safely say, “Therefore I don’t believe God, by that definition, exists”, but could not, without some sort of faith, say “Therefore God absolutely cannot exist”.
And I might also add that if you read the “what are the main biblical contradictions” thread, ambushed employs a similiar argument, but does not necessarily arrive at the “absolutely cannot exist” conclusion.
::shrug:: It’s a definition, without which any attempt to determine anything would be pretty useless. Does it take “faith” to beleive with absolute certainty that a triangle has three sides? A triangle has three sides because that’s how we define a triangle.
Well, the omnibenevolent omnipotent deity is a fairly standard defintion of God. If you define God as a blue plastic cup sitting on my desk, I can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that God exists under the same standards generally required for “existence”, but I don’t think this counterargument mandates that a logically-based disbelief in a certain definition of God is “faith”. Would you be unable to say without some sort of faith “a four-sided triangle cannot exist” simply because someone out there may have defined “triangle” as a quadrilateral? The theoretical atheist has indeed attempted to use logic to prove that God as defined by omnipotence and omnibenevolence does not exist, and so his disbelief in that God is not based on faith. It is not neccessary for him to concede that if God is defined as a blue plastic cup on his desk that God may exist for him to be able to state that he has proven logically that God-as-he-defined-it does not exist.
That may be the prevalent western view, but even between western faiths and even within western faiths there are those that doesn’t necessarily follow this. Many people in the world believe there are some God which are malevolent or not necessarily omnipotent. Many people also try to get away from a definition of God by not using that word. Nietzsche uses the phrase “original Oneness” to describe our supposed creator. There’s a school of thought which says a supreme being of some sort created the universe completely oblivious to what would become of it, and then walk away. Then of course there is Zoroasterism in which there is a Good force and an Evil force and both are at war inside us.
So there’s no reason to become so involved with disputing one definition of God that you forget its the entire concept of God that you’re after. If you are only out to battle this particular western concept of God, then it wouldn’t be proper to regard yourself as an atheist, but rather an achristian, ajew, and an amuslim.
**
[/QUOTE]
When I am debating a believer on the existence of God, it is always with either a Jew or a Christian. Therefore, for example, I try to show that the existence of an all-knowing God would mean no one has free will. I do this because one of the tenets of Bible-inspired faiths is that God is all-knowing.
As for proving a negative, read the words of Richard Carrier (which I will do over the weekend).
Sarcastic, yes, but lets look at it. Are your expectations of a dancing Scarecrow and Tin Man that they have their own will and their own consciousness which decides to dance? If so, it would be quite easy to believe, without faith, that by this definition these guys don’t exist. However, this doesn’t mean that there is no dancing Scarecrow or Tin Man, as both of these probably do exist somewhere in the world because somebody probably constructed some kind of puppeteering device or mechanical system to make a scarecrow and a tin man dance. Does this mean this other definition is wrong? No. But it does mean you have to make sure you’re limiting your statements to what you intend to discuss/debunk, and no say “there there can be no scarecrow or tinman that dance” or, “therefore there can be no God of any sort”.
What jab1 said about mostly trying to convince Christians or Jews is fair enough, but there ARE concepts of the word “God” that go beyond the rather limited Christian or Jewish view, so as I said if you are only out to debunk the Christian or Jewish God, don’t make the claim that you’ve thus debunked every concept of God.
Kaje, when I brought up the “problem of evil” I acknowledged that one way it could be confronted was by changing the definition of God. I think that’s what you’re doing now, so, no problem.
But I think you’ve taken it too far. By your argument, I’d have to agree that there’s no possible way for anyone to defend their position as a hard atheist (by faith, reason, or any other means), because that person would have to somehow address every possible definition or characterization of god that anyone’s ever thought of, or ever will come up with.
When people use the term atheist, I don’t think they usually mean it in this manner.
I hope you’ll agree that my “problem of evil” example did indicate the god (or, a fairly common property of god) that I was debunking, and I certainly did not offer it as an example of there being “no god of any sort”.
You need not debunk all definitions of the word God, but there are some acceptable variations that people subscribe to. For instance just removing omnibenevolence from the equation is something often done. And removing omnibenevolence removes the problem of the problem of evil.
What I can’t understand is ambushed’s religious belief that there can be no reasonable disproof of God. What evidence does he put forward that God is inherently unknowable? None, he simply asserts it on faith. Therefore, his so-called “soft atheism” is really the worst sort of irrational dogmatic cultism.
Ambushed, your theory supposes that any proof of god’s non-existance MUST be wrong. Why? Only because you defined reality that way by playing semantic games. I don’t believe that Simon Bolivar was a chinese monk, and I believe that Simon Boliver was not a chinese monk. Both mean the same thing.
Why does belief equal faith? I believe many things without faith, so why MUST my disbelief in god be irrational? You simply assert this as an axiom. If I reject this axiom I get different results. Ever notice how the people who rail and moan about dogmatism and how other people don’t use LOGIC are the most dogmatic of all?
You’re sidestepping the original point, though, which is that there can be logical disproofs of concepts of God, therefore hard atheism is not necessarily based on “certainty without proof”. (Neither must belief in God be based on faith, although in practice I have generally found this to be so.)
As well, a hard atheist may be within his rights to say that a non-omnibenevolent God is not God; certainly many theists I know would insist that an evil God is not God by their definition as well, and I would not blame them for not naming such a being God as it does not fulfill their requirements. If a theist can say “a God that does not love all is not God”, why not an atheist? As omnibenevolence and omnipotence are very common characteristics of God, a disproof of God based on them can enable an atheist to say they have disproved God without being accused of intellectual dishonesty; it’s not as if they have pulled their definition of God out of a hat or used one not often used in practice. They do not neccesarily have to disprove the existence of every single thing people have called God–as long as they choose a definition that is in fairly common usage I wouldn’t quibble if they want to call themselves an atheist. For example, pharaohs were once considered Gods, yet I do not think an atheist needs to disbelieve in the existence of ancient egyptian rulers in order to be an atheist.
I find this a little hard to swallow. I don’t know if anyone has linked this thread yet and I’m not about to read all these pages to find out, but: Does everyone have faith in something?
However, apparently you don’t read the very things you cite, for you mentioned
That is, through a system of logical thought they have proved to their satisfaction that no god exists. I am not aware of any such proof, even a skeletal one, but then again I’m not a strong atheist.
Unless you are prepared to show that having a logical system of thought is faith or is based in faith, then I suppose you just cited yourself out of the argument.
[hijack]Incidentally, ambushed, can you be involved in any thread without bashing libertarians?[/hijack]
My parents made me attend a Christian Sunday school, because they believed that it would provide me with an adequate basis from which to make my choice of belief systems as an adult. I never “bought it”. I found “Goldielocks and the Three Bears” and “Peter Pan” to be no less believable, and far more interesting than, the basic Christian teachings. I have, however, attended church at times during my life, because church provided a communal environment in which to regularly engage in retrospective meditation to assess how well I was living my life in relation to my personal values and beliefs. I eventually tired of the “format” of the churches I tried and I currently practice solitary reflection or reflection with close friends.
I am not an Athiest, I am an Agnostic, but I feel that any belief system purporting to provide insights into the workings of a divine being that rules the universe is both unnecessary and impossible. How the hell can any mere mortal claim to understand even the tiniest aspect of an infinite, divine being? Furthermore, why does a thinking organism that is capable of assimilating knowledge and exercising reason need a roadmap to absolute truth? For me, a major purpose of life is to attempt to discover truth on an individual basis. With a solid set of personal values and beliefs, I feel no need for a God image.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the vast majority of responses to the original question, “Given that most Dopers are atheist (or so it seems), I ask you, in all sincerity, what did you replace God with?”, are based in a Judeo-Christian framework. Christianity borrows from a multitude of ancient religious practices: virgin birth, resurrection, and hell, for example, were a part of the belief of ancient Egyptians. Most of the world’s people are not Christian. I understand that Christianity is a dominant faith in western culture, but I think it is beneficial to acknowledge that Christianity is not unique, universal, or ubiquitous.
Of course, the committed Christian would say to Mr. Carrier, “If you cannot sense God within you, it is because you choose to be blind to Him.” They may even go so far as to say that Mr. Carrier (or myself) is evil and afraid to look at God. However there is no empirical evidence that Mr. Carrier (or myself) “chooses to be blind to God;” this is a mere assertion, invented for the occaision.
This kind of argument always bothered me, as it really proves nothing and accomplishes nothing. If God is omnipresent and granted us the ability to “feel his loving presence”, why would we be able to tell if he is there? If he’s ALWAYS there, and has ALWAYS BEEN THERE since birth, we would have simply incorporated this “god-presence” into what we think is normal sensation. Granted, this doesn’t prove the case for the Christian side either, as it is weak to base your faith on “well I know he’s always there just 'cause”, so basically the statement that we can always feel Him is just a way to boost morale and can’t stand as disproof of Christianity.
Well, since we normally ascribe a non-physical interpretation to God, the fact that he is ubiquitous in time and space doesn’t mean you’ve always sensed his presence. The Bible has presented a method of detection: (faith)/(love of God/Jesus). Should you not feel those things then you can’t detect god.
I find that argument terribly circular as it assumes what its trying to prove to come to a successful conclusion, but there you have it anyway.
[/QUOTE]
