# Atheists turning Religious **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508 "2003-01-30T03:01:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/101 "2003-02-02T09:08:43Z")
\*\* Paper Geek\*\* writes: > [@](#): > > See, the problem with that philosophy is that it means that it is completely impossible to prove God exists, since any given person’s confidence in the matter can be easily (and correctly) attributed to self-delusion. I don’t think it is possible to prove to others that god exists. And I wouldn’t agree that sages suffer from self delusions in the way I understand you are using the term. > [@](#): > > Of course, self-delusion may be all we actually have… but given that this forum is for debate, we are therefore proceding on the theory that logic reigns king. Given your philosophy, God’s careful adherence to the Prime Directive (imageek), and our use of logic in the present thread we have no recourse but to assume that God does not functionally exist, except perhaps as embodied by a set of constant rules governing reality. It is logic that shows we cannot prove we exist. If I cannot prove I exist I certainly cannot prove **you** or anyone else exists. That being the case who is there to prove anything to? Even if I knew god existed I might still only “believe” that you did. If this existence is an illusion does it not have to stand in relation to something real? How can an illusion stand on its own? I can only know that this manifested universe is an illusion or that god exists within my own consciousness. It can’t be empirically proven since we are uncertain about the nature of reality. > [@](#): > > At least, until someone provides us with actual, measurable data on God interacting with the world. What world? You can’t prove you exist. You can’t prove anyone else exists. You can’t prove the world exists. How do you think a god can be proven to exist under these circumstances? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/102 "2003-02-02T11:04:13Z")
RexDart wrote: > [@](#): > > Warning: Lib has posted this “proof” before, and it’s premises and the actual nature of it’s conclusion have been discussed before. Incorrect. The proof we discussed before was Tisthammer’s (a theist). This proof is Suber’s (an atheist). Paper Geek wrote: > [@](#): > > Lib: I have a few issues with your proof. It had evidently been discussed before, so I won’t go into great detail. Suffice it to say that I could substitute ‘pixies’ and ‘alien conspiracies’ in for ‘God’ and have no change in the truth value. Not unless you define those as Necessary Existence, in which case you’re merely using different words to mean Supreme Being. You cannot make pigs fly by defining “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”. > [@](#): > > won’t point out where I believe the obviously damaged logic comes from, because that was likely covered in the other thread. If you have found any “obviously damaged logic”, you must rush to publish it right away! You will become famous. Variations of this proof have been under discussion and scrutiny for more than ten years now among the world’s most eminent logicians and philosophers. Not one has declared the proof to be invalid. * * * There is simply no satisfying closed-minded materialists. Unlike Suber and other accomplished materialist philosophers, these who cry “give me non-metaphorical evidence!” and then when given cry “I don’t know what that means!” cling jealously to their faith in Nogod. I gave Czar what he asked for. He made a promise. Que sera sera, I reckon. ---
**Author:** ![Paper\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de053/32.png) [@Paper\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paper_Geek)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/103 "2003-02-02T15:29:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > \*\*Even if I knew god existed I might still only “believe” that you did. If this existence is an illusion does it not have to stand in relation to something real? > > How can an illusion stand on its own? I can only know that this manifested universe is an illusion or that god exists within my own consciousness. It can’t be empirically proven since we are uncertain about the nature of reality. > > What world? > > You can’t prove you exist. You can’t prove anyone else exists. You can’t prove the world exists. How do you think a god can be proven to exist under these circumstances? \*\* There have to be, as I see it, four things which we accept in any conversation about logic, or else it always comes down to the fact that we have no way of knowing if everything is presented correctly. We have to assume that there are other consciousnesses than our own. We have to assume that they operate in the same basic way as our own. We have to assume that our perceptions are as current science says they are (with, perhaps, a degree of uncertainty). We have to assume that time progresses forward locally. These are obviously not proven, but without them, I don’t see any way of proving _anything_. But we’re really digressing, so let me get back to lekatt. Lekatt: I may have given a false impression. I do not believe that the actual logical operations you performed are incorrect. I believe the following assumptions are incorrect. I will provide my reasoning. 1. \<\>G (It is possible that God exists) 2. G -\> G (If God exists necessarily, then He exists in actuality — the Modal Axiom) 3. G v ~G (Either God exists necessarily, or He doesn’t — Excluded Middle) Note: I am not trying to prove that it is impossible for God to exist. One: Your statements provide no meaning of the term ‘God’. The only thing you note about God is that It has a necessary existance, which is all fine and dandy, but why does God have a necissary existance while both pixies and alien conspiracies do not? Two: Your statement 5 assumes that God cannot possibly exist in a state other than ‘fully existant’. Many people would disagree with you, especially since you have not defined God. If God is not of this universe, how can he exist in it? Unless, of course, you’re going for a kind of Buddhist God… which you failed to define. Even more basic, God has many different, argued properties. If God is, for example, ‘Love’, then he certainly doesn’t exist as usually defined: he’s an extension of Love and has none of the talkin’, smitin’ properties assigned him by most Christian religions, therefore only ‘partially’ existing as defined. Three: Your statement 2 assumes it is possible that God exists. It is also possible that purple elephants fly out of my buttocks, but due to a lack of pain in that region, I doubt it. You cannot prove something by stating that it is possible to exist: you prove something by stating with inexplicable phenominon and finding the best (most reasonable) explanation for what is occuring. Any good scientist knows that you do not set out seeking to prove God (or any specific thing): you set out to explain certain phenomina. Any other goal is highly suspect. Four: Your statement 4 is where the crux of the whole assertation comes crumbling down in my opinion. Can you prove this statement in a way that isn’t relying on a language that assumes a closed world and modal existance? Can you prove that one line in English, perhaps applying to to, I don’t know, reality? I never much liked formulaec logic. The idea is good: strip away the debris that a natural language causes. The execution is bad: strip away all the necessary information that a natural language provides. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/104 "2003-02-02T16:16:10Z")
The ontological proof more and more strikes me as being akin to leading Ezekiel to the valley of dry bones, pointing, and saying “Look at the bones! Look!” And then sniffing dismissively when he’s unimpressed. Clothing the dry bones in flesh is another thing entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Paper\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de053/32.png) [@Paper\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paper_Geek)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/105 "2003-02-02T16:28:41Z")
Thank you, Drastic. Wish I’d thought of that phrasing. It’s much easier to understand than mine. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/106 "2003-02-02T19:48:22Z")
\*\* Paper Geek\*\* wrote: > [@](#): > > We have to assume that there are other consciousnesses than our own. > > We have to assume that they operate in the same basic way as our own. > > We have to assume that our perceptions are as current science says they are (with, perhaps, a degree of uncertainty). > > We have to assume that time progresses forward locally. Well that pretty much closes the materialists door. _Take for granted your most basic tools, ( human perception, thinking and consciousness ) then go looking for a proof of god’s existence._ Now that sounds like a good rule to follow. That we cannot prove that this world exists, or that we exist, may be a **Clue** as to true nature of ourselves and to god’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/107 "2003-02-02T21:31:45Z")
_sigh_ Ask a simple question of **Lib** , and what you get get back are favored definitions and a mathematical equation. It is this type of answer that drives away potential Christians in droves, imho. Before I respond to this “answer”, though, please try to remember what I have said time and time again-disagreement does _not_ equal misunderstanding. First, I will assume that the word you picked when using the dictionary was “God”, not “Diety”, and we can all assume that different dictionaries will have different definitions, thus the phrase “the collection of attributes that make up his nature” is a not a constant unless it is established by all that this definition of this edition of Webster’s is the one all philosophers and religionists are agreed upon. Now while the nature of existence is studied in the field of ontology(the most general branch of metaphysics), misuse of the Kripke logic model is possible if favored assumptions a plugged into the equation. Now while the strongest possible modality is necessity, we cannot say that strongest possible modality is the only modality available. That is the reason “possibility” and “certainty” have different definitions in the dictionary. Using the very broad definition of God that you have cobbled together at most makes him very possible, but nowwhere near a Necessary Existence. 1._If_ God exists, then we have to assume that unfailing and unending yet unmeasurable perfection exists all around us. This is a mighty big pill you are asking us to swallow. 2. Until it is shown that the universe could not possibly exist without the perfect God shown in 1, it will be hard to show the possibility of a God. 3. It is not necessary that quite a few things do not exist-Bigfoot, ftl travel, fairies, etc. you cannot equate unnecessary to not exist with necessary to exist. 4. You have yet to show the necessity of a God, and thus his actuality is still in question. 5. Null statement. Either he exists or he doesn’t. We know. 6. If something does not exist necessarily, it is possible that it exists _un_necessarily. Take Hollywood for example. 7. Substitution for unproven postulations. 8. See 6. A God that exists but is unnecessary is totally possible. I’m not saying it’s probable-just possible. 9. See 8. And 6. 10. Ditto 11. Ditto. IMHO, using the shoe-horn approach to force approved(by you) definitions of philosophical words and terms into a mathematical equation might possibly reenforce your own belief structure, but it presupposes a God-Nature that a non believer will not have in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/108 "2003-02-02T22:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Drastic \* > \*\*The ontological proof more and more strikes me as being akin to leading Ezekiel to the valley of dry bones, pointing, and saying “Look at the bones! Look!” And then sniffing dismissively when he’s unimpressed. > > Clothing the dry bones in flesh is another thing entirely. \*\* I think that’s absolutely hillarious. 😃 When you could outright show that Anselm’s argument was invalid, you were delighted that a valid argument could not be formed. But now that the argument has indeed been formed validly, your delight has morphed into a general huffiness. Before, it was like the world might end if the proof’s conclusion were valid. Now that it is, the world has become meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/109 "2003-02-02T23:02:48Z")
Czar wrote: > [@](#): > > Ask a simple question of Lib, and what you get get back are favored definitions and a mathematical equation. There is one and only one answer that would please you, and that is if I said that God does not exist, but I won’t be saying that, so you won’t ever be pleased. You gave your word that if you didn’t understand, the burden is on you. Live with it. > [@](#): > > First, I will assume that the word you picked when using the dictionary was “God”, not “Diety”… Well then your primary assumption is wrong. I did use the word “Deity”, except that I spelled it correctly. Look, I understand that you’re frustrated. But if nothing else, at least be a man of your word. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/110 "2003-02-02T23:26:54Z")
You fool. They’re not questioning the validity of the argument, they’re questioning the validity of your interpretation of that argument. Is ‘God’ the thing which you claim must necessarily exist, or is it ‘Love’? If it’s both, then you must demonstrate why one concept requires the other. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/111 "2003-02-03T02:10:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*You fool. \*\* While I don’t have a high opinion of Lib, insults in GD are uncalled for. If you want to call him a fool, I suggest you start a Pit thread, and inaugurate yet another pile-on. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/112 "2003-02-03T02:23:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*I think that’s absolutely hillarious. 😃 > > When you could outright show that Anselm’s argument was invalid, you were delighted that a valid argument could not be formed. But now that the argument has indeed been formed validly, your delight has morphed into a general huffiness. Before, it was like the world might end if the proof’s conclusion were valid. Now that it is, the world has become meaningless. \*\* Who is the “you” here? Because it’s not me–I’m not an atheist. The world is neither ending, nor meaningless; it is ablaze with immanent holy fire. These bones live. But the proof is merely the valley of them. The bones are arranged in the proper connection now, but that’s still very far from flesh. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/113 "2003-02-03T02:24:05Z")
How about “massively unwise person”? I generally try to avoid sinking to the level of insults, but **Lib** has a remarkable talent for being an appropriate target. I will attempt to restrain myself in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/114 "2003-02-03T04:18:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*You fool. They’re not questioning the validity of the argument, they’re questioning the validity of your interpretation of that argument. > > Is ‘God’ the thing which you claim must necessarily exist, or is it ‘Love’? If it’s both, then you must demonstrate why one concept requires the other. \*\* Name calling of _any_ sort is not permitted in Great Debates, no matter how you reword the insult. **Lib** , though I assumed wrong, when you look up “Deity” in different dictionaries, you still don’t have the standard answer that is somewhat necessary for your handpicked mathematical formula to work. Also, save the cheap “The only answer you’d accept would be(fill in the blank), and I won’t give you what you want” comments for loud radio talkshow hosts that can only win arguments by pretending to give both sides of an argument. I use the English language to ask questions in a straightforward manner, and if I ask a question, that is the exact question I mean to ask. I do not use subterfuge to “trick” people into giving answers I want to hear. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I mispelled “Deity”. I gave a point by point showing that I understood _and_ disagreed with your mathematical premise(and by “your” I mean that you presented it here, not that you invented it) and you didn’t want to discuss any of it. But you got me on a spelling error. Nobody’s perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/115 "2003-02-03T11:34:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cjhoworth \* > \*\*Actually, two friends of mine did turn from being atheists to being religious, specifically Wicccan. > > … > > Basically, what stopped him being an Atheist is the universe basically whacked him upside the head with evidence he could not ignore that something outside the bonds of logic exists. I’ve read the book which was the cause of all this, by the way, and it’s a good read in its own right. > > CJ \*\* I find this fascinating **cjhoworth**. How about some more info? Does the guy maybe have a website? What is the name of the book? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/116 "2003-02-03T11:51:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*Name calling of _any_ sort is not permitted in Great Debates, no matter how you reword the insult. > \*\* Where’s the line between describing **Libertarian** and insulting him? If I say that he’s being utterly irrational, unreasonable, and arrogant, those are more-or-less insults. If I say that his current arguments are irrational, unreasonable, and arrogant, that might be interpretable as a counter-argument… but if I point out that **Lib** ’s arguments are _all_ this way, that implies the first statements. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/117 "2003-02-03T12:26:52Z")
All right, let’s see if I can summon up enough self-control to attack **Lib** ’s arguments instead of **Lib** personally. Below is **Lib** ’s argument that God (as defined as a thing that exists in all probabilities) must exist. As of this post, we have not yet established exactly what it means for something to exist, but I’ll accept **Lib** ’s implied definition for the sake of the argument. > [@](#): > > 1. G -\> G (If God exists, then He must exist necessarily — Induction that perfection cannot exist contingently) > 2. \<\>G (It is possible that God exists) > 3. ~~G (It is not necessary that God does not exist — Restatement of 2 by Modal Reflexion) > 4. G -\> G (If God exists necessarily, then He exists in actuality — the Modal Axiom) > 5. G v ~G (Either God exists necessarily, or He doesn’t — Excluded Middle) > 6. ~G -\> ~G (If God doesn not exist necessarily, then it is necessary that He does not exist necessarily — Becker’s Postulate) > 7. G v ~G (Either God exists necessarily, or He necessarily does not exist necessarily — Sustitution from 5 and 6) > 8. ~G -\> ~G (If God necessarily does not exist necessarily, then it is necessary that God does not exist — Modus Tollens from 1) > 9. G v ~G (Either God exists necessarily or it is necessary that He does not exist — Substitution from 8 and 9) > 10. G (God exists necessarily — Disjunctive syllogism from 8 and 2) > 11. G (God exists in actuality — Modus Ponens of 10 and 4) This argument is logically valid. However, it requires certain assumptions which aren’t logically justifiable. What **Lib** seems to fail to realize is that we’re not merely dealing with _a_ set of possible worlds, we’re dealing with the _set of sets of possible worlds_. We must consider sets in which it’s impossible for God to exist as well as sets in which God exists. Otherwise, we’re just taking the conclusion for granted. If something has the property of necessary existence, and it exists, then it _must_ exist. Agreed. But what do we mean by saying that something _might_ exist? Probability is a way of modeling and understanding things that happen, but it’s not at all clear that a possibility can actually be said to exist. We might say equally reasonably that the universe can be in only one configuration and that everything that happens (will happen, has happened) is necessary and inevitable. **Lib** ’s Assumption #2 is not warranted. We have no reason to think that it’s necessarily the case that necessary existence is possible. And you know what happens when **Libertarian** assumes… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508/118 "2003-02-03T15:34:16Z")
Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, “Why, why, why?” Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-turning-religious/151508.md?page=5)