Atheists, by their [your] own declaration, are really only qualified to speak about what god is not. — Pantagruel

Well, this "atheist" certainly is "qualified to speak about what" theism "is not" – the sine qua non claims of theism¹ are demonstrably not true.

from 2019 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/350947 [1]

sine qua non claims of theism — 180 Proof

My sine qua non theistic claims are that there are greater-than-human conscious entities. And that the most general definition of a deity is a being possessed of abilities that humans don't understand. Whether such beings are then worshipped, feared, etc. is about how human's react, not about what those beings in essence are.

As far as I know, there is no universal consensus that could legitimately be called the "sine qua non" of theism. i.e. you are making it up in order to then argue against it (as I have repeatedly pointed out).


edit: Among (many) other things, the Wikipedia article on God notes that "God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence". This agrees perfectly with my approach since there is certainly in reality a referent.

Sorry, that's just plain ridiculous. — Pantagruel

Ok, I challenge you to bring up any academic citing (not mentioning) another academic using the word "God" in a way that is not supernatural.

This doesn't in any way shape or form contradict the generalized description I provided. — Pantagruel

The definition of mathematics doesn't contradict the definition of banana, and yet the two are not the same thing.

So why should the concept of god not likewise be amenable to...refinement? — Pantagruel

Not slightly the point of what you are quoting there, but Spinoza and neoplatonists refined the concept of God. What you are doing is not refining a concept but changing the meaning of a word completely. In any case, everybody is free to reject your definition, so they can stay atheists.

If you claim not to believe in atoms, you are certainly the last person that someone should talk to who is interested in developing a theory of atoms. — Pantagruel

Unintentional denial of the scientific method and proofs by contradiction right here.

Ok, I challenge you to bring up any academic citing (not mentioning) another academic using the word "God" in a way that is not supernatural. — Lionino

Ever hear of pantheism?

The definition of mathematics doesn't contradict the definition of banana, and yet the two are not the same thing. — Lionino

This is a complete non-sequitur. I said that the description of the being(s) that I provided did not preclude them being consistently identified with the being(s) that conformed to the Cambridge definition that you supplied. Which isn't to say the Cambridge definition is authoritative, because it isn't.

What you are doing is not refining a concept but changing the meaning of a word completely — Lionino

Refining a concept could certainly ultimately end up in changing the meaning of the word. That is entirely the point.

Unintentional denial of the scientific method and proofs by contradiction right here. — Lionino

What does this even mean? I certainly did not deny the scientific method or proof by contradiction. I pointed out that someone who is authentically interested in framing a concept should not appeal to someone who denies the validity of the concept.

Ever hear of pantheism? — Pantagruel

In common speech, it is silly atheism dressing up with the robes of changing the definitions of "God" and "universe" — the former which you are doing. If you are talking about Spinoza's God, it is the first motor, where the lines between natural and supernatural blur. I will challenge you once again to bring up an academic. Note that Spinoza's God is quite in line with Cambridge's definition.

This is a complete non-sequitur. I said that the description of the being(s) that I provided did not preclude them being consistently identified with the being(s) that conformed to the Cambridge definition that you supplied. — Pantagruel

Of course, the "highest form of consciousness" does not preclude being a spirit that controls reality. "Being a banana" does not preclude from "being 5 feet long". Yet, being 5 feet long and being a banana are not the same thing. Your definition and the accepted definition of God are not the same thing, they often don't overlap, like banana and being 5 feet long, therefore your definition is wrong. This is not a "non sequitur" (incorrectly used and hyphenated), or a false analogy, it is a perfectly descriptive analogy of your complaint.

Nevertheless, you say "the main defining feature of of a god is...". "Main defining feature" of something is exactly a definition, your definition of god is wrong, as the dictionary and any attentive English-speaker will confirm. When someone is learning English, no one teaches "God" the way you think of it, they teach it as it is in the dictionary.

Which isn't to say the Cambridge definition is authoritative, because it isn't. — Pantagruel

The Cambridge definition gives a good definition of what people mean by the word 'God'. You can complain about authority as you give the ability to communicate with fellow English-speakers.

who denies the validity of the concept. — Pantagruel

Most atheists don't deny the validity of god, just don't believe in its materiality. Your comment that atheists should not comment on god is ridiculous. Mathematicians prove theorems by showing its opposite is impossible. They don't believe in the opposite and yet they are working with it. Some physicists who work with relativity and the theory behind white holes, with string theory don't commit to the idea that those structures actually exist. Many philosophers who work with ontological proofs of God don't actually believe in god or in the effectivity of ontological proofs.
Your comment is plainly absurd and sophomoric.

You also should not comment on God, as what you understand by the word "God" is completely distinct from what God actually means. You don't necessarily believe in God as what the word actually, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening.

The Engineers of Prometheus, pictured in page 12, are God(s) according to the redefinition proposed. However, nobody thinks the Engineers are gods, they are highly intelligent extraterrestrial creatures who created human beings — metaphorical usages of the word "god" nonwithstanding. That is not therefore how the word is used. It is not just a refinement but a redefinition, as the set of individuals defined by each, the traditional and proposed, don't overlap.
The redefinition therefore is wrong and would be refused by any lexicographer.
This is not a matter of metaphysics or theology, it is a matter of language.

Your muddled interpretations aside, the actual state of affairs is that the concept of "God" exists across all cultures and in such variety that your claim that there is some definitive version of that concept that anyone wishing to discuss the concept must adhere to is trivially false.

As to your position. You reject the supernatural concept of god because it is illogical. Fine. But then you reject my non-supernatural characterization...because it is not of the supernatural variety. Your dogmatic mind is evidently in a state of blatant self-contradiction. One of the hazards of dogmatism.

You also should not comment on God, as what you understand by the word "God" is completely distinct from what God actually means. — Lionino

Surely you see the irony of someone who denies entirely the notion of God setting himself up as an authority on "what God actually means"?

As far as I know, there is no universal consensus that could legitimately be called the "sine qua non" of theism. i.e. you are making it up in order to then argue against it (as I have repeatedly pointed out). — Pantagruel

Based on Abrahamic, Hindi, pantheonic Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian-Persian-Mesoamerican-Aboriginal traditions, I understand theism as consisting of the following claims:

(1) at least one ultimate mystery
(2) created existence,
(3) intervenes in – causes changes (which cannot be accounted for otherwise) to – the universe
(4) and is morally worthy of worship.

Cite any deity-tradition, sir, that you consider 'theistic' and that does not conceptualize its (highest) deity with these attributes, or claims. :chin:

My sine qua non theistic claims are that there are greater-than-human conscious entities.

 Sounds to me like made up woo-stuff :sparkle: just like e.g. "Flying Spaghetti Monsters" ... "The Great Old Ones" ... "The Force" ... nothing to do with any religious expression of theism as such.

intervenes in – causes changes (which cannot be accounted for otherwise) to – the universe — 180 Proof

This single condition alone defines the being practically and can be the sole sufficient condition to account for your other conditions, such as having created existence. Being morally worthy of worship is a function of human relationship, not an intrinsic property. Having an 'ultimate mystery' certainly doesn't mean anything relevant to the being of the deity, that is a feature of the religion itself. We are not talking about religions, we are talking about conceptualizations of deities.

That condition I agree is universal, and it correlates with what I said, possessed of abilities which humans don't understand. Which is really all it would need to be and, given the limitations of the human mind, isn't all that high a bar anyway, as I mentioned.

Honest question - if I knew in my heart of hearts that the idea of a god, and the practice of a religion, were completely fabricated, wish fulfillment delusions, I would run from philosophy and ethics discussions.

I’m not saying anyone is wiser than anyone else, or anyone is or is not good - I’m saying if I knew there is no god, who cares what anyone else thinks about anything that is not testable in a lab, why ever discuss ethics if there is no measuring stick we all have to follow?

I’m not saying you can’t discuss ethics as a hobby, or because it’s just fun to look at all the people struggling with their fabrications called “the good” and “virtue” or “objective value” or “natural law” - but if none of these held any weight, why take any of it seriously?

Many atheists, like Peter Singer for instance, develop whole ethical systems and rules and judgments on other people’s behavior. I would just be reminded of Nietzsche’s opening lines to “On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense”: “After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, the clever animals had to die… There have been eternities when [the human intellect] did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened.”

No God, no hope for anything more than nature drawing its breath. Why be ethical at all? Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.

So maybe atheism is not only rational, but accurate, but if it is so, aren’t ethics and truth irrational? And by extension, all discussions about these fabrications wastes of breath?

I’m just saying if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless. — Fire Ologist

But if you are not an atheist how can you fairly come to that view? You would appear to lack the grounding to make that claim.

if I was atheist I would be an anarchistic, hedonistic sociopath — Fire Ologist

There are plenty of such people within the world's religious traditions. I don't think a little thing like god changes people's wiring.

Democracy and capitalism were once the greatest hopes we crafted as collaborations for the community, and today, many think they are evil and doomed to corruption. — Fire Ologist

People seem to be addicted to stories of doom and end of times. Media has fed us a steady diet of apocalypse stories for many years.

To me, it’s because we collaborate at all about anything that we experience the possibility of God. God is in the collaboration. So you take God out of it, the collaboration falls with it. — Fire Ologist

Well clearly this isn't the case because secular humanists have long plugged away at building ethical frameworks quite consistently and effectively, without need for gods. But I get that for you personally (and many other theists) this may seem incomprehensible.

All humans can do (whether theist or not) is develop a system and hold a conversation in collaboration with the community to work out what we think is reasonable in the space of morality. — Tom Storm

I agree that is what we do.

But if I thought that was all we could do, I would see it as futile. I see in every age, the same outcomes of all of our politics, all of our civil codes, all of our aspirations for a better world - we get murder, lies, rallying cries for war, etc.

Democracy and capitalism were once the greatest hopes we crafted as collaborations for the community, and today, many think they are evil and doomed to corruption.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves.

Unless there is a measuring stick that is real that we are collaborating to find and emulate.

I’m not saying if I was atheist I would be an anarchistic, hedonistic sociopath, but I’m saying I wouldn’t bother to try to explain why not or tell some else they were wrong about whatever they did.

To me, it’s because we collaborate at all about anything that we experience the possibility of God. God is in the collaboration. So you take God out of it, the collaboration falls with it.

And there are a lot of cooky Catholics - AND, for all I know Peter Singer is a saint. I’m not judging him (or the nun and priest) - I’m just saying if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless.

No God, no hope for anything more than nature drawing its breath. — Fire Ologist

Free thinking, free living.

Why be ethical at all?

For starters, in order to flourish more than languish...

Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.

Perhaps they "seem" so to a child.

So maybe atheism is not only rational, but accurate, but if it is so, aren’t ethics and truth irrational?

No more "irrational" than an atheist reducing harm and correcting falsehoods.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, that's how lazy cynics "bullshit" themselves.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves. — Fire Ologist

This is ethics in a nutshell. It's also why co-operation is such a crucial aspect of being alive.

if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless. — Fire Ologist

I'm unsure it would. Its just far less high-stakes, i think.

Free thinking, free living. — 180 Proof

Lots of evidence there is no such thing as free will. The biggest proponents of free will are people who believe in good and evil objectively and a free agent who gets to choose among them, like a Christian does.

In order to flourish more than languish. — 180 Proof

If there are no rules, we can’t languish in the anxiety of breaking the rules. Why invent rules that can be broken and put yourself in a box of broken people. (Find a lot of people in there - maybe the music is good.)

Ethics is like a clear roadmap for how to walk to your best life, then we take a look and see that we are in a boat with no sail. Totally delusional along with the God that doesn’t exist.

Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.
Perhaps to a child ... — 180 Proof

Fairly adolescent response. The premise here is there is no god, no objective truth, and this will all be over soon enough. So let’s see what we can agree on and use it to help inform choices that might go against our instincts. And I’ve met a lot of annoyed atheists stuck in pointless (to them) conversations. I get that. They were “adults” too.

correcting falsehoods. — 180 Proof

You sound like the God of Abraham. Or Socrates. Or Descartes. Or the ministry of truth.

Atheism is logical because it requires proof in order to believe the premise that God exists. Theism is unable to provide proofs other than faith which is a sort of blind belief in something that cannot be seen. From this perspective then atheism is logical and grounded on evidence not fears of punishment or rewards to bait its adoption.

Theism and atheism are two different mindsets and neither is logical nor illogical as theists have their beliefs for different reasons other than just divine favour.

if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless.
— Fire Ologist

I'm unsure it would. Its just far less high-stakes, i think. — AmadeusD

That makes sense. So, an atheist can have an interest in talking philosophy, truth and ethics, but in the end, as soon as they hit that pointless wall, the atheist can deftly switch to sports, the weather on upcoming vacation, and needing new shoes - higher stakes conversations. I get that.

Lots of evidence there is no such thing as free will. — Fire Ologist

I agree, that's why I said nothing about it.

If there are no rules, we can’t languish in the anxiety of breaking the rules.

This statement doesn't make any sense

The premise here is there is no god, no objective truth.

Well, that seems to me a "fairly adolescent" – unwarranted – "premise".

secular humanists have long plugged away at building ethical frameworks quite consistently and effectively, — Tom Storm

Where? When? Who? Effectively?

No two philosophers can agree on anything, let alone build off of it together.

I’m not an expert on living the atheist life, but I didn’t always believe in God. And it was liberating. But also seemed incapable of addressing the bigger questions that didn’t go away. If I stayed atheist, I wouldn’t have come back to seeking answers, and more to the point, wouldn’t be talking about it with anyone else.

That’s the illogical part to me. If three people agree there is no god, there is no objective truth, there is no access to reality as it must be for all, then they should also agree that they have no idea whether each of them mean or agreed on the same thing - collaboration in philosophy and ethics becomes pointless.

You said free-thinking. So you meant free thinking as a result of deterministic neural activity. Got it.

:eyes:

Where? When? Who? Effectively? — Fire Ologist

The Declaration of Human Rights.

And I have worked for social justice organisations that were secular, busily providing health and housing services for people experiencing homelessness and mental ill health. In fact, in my city during the 1990's it was secular charities that made religious charities stop treating disadvantaged folk as lepers to be patronized and dragged the welfare system into the present, from a kind of bleak, Dickensian charity model, so beloved by many Christian welfare services.

That’s the illogical part to me. If three people agree there is no god, there is no objective truth, there is no access to reality as it must be for all, then they should also agree that they have no idea whether each of them mean or agreed on the same thing - collaboration in philosophy and ethics becomes pointless. — Fire Ologist

It's illogical to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

No theist can identify objective truth either. They can only point vaguely to some amorphous god idea (as nominally foundational to whatever they think is real) a deity no one understands in the same way or expects the same things from. Religious wars and internecine conflicts between religions and sects within religions demonstrated pretty clearly that theism offers no advantages to secular thinking when it comes to building a shared understanding.

No theist can identify objective truth either. — Tom Storm

:up: Exactly. For example, theists cannot demonstrate that their "god exists" is (except only in their minds) an objective truth.

This is how I approach it (with academic vigor included.. its now my vocation). I can't get into the weeds on Ethics in real life. Its not worth my time further than putting my position forward and defending against attacks. Actual discussions are circles.
Parfit was a very interesting one as he was an atheist who sought to the very end to come up with an objective ethic. He failed. As all will.

Theists would however argue that their belief in a god is a matter of faith and not proof and therefore under no obligation to provide such proof.

On the other hand scientists don’t go around trying to prove or disprove god either because no such experiment can be conducted to detect god.

Plus if god could be detected by experiment then there’d be no need for faith which is what religion is in most cases.

Yes, but I didn't say or imply anything about "proof". I remarked on a previous nonsensical statement that 'without god, there are no objective truths'.

I remarked on a previous nonsensical statement that 'without god, there are no objective truths'. — 180 Proof

That isn't nonsensical though, is it 180? Its simply not veridical. IFF an Abrahamic God exists, then there we have objective facts from on high. Without, we're where you're situating us (and I agree). So, it holds..

IFF an Abrahamic God exists, then there we have objective facts from on high. — AmadeusD

I'm not sure about that. If this god exists then it would still be a series of confusions and mysteries. Which parts of the Koran and the Bible would be accurate and which bits not? How would contradictions be understood? Was Jesus god or a man? God might be established as an objective reality, but we still wouldn't be able to determine if this god was good (the Abrahamic god seems to operate like a mafia boss). Does god like what is moral, or is the good that which emanates from god's nature. How would we know?

I'm not sure about that. — Tom Storm

It's not arguable. In this scenario, its cooked in that states of affairs are relayable by the ultimate being. They are going to be 100% air-tight and unassailable save for dishonesty - which is baked out of hte concept because an objective goodness is baked in. You have to remeber, we're playing by THEIR rules. You can't just question the Abrahamic God if we've established it exists - and not be wrong.

The problem you raise, I see, and it's a fun one to play with ie What would people do about objective facts IFF Abrahamic God exists?? All your questions are live in that arena and imo a lot of fun.

You have to remeber, we're playing by THEIR rules. You can't just question the Abrahamic God if we've established it exists - and not be wrong. — AmadeusD

But THEIR rules contradict each other. I would argue that it's far from clear what the characteristics of the Abrahamic god are even to believers. For one thing, is the Bible still a series of allegories in this reality? Which stories are accurate and how do we deal with contradictions?

If the Abrahamic god is real then we still don't know what that god wants unless it says something to us directly. What if his god were real and appeared to us saying - 'The Bible was an attempt to capture my nature for a less sophisticated time. Much of the stories were misconceived and misunderstood.'