Don’t worry, I have just been asked to prove my atheism, that is all :)

I thought we were all about leaving dogma — Franz Liszt

I'm with you there, but I won't entertain all propositions with the same seriousness. I don't think anyone can. I don't believe that dead people come back to life. The day may come somehow (presumably through technology) and the very concept of death will change. But in the meantime, I look on reports and hopes of resurrections as implausible to put it mildly. In general I don't believe in miracles and afterlives. That's the main thing: we are alone down here and we all die. If pushed, I'll grant that I could be wrong. I'd even like to be wrong perhaps. [We might, on the other hand, want to give genuine personal death its due, for its kernel is sweet, if you just cross the fiery brook.]

I object to metaphysical theism for more complicated reasons that involve my vision of how language works. I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't go into those.

My point is that there does not need to be a god of any form. That isn’t always an argument against, but regardless, if we can prove that we don’t need a god, then it is definitely a step in the right direction :)

:) Fairly similar myself

Don’t worry, I have just been asked to prove my atheism, that is all :) — Franz Liszt

Don't take it personally. There really are lots of roundabout theists on forums. In itself the theism is no big deal (it's just an 'uncool' position) but the slipperiness can be frustrating.

You've misread what I wrote. More plainly then: claiming that philosophy hasn't proven anything is like claiming an unmarried man still beats his wife – my point is that philosophy, as I understand it, isn't in the "proving" business, Fool, any more than is music or religion. It's nonsense to blame P for what P does not endeavor to do. Anyway, when philosophy seeks to "prove" something it calves-off into one of the sciences, the production of which alone has made philosophy indispensable to culture and civilization. — 180 Proof

What then is philosophy? Is it, as I think it is, simply a ritualized homage to logic? Does philosophy merely consist of coming up with clever ways of creating worlds of ideas only so that we may have an opportunity to put to service our much-beloved logic? That seems to be the case and if so philosophers are like the person who invents nails because fae has a hammer and liked nothing better to do than use faer hammer.

I can imagine. As you say, it isn’t a big issue, but frustrating. There will always be trolls

I can imagine. As you say, it isn’t a big issue, but frustrating. There will always be trolls — Franz Liszt

Trolls and sometimes misunderstood jokers and occasionally some people on the edge of madness. I remember a guy who was living in the woods and having persecution fantasies. I've followed forums like this for a long time. I love the variety of personalities. It's a massive, uneven book-in-progress.

Agreed. I guess the good thing about online forums is that trolls do not do as much harm. Frustrating. „ It is a massive uneaten book of personalities“ what a lovely way to put it :)

For me a hidden God is functionally exactly the same as no God. There would still be no good reason to believe. — Tom Storm

Good point. And tangentially: if the hidden god did come out of hiding for just me, I would believe myself and at the same time not expect others to believe my account. If we grant that some accounts are false, that humans are subject to delusions, then how is anyone supposed to tell the difference? Low-grade madness and sloppy thinking are the rule, not the exception.

In short, it's fishy that theology has to be so fishy.

Agreed. I guess the good thing about online forums is that trolls do not do as much harm. Frustrating. „ It is a massive uneaten book of personalities“ what a lovely way to put it :) — Franz Liszt

I'm very glad you enjoyed that metaphor. As far as trolls go, a certain amount of trollishness is maybe even good, but obviously pure meanness that prevents conversation is worthless. I mention this because sometimes it's been good for me to get my feelings hurt, in the long run. It hurts to let go of this or that idea. It hurts to revealed as sloppy or ignorant or biased, etc. And yet that revelation is valuable. It's like a little piece of the self being chipped off. Personally I think jokes can do some real work in philosophy. IMO, it's not at all like math or chess. It's more like poetry of life & death significance.

What then is philosophy? — TheMadFool

Philosophy (and its history) for me means contemplating the variety of ways in which we are unwise (i.e. confused, perplexed, frustrated, oblivious, sleepwalking-through-our-lives aka "foolish") which are studied distinctly as Ontology, Axiology & Epistemology (prioritized by whatever schema (Metaphysics) is deemed most illustrative, or illuminating).

Is it, as I think it is, simply a ritualized homage to logic?

No. Logic is a by-product of philosophy (re: axiology).

Ok. So what's your proof that we don't need a god – philosophically or otherwise.

Philosophy (and its history) for me means contemplating the variety of ways in which we are unwise (i.e. confused, perplexed, frustrated, oblivious, sleepwalking-through-our-lives aka "foolish") which are studied distinctly as Ontology, Axiology & Epistemology (prioritized by whatever schema (Metaphysics) is deemed most illustrative, or illuminating).

Is it, as I think it is, simply a ritualized homage to logic?
No. Logic is a by-product of philosophy (re: axiology). — 180 Proof

:up: :ok: I believe we're on the same page, more or less.

The problem with it is we may know it (the claim of some theists that they experience god in a convincing way) is BS, but how do we help them understand it is? — Tom Storm

That's our fallacy no. 1. We don't know if it's bs. We have no knowledge of their experience. But it's not revealed to us whether their claimed experience is authentic or not. However, we do have the right to maintain that old adage by the proverbial umpire: "I calls them as I sees them." it is conceivable that god speaks directly to them in a fashion that is convincing enough to take god for god. I don't deny that it's conceivable. I deny, however, their right to demand that we believe their claims.

Just because an atheist has asked a question that might seem to go against atheism, it doesn’t mean you should just reject it. — Franz Liszt

What do you mean by "reject it". You mean dismiss the argument? No, my main drag was not to dismiss your argument but to question your authenticity.

I admit, you can't do anything to convince me that you are not a theist. I may change my opinion as time goes on. However, you made a few statements OUTSIDE your argument, that an atheist well versed in philosophy would never say, but a theist well versed in philosophy would definitely say. For instance:

We believe that we are just biological animals or just chemicals grouped together through evolution — Franz Liszt

We, atheists don't believe that; not all of us, although conceivably some of us would believe that. But to state that ALL of us atheists believe that, is a typical claim of a theist.

I feel the only way to escape this paradox is to say that we are designed by some higher truth in the universe. — Franz Liszt

What you sincerely seem to claim, and this is not a devils' advocate type of claim, but sincere, that solution to the puzzle is a function of something that is outside the natural realm. If this is not a theist claim, then please put a dagger through my neck two weeks ago.

The answer, if we are just a bunch of chemicals, is that we can’t. Using this logic, science is just an illusion, so is logic. However, we have used science and logic to come to these conclusions, which becomes a paradox. — Franz Liszt

Whether we are a bunch of chemicals or a different order of movement form, logic and science is not illusionary necessarily (although they can be, if we live solipsism). They can be conceptual, not material, while not being illusionary.

There is an important difference between illusion and conceptual thought. Illusion is the mistaking of one meaning or interpretation of an event for a different one. Conceptual thought is a process in which one builds a mental image of reality and manipulates it.

From this it should be clear that all illusions are conceptual, but not all concepts are illusions.

It is conceivable (but can't be proven) that our perceptions and our interpretations of our perceptions are actually right on. This may not be the case in effect, but it very well may be the case in effect. We don't know which, and we will never know.

However, in your version the claim need the assumption that our concepts are all NECESSARILY false. That is not true. They are possibly false, possibly right on. The problem is, we don't know which. But it still does not give us the right to reject the possibility that our perceptions and their interpretations by us are right on.

In short, it's fishy that theology has to be so fishy — norm

:100:

Thanks! I thought/hoped that maybe that line captured a somewhat universal experience.

Just because an atheist has asked a question that might seem to go against atheism, it doesn’t mean you should just reject it.
— Franz Liszt

What do you mean by "reject it". You mean dismiss the argument? No, my main drag was not to dismiss your argument but to question your authenticity.

I admit, you can't do anything to convince me that you are not a theist. I may change my opinion as time goes on. However, you made a few statements OUTSIDE your argument, that an atheist well versed in philosophy would never say, but a theist well versed in philosophy would definitely say. For instance:

We believe that we are just biological animals or just chemicals grouped together through evolution
— Franz Liszt — god must be atheist

GMBA - nice work. I would say the same. FL may be an atheist but the trajectory of FL's ideas are word for word apologist-protesting-the-atheist-worldview 101. I find it unlikely anyone could have an atheist worldview with these sorts of classically described reservations.

FL is at best a theist-curious agnostic.

↪norm
I am grateful for this reply. This Enformationism is rather interesting and I will attempt to think about it more. — Franz Liszt

I assume you intended to reply to Gnomon. Enformationism is my attempt to resolve the paradox of Living - Thinking - Loving Matter, without bowing to the authority of any particular scripture or tradition --- amd without hiding my head in the sand. Atheism is the belief system that assumes (without evidence) that the material world (or multiverse) is eternal and un-created. But self-existence (aseity) is a signature property of a Deity. Before astronomers were forced to conclude that the world, suddenly-and-without-warning, began to exist 14 billion years ago, it was logical to conclude that our physical reality was eternal, and possibly self-existent.

Centuries before the BB theory, "atheistic" philosopher Spinoza assumed that the world was eternal, but he called the immaterial "substance" of the world, "God" --- for reasons similar to those you expressed in the OP. And, scientists still have no idea how the property of Consciousness could evolve from an un-conscious origin. So, that's why I propose that Information, not Matter, is the fundamental substance of the real world.

Hence, the hypothetical Originator or Source of our world is presumed to be conscious, at least in potential. If so, then that proto-consciousness may have been encoded into our evolving system as shape-shifting Information, which is the essence of both Matter & Mind. If you don't like the baggage-laden term "God" though, then perhaps "The Prime Programmer" would be more acceptable. :smile:

Aseity : existence derived from itself, having no other source

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real. This abstract notion, called information realism is a popular philosophical underpinning for digital physics.
___ Bernardo Kastrup : Computer scientist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network :
The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the
very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with
another.
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2021/03/02/new-research-indicates-the-whole-universe-could-be-a-giant-neural-network/

Baruch Spinoza : defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such. ... God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I would normally consider myself an atheist, however recently I’ve wondered whether some sort of theistic claims are actually reasonable. — Franz Liszt

My impression is that theism in general may be attempting to describe something that is real, in an out of date cultural language which can no longer connect with many moderns.

A key problem may be that most theists, like most humans, aren't really that engaged in thinking things through for themselves. They also may not be pursuing their own experience with much energy. And so, like most humans everywhere, they are content to drift along in whatever group consensus they find themselves.

In this environment the old religious stories which have been around for thousands of years take on a mantle of authority, simply due to their age if nothing else. And then modern atheists come along and rebel against the old stories, because they really aren't that well suited to the modern world.

But underneath all this cultural confusion and conflict there may be a germ of truth which is worth considering. It's possible that something along the lines of what we call intelligence may be embedded in the material world much the same way the laws of physics are. As example, bacteria perform data management operations that we would label intelligent if we were doing them.

The "delusion" of Atheism is that it has found a plausible answer to the "hard" questions of "God, the Universe, and Everything". — Gnomon

Agreed. And a plausible method of asking meaningful questions on questions of such enormous scale. Proof please. Never provided.

Another angle is that all sides seem to assume, typically without questioning, that finding an answer would be desirable. So let's just go ahead and kill all the mystery of the universe, eh?

SO you're studying necromancy; raising threads from the dead.

A key problem may be that most theists, like most humans, aren't really that engaged in thinking things through for themselves. — Foghorn

It's become a commonplace that folk don't think about the deeper stuff any more; they just go with the flow, never pausing to examine their lives.

It must be true; everyone says so.

Or is it that theists need to believe folk are unthinkingly avoiding theism, because the alternative - that they are giving the issue of god due consideration and then rejecting it - is too unpalatable for them?

SO you're studying necromancy; raising threads from the dead. — Banno

They're dead when they've been closed by the mods.

Or is it that theists need to believe folk are unthinkingly avoiding theism, because the alternative - that they are giving the issue of god due consideration and then rejecting it - is too unpalatable for them? — Banno

Generally speaking, folks of all flavors are avoiding thinking about any of this to any serious degree, because that is the nature of most folks. To the degree folks of all flavors do think about it, what typically happens is they travel a little ways down the investigation trail, and then stop and build a fort.

They're dead when they've been closed by the mods. — Foghorn

Just what a necromancer would say.

To the degree folks of all flavors do think about it, what typically happens is they travel a little ways down the investigation trail, and then stop and build a fort. — Foghorn

It may be a cultural thing (Australians tend not to be overtly religious) but when I scratch folk on this issue they generally respond in a considered fashion, rather that reciting dogma. It's usually "I don't really know, so I just get on with stuff"; which is a pretty rational attitude. There alternative minority are those who have accepted a dogma and say anything to defend it.

If our observations of reality are illlusionary as you say then god is just as illusionary, everything is an illusion which is false.

Remember: Truth is a conclusionary answer to a sum of factual knowledge, if you can't find truth/answer your looking for then you need more or re-evaluate knowledge.
It is by this logic that most athiests do not believe in god because there is not enough factual knowledge to support its existence.

Interesting stuff. The idea that the universe as information has always fascinated me on a few fronts.

First is how we should view universal laws, such as the speed of light, or gravitational forces. These appear to be wholly arbitrary, and indeed, it's a question if why they are what they are can ever be solved by physics. Physics is the study of the relationships between physical objects, relationships that can be described as laws. I'm not sure if it will ever have anything to say about why these laws are what they are.

This is relevant to the idea of God because if these laws were set to slightly different parameters, intelligent life, or life at all would be impossible. Tweak the force of gravity a bit and you don't get planets. And indeed, some theories do have these laws bending in the early universe.

Our universe seems to be finite both in size, history, and in divisibility. An infinitely divisible universe also causes all sorts of problems for the generation of material and is relationships with other material.

Thus, we have a universe of finite information, with rules of relationship that allow for the eventual creation of intelligent life.

This seems relevant to both theism and simulation theory. The laws of physics act as firmware, whereas the universe and the relationships of physical objects are code. It's the type of thing you'd expect to see in a simulated universe.

There is also a nice dovetail between these aspects of reality and the image of God as a being that must create something outside itself to define itself and thus exist; something like the theology of Boehme.

I feel the only way to escape this paradox is to say that we are designed by some higher truth in the universe. — Franz Liszt

Science is an empirical matter. It's something that is not 100% and is open to interpretation (like scripture). Something like triangles have three sides, is a matter of pure reason. This is 100% and is not open to interpretation. Matters of pure reason cannot be meaningfully/semantically refuted.

If you want something 100% or rational with regards to the nature of existence, I recommend the following:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11100/god-as-the-true-cogito/p1

First is how we should view universal laws, such as the speed of light, or gravitational forces. These appear to be wholly arbitrary, — Count Timothy von Icarus

The laws & constants of our world do indeed seem to be "arbitrary" to us, because they boil-down to a sequence of numbers that have no meaning for us creatures of the code. I suspect that the agents inside a computer game (TRON, for example) or inside a simulated world ( such as The MATRIX) would not be able to make sense of the digital code that is streaming through their world. (see below) That's because they don't know the Mind of their Programmer -- his numerical language or his intentions for the game.

However, the only reasonable "explanation" for those fundamental ratios so far, is the Anthropic Principle. Atheists reject that notion, not because it's a crazy concept, but because it implies that the Universe, and its occupants, were intended to be here, and not a random accident. Since I have no animosity toward the notion of intentional creation, it sounds like a good guess to me. :smile:

Anthropic principle :
Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. . . .The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

There is also a nice dovetail between these aspects of reality and the image of God as a being that must create something outside itself to define itself and thus exist; something like the theology of Boehme. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm more familiar with Hegel than Boeme. But Wikipedia indicates that his notion of deity was basically Judeo-Christian, with some elements of Gnostic Mysticism. Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory also seems to be a modified version of Christian Theology, as viewed through a lens of Quantum spookiness. And I can see his point -- up to a point.

Some posters here jump to the conclusion, that my references to a "Creator" (Enformer) are evidence of either Christian or New Age sympathies. Yet in fact, I constructed my concept of the Creator-as-Programmer primarily from known facts of Astronomy (not Astrology), Cosmology (not Gnosticism), and Quantum Science (not Classical Science). I admit that it does sound New Agey, especially in the image of my previous post. But that was not my intention. So I don't claim to know the mind of G*D, except as demonstrated in the rational organization of the world. And I don't concern myself with Magic or Mysticism. :cool:

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, __Einstein

THE MATRIX -- RAINING CODE :

Atheism is a belief based on the assumption that evidence for God would exist if God exist. It's an honest assessment of the information we have been provided. I think all religions are probably wrong and God probably still exists. I would be the first to admit it's an irrational belief, but I have a few other irrational beliefs, so it isn't entirely problematic.