Certainty & Atheism

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

PaxRomana

Certainty & Atheism

Post #1

Post by PaxRomana »

Atheists, is being certain that something does not exist a rational position? Wouldn't the rational position be that you don't know what is not yet known? How can you be certain of what is unknown?

jerrygg38
Apprentice
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:38 am
Location: Cary NC

Re: Certainty & Atheism

Post #11

Post by jerrygg38 »

Divine Insight wrote:
PaxRomana wrote:
Atheists, is being certain that something does not exist a rational position?


In some cases I believe it is. You must also understand that atheism is merely a disbelief that a particular God exists. Everyone is an atheist with respect to the gods of the religions they don't believe in.

I am a very strong atheist with respect to the Abrahamic Picture of God. This includes the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

I am certain that this God cannot possibly exist verbatim as described by these mythological religions.

Why? Because these myths themselves are so utterly self-contradicting that they make it impossible for the God they describe to exist.

So I can be certain that these Gods do not exist (as described by these religions verbatim)

Does this mean that there cannot be a generic God in general? No. And so in that respect I remain agnostic in terms of a possible spiritual or mystical nature of reality.
PaxRomana wrote:
Wouldn't the rational position be that you don't know what is not yet known?


I know that the biblical God cannot exist verbatim as described by the Bible. That description violates it's own claims of what that God is supposed to be.

The God of the Bible is supposed to be an infinitely wise and intelligent supreme being, yet it the stories describe it behaving and acting like a complete immature idiot.

Therefore the Bible cannot possibly be a valid description of the God it attempts to claim exists.
PaxRomana wrote:
How can you be certain of what is unknown?


I can't be. And this is why I am agnostic with respect to the true nature of reality, or even the possible existence of some type of "God".

But what I can be absolutely certain of is that the Bible cannot be a valid description of any God that might potentially exist.


I am a believer in the Biblical God and I try to make sense of it. I agree with you that the Bible is mythological. It is also unscientific. It shows the beliefs of the early primitive Jews. we have come a long way since then. therefore the Bible does not reflect the God of the Universe. It reflects another type of God.
Since I have had my own spiritual interactions, I attempt to understand them. The way I see it is that there is an Earth God which is a collective soul of all life. this God evolved from a bacterial soul upward to the chimp/apes and finally man. the humanized portion of this God was homogeneous at early man and later became tribal man where all members of the tribe shared the same spiritual dimension. this was the Jewish god. the God of the Universe is basically an infinity machine of multi dimensions and multi light speed energy fields. the Bible and Gospels do not reflect this level of god. all we have is the God of this Earth.
Therefore the atheists are correct when they say that God is none of the above. From tribal Gods we evolved to individual gods. The torah keeps the Jewish God intact. Jesus keeps the Christian Gods intact. there are many Christian tribal collectives or church collectives. the spiritual process turns the homogeneous God of man into the heterogeneous Gods of man. eventually the energy required to keep the Gods intact fades and is used. this results in individual man with individual souls. In effect the end of the spiritual process is when everyone is his own God. therefore the Atheists asks where is God and he only has to look in the mirror.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Certainty & Atheism

Post #12

Post by McCulloch »

jerrygg38 wrote:… the Atheists asks where is God and he only has to look in the mirror.
I am not God. I look in the mirror and see a human.

The atheist asks, "Where is God?"
The ignostic asks, "What do you mean when you use the word God? I really don't understand the concept. "
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Post #13

Post by Excubis »

Well for myself I do not attempt to rationalize based on evidence or lack there of. I just came to a point where I did not need a God to exist. Some clarification for me I do not see a reason for life, suffering, thoughts, feelings, morals, ability to imagine or choose, and an afterlife. I am content with my life and do not need a greater meaning for anything naturally occurring than that it can. I define my morals based on the social. I do not see anything mystical about the universe or consciousness. I did not come to this through logic but an innate sense I do not need any answer for life other than I am living. That's good enough for me and do not attempt to stop people from believing in a God but hold doctrine accountable just as much as those who preach it and oppress others. I am anti bible in a way but like liberal, non literalist Christians and do not attempt to lump these into the same category as others, yet it does happen.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #14

Post by wiploc »

Overcomer wrote: You make a good point, Pax Romana. In order for someone to say that they believe with certainty that there is no such thing as God, they would have to know everything there is to know in the universe -- and no one does.
That's not true of all gods. The standard Christian god, for instance, is full of contradictions. He can do anything, but he can't defeat iron chariots. He can be seen but he can't be seen. So, in order to know that that god doesn't exist, we only have to know a little logic. We don't have to search the whole universe.


Therefore, that leaves the possibility of God existing.
You forget that Christians assure us that no other gods exist. I know their god doesn't exist, and I take their word for it that no others do. If the Christians are right, that leaves no gods at all.


Therefore, nobody can validly claim to be certain that God doesn't exist.
See there, you capitalized "God." You're talking about the one that we know doesn't exist. It's easy to validly be certain that "God" doesn't exist.


They can only say that they don't think God exists.
If we don't know that God doesn't exist, then we don't even know anything. In which case, we don't even know that you wrote that sentence.

If, on the other hand, we do know things, then first and foremost we know that logic works, and that logical contradictions don't exist. In which case, God doesn't exist.

You can't have it both ways.


That would make people agnostic, not atheist.
Theists believe that gods do exist.
Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

Agnostics don't know whether gods exist, which is another topic entirely.


There is evidence for God --
I don't believe that.


cosmological, teleological, axiological, ontological, experiential, historical, etc.
There is no evidence for god. The cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments are terrible. They shouldn't fool a child. And the fact that Christians rely on such patently rotten arguments persuades me that they don't have any good arguments.

If they had good arguments, why would they use the bad ones?

So I'm willing to say that your other named arguments also come to nothing. Christians have no good arguments.


The atheist who says there isn't either hasn't done his homework and researched it or he has researched it and can't refute it; therefore he says there is none so that he can avoid the issue entirely.
It's a challenge, not an evasion. I'm putting myself out there. You've got nothing! If you think your axiological argument is worth anything, I want you to explain it to me. Don't accuse me of being ignorant or evasive; show me what you've got!


I have no problem with atheists who acknowledge there is evidence and then proceed to present valid, intelligent arguments against it to legitimize their rejection of it. I do have a problem with those who claim there isn't any.
An argument that has been refuted is no evidence.


It's just an easy way out of having to defend their position.
I'm not going to accuse you of trolling. I'm just going to say put up or shut up.


And you're right. There's nothing rational about saying with certainty that God doesn't exist when they can't know that for sure.
Is this a straw man argument? Very few of us claim to be gnostic strong atheists (those who know that gods do not exist). Are you trying to impute a knowledge claim to all atheists?


There's only one thing that keeps people from God -- sin.
Aren't you tripping over your own argument here? How can you know that nothing other than sin can separate us from Jehovah without having searched the entire universe?


It has nothing to do with a supposed lack of evidence.
Don't just pretend you have evidence. Produce it if you've got it.

User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Certainty & Atheism

Post #15

Post by SailingCyclops »

Divine Insight wrote:
PaxRomana wrote: How can you be certain of what is unknown?
I can't be. And this is why I am agnostic with respect to the true nature of reality, or even the possible existence of some type of "God".

But what I can be absolutely certain of is that the Bible cannot be a valid description of any God that might potentially exist.
While we cannot be "absolutely certain" of anything, we do have very good evidence for what is likely and what is not, what is probable, and what is improbable.

Granted, we can not be absolutely sure the sun will rise tomorrow --A meteor may destroy the earth before then-- but we can be pretty sure, pretty confident, that the sun will rise on schedule. Likewise, we can not know for sure whether or not there is a teapot circling the earth, but we can be as sure of it's non-existence as we can be about any god's non-existence.

At some point, for the sake of sanity, we must bite the bullet, and call the highly, highly improbable thing, an impossible thing. It's as silly to be agnostic about astrology, or alchemy, or the sun rising tomorrow, as it is to be agnostic about gods.

I am curious, are you agnostic about Santa Clause? If not, why not? If so why?

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Certainty & Atheism

Post #16

Post by ttruscott »

[Replying to post 4 by PaxRomana]
Hi Goat! I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between certainty that there is nothing, and lack of certainty because no evidence yet exists (or may ever exist).
[quote button missing ???]

But you must have then made up your mind that the Bible including the life of Christ, the witness of millions about their spiritual experiences and their changed lives after conversion have no evidentiary value at all ... or do you mean not compelling enough to be proof?

Evidence exists and so to say it does not is to have an irrational opinion, the same claim you suggest against atheism as irrational if chosen over agnosticism.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Re: Certainty & Atheism

Post #17

Post by enviousintheeverafter »

[Replying to post 1 by PaxRomana]

The question is a tad vague. Can one rationally be certain of something's non-existence? Well, obviously; I'm certain that square circles don't exist (since nothing can be both square and a circle). I'm also certain that no wild animals exist in my bedroom; if there were, there would be certain evidence I could not fail to find (animals droppings, etc.). So it's clearly possible to be certain of the non-existence of something, and on different grounds. But is it rational to be certain that God does not exist? That would depend. Some conceptions of God, like that of many of the scholastics, is comparable to a square circle; when God is said to possess every positive attribute to a maximal degree, or even be the maximum of every predicate (as in Aquinas' 4th Way), this is like saying that God is a square circle, or all black and all white all over. Its not logically possible. We can be certain that such a being does not exist, just as we may be certain square circles don't exist. And most theistic traditions posit that God created the universe, and intervened in it to cause various changes in the world. But, like the absence of evidence of wild animals in my bedroom, there is a glaring lack of evidence of any of these changes- evidence we should expect to find, if those things actually occurred. So, while this probabilistic basis may be less certain, it is nevertheless the rational conclusion that such a God does not exist.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Certainty & Atheism

Post #18

Post by Divine Insight »

SailingCyclops wrote: I am curious, are you agnostic about Santa Clause? If not, why not? If so why?
I only just now saw this post and your question. So sorry for the belated reply.

No, I am not agnostic about Santa Claus. And the reason is because Santa Claus is a very specific and well-defined story that makes claims that cannot be true.

If we allow the story of Santa Claus to be so extremely "abstract" and "non-literally" that we can accept is as a metaphor for our own parents buying us gifts at Christmas time, then we can accept the story of "Santa Claus" as being true in this extreme non-literal sense. In other words if we don't take things like living at the North Pole, or having elves and a workshop, of flying reindeer, etc., literally, but instead only take them metaphorically in some weird abstract way applying to our own parents, then the abstract metaphor can be "true".

In a very similar way I reject the Bible. The Bible cannot be literally true. Even theologians and apologists confess this to be the case.

However, if we ignore what the Bible literally says and pretend that it is just a very weird abstract metaphor for other things that may be possible, then we can justify claiming to "believe in the Bible".

Of course, for me personally, I see no reason to do that. As far as I'm concerned by the time we get done "abstracting" things into extreme metaphors, there really isn't much left to even call "The Bible". So it's as ridiculous to say that I believe in "The Bible" as it is to say that I believe in a "Literal Santa Claus".

But yeah, if my parents can be an abstraction of "Santa Claus" then clearly Santa Claus exists. Just ignore the literal story. ;)

~~~~~

I wrote all the above to explain why I neither believe in "Santa Claus" or the Bible literally. I literally reject them both as being literally absurd.

However, if we now move over to something like some of the more abstract Eastern Mystical views of a spiritual reality, I become "agnostic". This is because given their abstract nature and refusal to make any concrete claims about their "God" they leave the door open to many different possibilities. Some of which may be "plausible".

I wouldn't say that I am a "Firm Believer" in any of this. But I believe that it has enough plausibility to remain "agnostic" toward it.

And besides, what's the alternative? :-k

The alternative appears to be that something exists and accidentally had the ability to evolve into a very complex universe in which sentient life forms also evolved and became aware of their existence.

I don't know about you, but that scenario is every bit as "mystical" to me as anything else.

So in a very real sense we live in a "mystical" universe whether we like it or not.

That much seems to be an unavoidable fact.

Recognizing this fact, makes believing in a "mystical essence" to reality more than just plausible, it basically makes it unavoidable.

I mean, a purely materialistic accidental existence is NO ANSWER to anything. That conclusion is just as absurd and weird as any mystical conclusion as far as I can see.

So since we don't know the answer to this question (i.e. we are ultimately agnostic with respect to this question), then why not just confess this truth and live with it?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply