Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: If You're an Atheist, Lie to Your Kids

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

First, the concept of "omnipotence" contradicts the basic laws of physics.

We don't believe in omnipotence, largely because it is undefinable and for us God is an immanent being subject to  natural law. so I have no problem with that.

But how does it contradict the basic laws of physics?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Okay. My apologies. Allow me to start over. Putting that question into context, whether or not "gnostic atheism" is possible depends upon how you define God.

Well, I assume you already have a pretty good idea as to how Latter-day Saints "define God."

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

With the definition of God you provided, I think gnostic atheism is basically possible, but it depends upon the specific details of the definition.

I don't think this negative proposition (God does not exist) can be proven by an earthbound, finite-in-faculties human being.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

First, the concept of "omnipotence" contradicts the basic laws of physics.

From the EoM:

Quote

OMNIPOTENCE. The Church affirms the biblical view of divine omnipotence (often rendered as "almighty"), that God is supreme, having power over all things. No one or no force or happening can frustrate or prevent him from accomplishing his designs (D&C 3:1-3). His power is sufficient to fulfill all his purposes and promises, including his promise of eternal life for all who obey him.

However, the Church does not understand this term in the traditional sense of absoluteness, and, on the authority of modern revelation, rejects the classical doctrine of creation out of nothing. It affirms, rather, that there are actualities that are coeternal with the persons of the Godhead, including elements, intelligence, and law (D&C 93:29, 33, 35: 88:34-40). Omnipotence, therefore, cannot coherently be understood as absolutely unlimited power. That view is internally self-contradictory and, given the fact that evil and suffering are real, not reconcilable with God's omnibenevolence or loving kindness (see Theodicy).

I'm not persuaded that we have a complete understanding of the "laws of physics."

Moreover, aren't we already at a stage where scientists contemplate the laws of physics breaking down?  Black holes and such?  

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Second, the concept of an omnipotent, morally perfect being actually existing can't be reconciled with known reality (i.e. the problem of evil).

I think it can. David Paulsen's comments here are illuminating.  See also these observations by Blair Hodges, these remarks by Blake Ostler, and these by Val Larsen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who is the arbiter of the "correct" definition of any word?

The correct definition of atheism is lacking a belief in theism for two reasons:

1- That is how most self-described atheists use the term.

2- The root of "atheism" is a theos which is Greek for "without [belief in] God."

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's not that I disagree with you. In fact I kind of liked the post.

Thanks.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's just that the idea that there is some kind of perfect Arbiter that  judges and tells us correct things is odd coming from an atheist.

Atheists can believe that words have meaning.

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I may offer a quote from the book, here are two passages. One that talks about the morality and happens to (correctly) define atheism, and another one that more closely addresses the topic of this thread: the benefits of religion.  

I have to say, from the passage you share, I am not very impressed. First I disagree with his his definition of atheism.  Apparently atheism is about as hard to define as God.  Who is the authority we can turn to, because apparently atheists disagree with each other?  His definition for atheism:

Quote

And obviously atheism is not a moral system in the first place. It’s just the absence of supernatural belief, like an unwillingness to believe in Zeus or Vishnu.

This definition is false on its face as atheists and agnostics do believe in the supernatural:

Quote

https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/atheist-supernatural

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2204958-most-atheists-believe-in-the-supernatural-despite-trusting-science/

https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/study-shows-atheists-agnostics-believe-supernatural

I also disagree with this point he makes:

Quote

if religion were a source of morality, the number of religious wars and atrocities ought to be zero. 

There is no logic to this at all.  Because something can be (not all religions are equal) a source of good, does not disqualify it from being abused by some.  His comment is like saying, "if water truly was a source of life, then the number of deaths by water ought to be zero".  Or, "if methadone was truly an effective tool in addiction recovery, then the number of those who abuse methadone would be zero".   His comment is nonsense.  Of course religion is a source of morality, and of course people abuse it for evil purposes too. 

Edit to add: I see that Bukowski has beet me to the arbiter comment. 

Edited February 7, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Atheists can believe that words have meaning.

Of course!!!

But their meaning is contextual!  

"Brick" could mean many things according to the context. If you are laying a brick wall and do you want your assistant to hand you a brick all you have to say it is "Brick."

In that case it means "hand me a brick please."

If you are picking out siding for your house and the salesman asks you if you want wood or brick, and you say "brick" the context makes it mean "please install brick veneer siding on my house."

A dictionary may give you information about how brick is made.

If you are a little piggy and expecting the wolf you might want a house of bricks because to you "brick" means "windproof."

Meaning depends on context.

All three of my favorite guys Rorty and Dewey and Wittgenstein were agnostics, the idea they had not been exposed to is that there could be a human God, and that we could become a perfect humans thereby making us Gods. When God means "perfect human", the personification of the ideal perfect human, that's a whole different meaning than what they were used to.

I am sure they never thought of "God" in that context, as a perfect human, except possibly Rorty, whose wife was raised LDS. Rorty did in fact mention Mormons at times and his comments were always positive.

But there is no one perfect Arbiter of the meaning of words. The meaning of words vary according to context. Did I mention that before? ?

 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Edit to add: I see that Bukowski has beet me to the arbiter comment. 

Yeah.

For once.

Usually you just make me hand out a rep point for something I was going to say. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

And obviously atheism is not a moral system in the first place. It’s just the absence of supernatural belief, like an unwillingness to believe in Zeus or Vishnu. The moral alternative to theism is humanism...

Nope. Humanism is its own type of religion.

The idea of creating the best human IS humanism.

The BELIEF that humanism can help humanity is actually "a hope for things unseen" which qualifies it as a faith position.

You yourself make it an alternative to theism. That means that it functions like theism in our lives giving us meaning which is as alternate belief ask supposedly a substitute for theism functioning in the same way.

Edited February 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I assume you already have a pretty good idea as to how Latter-day Saints "define God."

Sure. But talking about the details of that could get really uncomfortable as I'm sure you can imagine.

 

Quote

I don't think this negative proposition (God does not exist) can be proven by an earthbound, finite-in-faculties human being.

The negative proposition that God does not exist uncertainly can be proven, depending upon how we define terms. If we say words like, "all powerful" and "perfectly moral" might have idiosyncratic definitions, or that God doesn't really have those exact characteristics in the way we imagine, then sure, we can't prove anything.

For example, presumably you would agree that humans can prove that square circles don't exist. But I could argue that somewhere in the universe there are divine circles that don't necessarily have the same properties of mundane circles, and that celestial squareness doesn't necessarily mean what we mere mortals think squareness refers to, then sure; we couldn't even prove that square circles don't exist. But that is what I would call (what's a more polite term for gobbledygook?) equivocation. 

 

Quote

From the EoM:

I'm not persuaded that we have a complete understanding of the "laws of physics."

Moreover, aren't we already at a stage where scientists contemplate the laws of physics breaking down?  Black holes and such?  

I would highly recommend the book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself by Cal Tech physicist Sean Carroll. It turns out that not only do we know a lot, we also know the bounds between what is known and unknown, and hence what are plausible theories about the unknown and what are not plausible theories. Of course one could argue that the earth is really flat and that all of the evidence that it is round is an elaborate hoax by a super-powerful trixter. But outside of such strictly philosophical arguments, we have an exceptionally good handle on the laws of physics.

Quoting Carroll:

Psychic powers—defined as mental abilities that allow a person to observe or manipulate the world in ways other than through ordinary physical means—don’t exist. We can say that with confidence, even without digging into any controversies about this or that academic study. The reason is simple: what we know about the laws of physics is sufficient to rule out the possibility of true psychic powers. That’s a very strong claim. And more than a little bit dangerous: the trash heap of history is populated by scientists claiming to know more than they really do, or predicting that they will know almost everything any day now:

“[ We are] probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.”—Simon Newcomb, 1888

“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered.”—Albert Michelson, 1894

“Physics, as we know it, will be over in six months.”—Max Born, 1927

There is a 50 percent chance that “we would find a complete unified theory of everything by the end of the century.”—Stephen Hawking, 1980

My claim is different. (That’s what everyone says, of course—but this time it really is.) I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind. The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take. Modern physics not only tells us that certain things are true; it comes with a built-in way of delineating the limits of that knowledge—where our theories cease to be reliable. To see how that works, in this section we’ll dig into the rules by which contemporary physics says the universe operates...

(page 154-155)

Regarding black holes, they were predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. Finding empirical evidence of their existence confirmed the theory. Perhaps you meant to say dark matter?

Quote

I think it can. David Paulsen's comments here are illuminating.  See also these observations by Blair Hodges, these remarks by Blake Ostler, and these by Val Larsen.

Yes, I'm familiar with that train of thought. Such arguments rely on idiosyncratic definitions of omnipotence and moral perfection. Hence, the request for clarification on the definitions. All of this comes back to the question of what is meant by God. At what point are two different conceptions of God so different that you can't rightly say they are both referring to the same hypothetical being? For example, would you consider Jehovah and Baal to be the same God, just conceived of in two different ways? If so, how about Jehovah and the golden calf? Are they the same God, just conceived of differently?

 

Quote

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Analytics]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have to say, from the passage you share, I am not very impressed. First I disagree with his his definition of atheism.  Apparently atheism is about as hard to define as God.  Who is the authority we can turn to, because apparently atheists disagree with each other?  His definition for atheism:

Most self-proclaimed atheists think that atheism means lacking a belief in God. What somebody means by a word is what should take precedence, and when we are talking about somebody's belief system, extra weight should be given to the person whose beliefs are being described by the word. I suppose in that passage Pinker was conflating God with supernatural and hence conflated atheist with naturalist. But in context his point is clear enough.

 

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I also disagree with this point he makes:

There is no logic to this at all.  Because something can be (not all religions are equal) a source of good, does not disqualify it from being abused by some.  His comment is like saying, "if water truly was a source of life, then the number of deaths by water ought to be zero".  Or, "if methadone was truly an effective tool in addiction recovery, then the number of those who abuse methadone would be zero".   His comment is nonsense.  Of course religion is a source of morality, and of course people abuse it for evil purposes too. 

That is a fair point, but it's important to understand what he was saying here in the broader context of the book. The reason that we can broadly agree on what is good and what is evil is because of humanism, not because of religion. The reason why what you said makes sense is because in reality, we both turn to humanism to determine what "good" and "evil" mean. That being the case, what benefit to we get by adulterating humanism with religion? 

[Analytics]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope. Humanism is its own type of religion.

The idea of creating the best human IS humanism.

The BELIEF that humanism can help humanity is actually "a hope for things unseen" which qualifies it as a faith position.

You yourself make it an alternative to theism. That means that it functions like theism in our lives giving us meaning which is as alternate belief ask supposedly a substitute for theism functioning in the same way.

While I'd quibble with you about the specific definition of humanism, I basically agree with you here. But humanism is more of an axiom about what is important than it is a position of faith. But yes, all atheism means is lacking a belief in God. Most atheists you talk to are also naturalists (they believe the universe operates according to natural laws), and in all likelihood they are also humanists (they get meaning, joy, ethics, etc. from the axiomatic beliefs of humanism).

In theory atheists could believe in some sort of magical world, and they could be nihilists or communists or something else besides humanists. But in these circles in this day and age, most atheists are also naturalists and humanists. 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Well, I assume you already have a pretty good idea as to how Latter-day Saints "define God."

Sure. But talking about the details of that could get really uncomfortable as I'm sure you can imagine.

I've never felt "uncomfortable" talking about "how Latter-day Saints 'define God.'"  As long as decorum, civility, respect, etc. are present, we should be fine.

Quote

Quote

I don't think this negative proposition (God does not exist) can be proven by an earthbound, finite-in-faculties human being.

The negative proposition that God does not exist uncertainly can be proven, depending upon how we define terms.

I don't think so.

I can empirically prove that Donald J. Trump is the current president of the United States.

I can emprically prove that Hillary Clinton is not the current president of the United States.  That's a negative proposition that is provable.

I can empirically prove that the earth is an oblate spheroid in shape.  

I can empirically prove that the earth is not a flat disc in shape.  That's a negative proposition that is provable.

Can I empirically prove that extra-terrestrial intelligent life does not exist?  Nope.  The universe is a big place.  I lack the ability to demonstrate that in the entirety of its vast expanse, we are the only intelligent life in it.  That's a negative proposition that is, in my view, unprovable.

Quote

If we say words like, "all powerful" and "perfectly moral" might have idiosyncratic definitions, or that God doesn't really have those exact characteristics in the way we imagine, then sure, we can't prove anything.

Again, you are insisting on exacting precision, and I don't think that's necessary.

Quote

For example, presumably you would agree that humans can prove that square circles don't exist. But I could argue that somewhere in the universe there are divine circles that don't necessarily have the same properties of mundane circles, and that celestial squareness doesn't necessarily mean what we mere mortals think squareness refers to, then sure; we couldn't even prove that square circles don't exist. But that is what I would call (what's a more polite term for gobbledygook?) equivocation. 

Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

No, I'm not doing that.

Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is.

Quote

I would highly recommend the book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself by Cal Tech physicist Sean Carroll. It turns out that not only do we know a lot, we also know the bounds between what is known and unknown, and hence what are plausible theories about the unknown and what are not plausible theories.

"Plausible theories"?  

Are you claiming that the existence of God is not plausible?

Quote

Of course one could argue that the earth is really flat and that all of the evidence that it is round is an elaborate hoax by a super-powerful trixter. But outside of such strictly philosophical arguments, we have an exceptionally good handle on the laws of physics.

To an extent, yes.

Quote

Quoting Carroll:

Psychic powers—defined as mental abilities that allow a person to observe or manipulate the world in ways other than through ordinary physical means—don’t exist. We can say that with confidence, even without digging into any controversies about this or that academic study. The reason is simple: what we know about the laws of physics is sufficient to rule out the possibility of true psychic powers. That’s a very strong claim. And more than a little bit dangerous: the trash heap of history is populated by scientists claiming to know more than they really do, or predicting that they will know almost everything any day now:

“[ We are] probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.”—Simon Newcomb, 1888

“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered.”—Albert Michelson, 1894

“Physics, as we know it, will be over in six months.”—Max Born, 1927

There is a 50 percent chance that “we would find a complete unified theory of everything by the end of the century.”—Stephen Hawking, 1980

My claim is different. (That’s what everyone says, of course—but this time it really is.) I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things,

I concur with this.

Quote

and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind.

I dispute that our current grasp of science and the laws of physics is sufficient to definitively preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and hence of the sorts of powers that we believe God has.

Quote

The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take. Modern physics not only tells us that certain things are true; it comes with a built-in way of delineating the limits of that knowledge—where our theories cease to be reliable. To see how that works, in this section we’ll dig into the rules by which contemporary physics says the universe operates...

(page 154-155)

Regarding black holes, they were predicted by the General Theory of Relativity.

I was thinking of this: 

Quote

General relativity has been proven true in every situation we've observed, with one notable exception: the singularity of black holes. Inside a black hole, it is theorized that there is a point that has collapsed to infinite density at which the gravity is so intense, the laws of physics break down. But this is also predicted by general relativity, so long as the singularity is surrounded by the event horizon, or the "point of no return," and cannot be observed from the outside.

I also had thought that the speed of light was constant.  But not this seems to be in question (see here and here).

And so it goes.  Our grasp of scientific principles is finite, blinkered and not without flaws.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

MODERN SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG FAR MORE THAN YOU THINK
Statisticians have shown that many scientific findings are wrong, and without an increase in statistical know-how for scientists it'll continue happening.
IRINEO CABREROSUPDATED:NOV 24, 2017ORIGINAL:NOV 17, 2017

...

Science is fallible. Even at its best, science can make mistakes. A good scientist will design her experiment so that the chances of arriving at a false conclusion are low, but she can never design a perfect experiment; she always has to live with some small, lingering chance that what looked like compelling data was actually just plain happenstance.

Most reasonable people will begrudgingly accept that any given scientific finding has a small chance of being false. It's like finding out that the Food and Drug Administration allows 1mg of mouse feces in a pound of black pepper; mouse poop is unsavory, but at least it only makes up one part in 450,000. However, there has been a growing concern for a bit over a decade that the state of science is far worse than this. Perhaps most famously, Stanford University professor John Ioannidis proclaimed in 2005: "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false." Though the disease is severe, the root cause is unassuming. Some statisticians, like Ioannidis, suspect that the primary culprit is simply a widespread confusion about statistics.

Every day we rely on the careful work of scientists in ways both big and small. From the ability to send an emoji halfway across the world to the countless miracles of modern medicine, the mechanics of our everyday lives constantly involve the fruits of scientific labor. But those innovations are just a small slice of scientific inquiry happening daily, and proof that some science works for us shouldn't blind us to the field's shortcomings.
...
While Ioannidis thinks it possible that the vast majority of published findings are false, Professor Jeffery Leek of University of Washington puts the figure much lower, estimating in an interesting 2014 paper that about 14 percent of scientific findings are likely to be false. However, as Ioannidis and others would quickly point out, there are some serious reasons to suspect that this estimate is too small.

For every scientific finding we hear about, lurking in its wake is a trail of negative results that we never hear about. Rather than stating the results of every experiment they run, scientists only tell us the results of the interesting ones. This bashfulness has severe statistical consequences.
...
There are many compelling reasons to push for publishing "uninteresting" or "negative" results. Efficiency is one obvious reason: Scientists need not waste time testing hypotheses that have been repeatedly shown to be false. Pruning false results is another reason. Even if our early scientist discovered that dancing causes it to rain, another scientist, repeating her experiment, will be unlikely to find the same. Without the publication of this second, negative result, the belief that dancing causes it to rain could long remain a "scientific finding" for far too long. But perhaps most importantly, without negative results, evaluating whether a purported scientific discovery is true is simply impossible.

However imperfect and error-prone science is, it remains our best tool at getting to the truth. The thing is, scientists are wrong so often not because they are clumsy, lying, or stupid. Scientists are wrong so often because the questions they ask are difficult ones—scientists seek truth, and truth is rare and elusive.

Because the root cause of so many false scientific discoveries is widespread statistical confusion, a solution is feasible: statistical education. The science community is, even if slowly, recognizing the necessity of modifying its statistical practices to suit modern scientific research. Perhaps one day soon we will be able to say triumphantly: "Most scientific discoveries are true." Today, however, to assume that scientists are always right, or even usually right, is naive.

I am a big fan of science.  But I can't go along with endowing it with the ability to either discern the existence of God or disprove that existence.  Just not buying it.

Quote

Yes, I'm familiar with that train of thought. Such arguments rely on idiosyncratic definitions of omnipotence and moral perfection. Hence, the request for clarification on the definitions.

Hence I have provided clarification.

Quote

All of this comes back to the question of what is meant by God.

Not really.  If we posit that God exists and has certain attributes, we can proceed on those generalized concepts without necessarily requiring a mathematically precise definition of "omnipotence" or some such.

Quote

At what point are two different conceptions of God so different that you can't rightly say they are both referring to the same hypothetical being?

At a very early point.

Consider the current hysteria over Donald J. Trump.  There are vastly different "conceptions" of him being bandied about.  But nobody is saying "Huh.  These differing conceptions of President Donald J. Trump must mean that there are more than one of them."

Well, no.

Moreover, this seems pretty far afield from the idea that "gnostic atheism" is possible.  

Quote

For example, would you consider Jehovah and Baal to be the same God, just conceived of in two different ways?

By "Baal" I assume you mean the Levantine god Hadad?

I don't believe "Baal" ever existed.  I do believe Jehovah exists.

Quote

If so, how about Jehovah and the golden calf?

Nope.  One is the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who helped create this earth, who was born of Mary, led a sinless life, died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

The other was a physical object, an idol in the shape of a bull, crafted by Aaron at the foot of Mount Sinai.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2020 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

While I'd quibble with you about the specific definition of humanism, I basically agree with you here. But humanism is more of an axiom about what is important than it is a position of faith. But yes, all atheism means is lacking a belief in God. Most atheists you talk to are also naturalists (they believe the universe operates according to natural laws), and in all likelihood they are also humanists (they get meaning, joy, ethics, etc. from the axiomatic beliefs of humanism).

In theory atheists could believe in some sort of magical world, and they could be nihilists or communists or something else besides humanists. But in these circles in this day and age, most atheists are also naturalists and humanists. 

As are we. 

We believe in a God who organizes reality and did not create a it ex nihilo in a supernatural way.

In fact we believe that anything that appears to be Supernatural is in fact in accord with a natural law that we do not understand yet. I have no problem with scientific cosmology as known today. TV in the 15th century would have been witchcraft or a miracle.  We could not resurrect people today but in the possible near future growing new organs may get us part way there, with cloning. That is the transhumanist solution. I think there are problems with that solution but some very smart people seem to believe it.

  It is of no consequence what happened at the time the cosmos originated. What is important is why it happened. Was there a purpose in the origination of the universe? I believe there was.  But science deliberately does not look at that question. For that reason you can only call them agnostic at worst.

That's why the WHY questions get so tough. 

So I would argue that we are theistic naturalists and humanists, and that is a perfectly reasonable position.

Science does not even try to answer the WHY question.

We do.

That's fine. I am perfectly happy to render to science the things that belong to science, and the WHY questions to God.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But outside of such strictly philosophical arguments, we have an exceptionally good handle on the laws of physics.

Then why don't we know what dark matter is, given it is apparently 85% of the mass of the universe?

We don't even know what matter is made up of, last I checked.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/7-biggest-unanswered-questions-physics-ncna789666

Edited February 8, 2020 by Calm

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.

I do.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can empirically prove that Donald J. Trump is the current president of the United States.

I can too.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can emprically prove that Hillary Clinton is not the current president of the United States.  That's a negative proposition that is provable.

Agreed.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can empirically prove that the earth is an oblate spheroid in shape.  

I can too.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can empirically prove that the earth is not a flat disc in shape.  That's a negative proposition that is provable.

I can too.

Let me make my point another way by asking you two questions:

1- Can you prove that Bob exists?  

2- Can you prove that Bob doesn't exist? 

I would think the only rational response to these questions is for clarification on what or who, specifically, I am referring to by "Bob". For example, if I clarified that "Bob" refers to the Bob Seger, the front man of the rock band Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, you could prove that Bob exists. In contrast, if I say that "Bob" refers to a four sided triangle that is somewhere out in space, then you could prove Bob doesn't exist. If I said "Bob" refers to a vague thing that isn't like anything in observable reality, I would expect you to say that you lack a belief in such a thing, but would be willing to consider it if what was meant by "Bob" was clarified and some evidence was offered.

That is my point with God. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? It depends upon what you mean by "God."

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is.

No, I said disproving the existence of God is possible depending upon the definition of God.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Plausible theories"?  

Are you claiming that the existence of God is not plausible?

I don't understand the question. What does "God" mean in this context? 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I dispute that our current grasp of science and the laws of physics is sufficient to definitively preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and hence of the sorts of powers that we believe God has.

Sean Carroll is a preeminent theoretical physicist who is on the cutting edge of what science knows and doesn't know. He is making a specific and subtle argument about the limits of what science knows and doesn't know. You can believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't dispute his argument without understanding it first.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

I do.

I can too.

Agreed.

I can too.

I can too.

Let me make my point another way by asking you two questions:

1- Can you prove that Bob exists?  

2- Can you prove that Bob doesn't exist? 

I would think the only rational response to these questions is for clarification on what or who, specifically, I am referring to by "Bob". For example, if I clarified that "Bob" refers to the Bob Seger, the front man of the rock band Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, you could prove that Bob exists. In contrast, if I say that "Bob" refers to a four sided triangle that is somewhere out in space, then you could prove Bob doesn't exist. If I said "Bob" refers to a vague thing that isn't like anything in observable reality, I would expect you to say that you lack a belief in such a thing, but would be willing to consider it if what was meant by "Bob" was clarified and some evidence was offered.

That is my point with God. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? It depends upon what you mean by "God."

 

No, I said disproving the existence of God is possible depending upon the definition of God.

 

I don't understand the question. What does "God" mean in this context? 

 

Sean Carroll is a preeminent theoretical physicist who is on the cutting edge of what science knows and doesn't know. He is making a specific and subtle argument about the limits of what science knows and doesn't know. You can believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't dispute his argument without understanding it first.

Oh man.

First the both of you have to define the word prove.

I'm leaving for a while.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can empirically prove that the earth is an oblate spheroid in shap

That would suggest that you make that

" By standard accepted practices for defining evidence I find that the statement that "the earth is an oblate spheroid in shape" is a Justified belief""

You think the legal jargon is is tough...

Adieu

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

On 2/7/2020 at 11:04 PM, Analytics said:

Let me make my point another way by asking you two questions:

1- Can you prove that Bob exists?  

If "Bob" is sufficiently defined, yes.

If by "Bob" you are referring to my sister's ex-husband, yes, I can prove he exists.

Quote

2- Can you prove that Bob doesn't exist? 

If "Bob" is sufficiently defined, probably.

Quote

I would think the only rational response to these questions is for clarification on what or who, specifically, I am referring to by "Bob".

Well, no.  If I ask "Can you prove that the current President of the United States exists?", I think the only rational response to this question is "Yes."

Again, you are insisting on a level of specificity that I don't think is warranted.

Quote

That is my point with God. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? It depends upon what you mean by "God."

No, it doesn't.

The existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not an empirically testable thing.  

Quote

Quote

Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is.

No, I said disproving the existence of God is possible depending upon the definition of God.

Disproving the existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not possible.

Quote

Quote

Are you claiming that the existence of God is not plausible?

I don't understand the question. What does "God" mean in this context? 

Yes, I think you do understand the question.  You're just playing games.

You are on a Latter-day Saint message board.  You and I have had extensive interactions over many years.  You seem to have a pretty fair grasp on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You also presumably have some grasp of my position relative to these teachings.  So when I ask a question about "God," and when you respond with "what does 'God' mean in this context?", I have a hard time taking your seriously.  Because, well, you're just playing games.  

Quote

Quote

I dispute that our current grasp of science and the laws of physics is sufficient to definitively preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and hence of the sorts of powers that we believe God has.

Sean Carroll is a preeminent theoretical physicist who is on the cutting edge of what science knows and doesn't know. He is making a specific and subtle argument about the limits of what science knows and doesn't know.

Good to know.

Quote

You can believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't dispute his argument without understanding it first.

I think I'm disputing the conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2020 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Let me make my point another way by asking you two questions:

1- Can you prove that Bob exists?

If "Bob" is sufficiently defined, yes.

In this context, "Bob" is not sufficiently defined. That is the point.

Quote

The existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not an empirically testable thing.  

I would suggest that is because what is meant by "God" (as generally imagined in the Judeo-Christian realm) isn't well defined. 

Quote

Disproving the existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not possible.

I would suggest that is because what is meant by "God" ((as generally imagined in the Judeo-Christian realm)) isn't well defined. 

Quote

Quote

Smac: Are you claiming that the existence of God is not plausible?

Analytics: I don't understand the question. What does "God" mean in this context? 

Yes, I think you do understand the question.  You're just playing games.

I wasn't playing games. If "God" is understood as an immortal hominoid from another planet who once lived and died, was resurrected and is now God and is now the father of our spirits etc., then yes, that just isn't plausible: if you dig into the details, it contradicts practically everything we know about physics, chemistry, and biology. I'm aware that all sorts of special pleading could be made to reconcile the glaring inconsistencies between the doctrine and the laws of science, but the need for such special pleading proves my point.

On the other hand, if "God" is understood in the most broad general Judeo-Christian sense, then I'm forced to fall back to my earlier point: in that general sense, "God" isn't defined well-enough to be neither plausible nor implausible.

Quote

You are on a Latter-day Saint message board.  You and I have had extensive interactions over many years.  You seem to have a pretty fair grasp on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You also presumably have some grasp of my position relative to these teachings.  So when I ask a question about "God," and when you respond with "what does 'God' mean in this context?", I have a hard time taking your seriously.  Because, well, you're just playing games.  

I'm not talking about the specific teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I am not inquiring about your specific beliefs. I'm talking about how atheists view general Judeo-Christian claims about God. You think "God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm)" is defined well-enough. Most atheists do not. That is my point. I don't want to argue about it. I just want you to understand that most atheists don't think that "God" is well-defined.

As a good example of how atheists see things, Sean Carroll (the theoretical physicist who proves that bending spoons with your mind is impossible) presented a paper about God at a Notre Dame conference and then published it in Faith and philosophy: journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers. The paper is called, "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists". It can be read here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228349547_Why_Almost_All_Cosmologists_Are_Atheists

In that paper he presents a very broad definition of God. Ironically (or maybe not) the very broad definition of "God" he talks about (probably) precludes Mormonism's conception of God.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Since you said you are a fan of science, I'd highly recommend The Big Picture to understand things like quantum field theory better. It also provides a gentle discussion about what bearing this has on the plausibility of some of the things we've touched upon.

With that, the final word is yours.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Analytics

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In this context, "Bob" is not sufficiently defined. That is the point.

Yes, he is.  As I said: "If by 'Bob' you are referring to my sister's ex-husband, yes, I can prove he exists."

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not an empirically testable thing.  

I would suggest that is because what is meant by "God" (as generally imagined in the Judeo-Christian realm) isn't well defined. 

And I would suggest that the existence of God is not empiraclly testable because we lack the means to conduct such empirical testing.

I would also suggest that the meaning of God is sufficiently described, either in the Judeo-Christian context or the more specific Latter-day Saint doctrine.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Disproving the existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not possible.

I would suggest that is because what is meant by "God" ((as generally imagined in the Judeo-Christian realm)) isn't well defined. 

I think we have a sufficient definition.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I wasn't playing games. If "God" is understood as an immortal hominoid from another planet who once lived and died, was resurrected and is now God and is now the father of our spirits etc., then yes, that just isn't plausible:

"That just isn't plausible."  That's it?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

if you dig into the details, it contradicts practically everything we know about physics, chemistry, and biology.

"Everything we know" being the operative phrase.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm aware that all sorts of special pleading could be made to reconcile the glaring inconsistencies between the doctrine and the laws of science, but the need for such special pleading proves my point.

No, it doesn't.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

On the other hand, if "God" is understood in the most broad general Judeo-Christian sense, then I'm forced to fall back to my earlier point: in that general sense, "God" isn't defined well-enough to be neither plausible nor implausible.

We're just trading assertions now.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

You are on a Latter-day Saint message board.  You and I have had extensive interactions over many years.  You seem to have a pretty fair grasp on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You also presumably have some grasp of my position relative to these teachings.  So when I ask a question about "God," and when you respond with "what does 'God' mean in this context?", I have a hard time taking your seriously.  Because, well, you're just playing games.  

I'm not talking about the specific teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I am not inquiring about your specific beliefs.

So your questions are not posed in good faith?  They are purely for rhetorical effect?  You don't want to have a discussion after all?

Oh.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm talking about how atheists view general Judeo-Christian claims about God. You think "God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm)" is defined well-enough. Most atheists do not. That is my point.

I think "God" is sufficiently defined to establish that His existence is not an empirically testable inquiry.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't want to argue about it. I just want you to understand that most atheists don't think that "God" is well-defined.

Fine.  Understood.

Meanwhile, I maintain that the existence of God is not an empirically testable inquiry.  You think it is, such that "science" as we presently know it has succeeded in disproving such existence.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As a good example of how atheists see things, Sean Carroll (the theoretical physicist who proves that bending spoons with your mind is impossible) presented a paper about God at a Notre Dame conference and then published it in Faith and philosophy: journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers. The paper is called, "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists". It can be read here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228349547_Why_Almost_All_Cosmologists_Are_Atheists

In that paper he presents a very broad definition of God. Ironically (or maybe not) the very broad definition of "God" he talks about (probably) precludes Mormonism's conception of God.

Then it has little application here.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Since you said you are a fan of science, I'd highly recommend The Big Picture to understand things like quantum field theory better. It also provides a gentle discussion about what bearing this has on the plausibility of some of the things we've touched upon.

With that, the final word is yours.

I don't think I've ever said that God is "well defined."  

Let's briefly re-cap the contours of this conversation:

1. Meadowchik said: "I also don't believe it it is possible to prove the existence of God."

2. I responded: "Or disprove the existence of God.  Would that be a fair statement as well?"

3. You responded to me: "It depends upon how you define 'God.'"

4. I responded to you: "Let's go with the Judeo-Christian concept.  Perhaps this is a decent starting point..." and "The Church refines and expands on this description quite a bit (see, e.g., here), but the foregoing should be sufficient."

5. You called my quoted definition "a bunch of medieval gobbledygook," and proceeded to discount it because the power of God hasn't been defined by the "number of terawatts in his fingertips."

6. We went back and forth for a while.  You said: "I was explaining that atheists don't think a good definition even exists; asking whether or not you believe in an ill-defined thing is as meaningless as asking whether you think it is possible to have knowledge about an ill-defined thing."  And I responded: "So because God cannot be described and defined with mathematical precision, He cannot be described/defined at all?  I'll beg to differ on that."

7. After more back and forth, you said: "Allow me to start over. Putting that question into context, whether or not "gnostic atheism" is possible depends upon how you define God.  With the definition of God you provided, I think gnostic atheism is basically possible, but it depends upon the specific details of the definition."

8. I responded to the above statement: "I don't think this negative proposition (God does not exist) can be proven by an earthbound, finite-in-faculties human being."

In other words, the discussion morphed from the atheistic worldview to a discussing the feasibility of gnostic atheism.

9. You then said: "The negative proposition that God does not exist uncertainly can be proven, depending upon how we define terms."

10. I responded: "Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is."

And this: "I dispute that our current grasp of science and the laws of physics is sufficient to definitively preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and hence of the sorts of powers that we believe God has."

And this: "Our grasp of scientific principles is finite, blinkered and not without flaws."

And this: "I am a big fan of science.  But I can't go along with endowing it with the ability to either discern the existence of God or disprove that existence.  Just not buying it."

11. In response to the first item in #10 above ("Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is."), you said: "No, I said disproving the existence of God is possible depending upon the definition of God."

12. I responded: "The existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not an empirically testable thing."

And this: "Disproving the existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not possible."

13. You then shifted to a new argument, namely, that God is not "well defined."  This was sort of weird, since I haven't argued that God is "well defined," but that he is sufficiently defined to posit that we lack the eans of empirically testing/proving His existence or non-existence.

I remain persuaded that your approach (insisting on a hyper-specific definition of God) is not reasonable.  It seems like a cop out.  You want to be able to claim that "science" can empirically disprove the existence of God, but then proceed to impose unreasonable restrictions on such a postulation.

And weirdly, I think we end up at the same place: "Science" has not empirically disproven the existence of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, he is.  As I said: "If by 'Bob' you are referring to my sister's ex-husband, yes, I can prove he exists."

And I would suggest that the existence of God is not empiraclly testable because we lack the means to conduct such empirical testing.

I would also suggest that the meaning of God is sufficiently described, either in the Judeo-Christian context or the more specific Latter-day Saint doctrine.

I think we have a sufficient definition.

"That just isn't plausible."  That's it?

"Everything we know" being the operative phrase.

No, it doesn't.

We're just trading assertions now.

So your questions are not posed in good faith?  They are purely for rhetorical effect?  You don't want to have a discussion after all?

Oh.

I think "God" is sufficiently defined to establish that His existence is not an empirically testable inquiry.

Fine.  Understood.

Meanwhile, I maintain that the existence of God is not an empirically testable inquiry.  You think it is, such that "science" as we presently know it has succeeded in disproving such existence.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Then it has little application here.

I don't think I've ever said that God is "well defined."  

Let's briefly re-cap the contours of this conversation:

1. Meadowchik said: "I also don't believe it it is possible to prove the existence of God."

2. I responded: "Or disprove the existence of God.  Would that be a fair statement as well?"

3. You responded to me: "It depends upon how you define 'God.'"

4. I responded to you: "Let's go with the Judeo-Christian concept.  Perhaps this is a decent starting point..." and "The Church refines and expands on this description quite a bit (see, e.g., here), but the foregoing should be sufficient."

5. You called my quoted definition "a bunch of medieval gobbledygook," and proceeded to discount it because the power of God hasn't been defined by the "number of terawatts in his fingertips."

6. We went back and forth for a while.  You said: "I was explaining that atheists don't think a good definition even exists; asking whether or not you believe in an ill-defined thing is as meaningless as asking whether you think it is possible to have knowledge about an ill-defined thing."  And I responded: "So because God cannot be described and defined with mathematical precision, He cannot be described/defined at all?  I'll beg to differ on that."

7. After more back and forth, you said: "Allow me to start over. Putting that question into context, whether or not "gnostic atheism" is possible depends upon how you define God.  With the definition of God you provided, I think gnostic atheism is basically possible, but it depends upon the specific details of the definition."

8. I responded to the above statement: "I don't think this negative proposition (God does not exist) can be proven by an earthbound, finite-in-faculties human being."

In other words, the discussion morphed from the atheistic worldview to a discussing the feasibility of gnostic atheism.

9. You then said: "The negative proposition that God does not exist uncertainly can be proven, depending upon how we define terms."

10. I responded: "Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is."

And this: "I dispute that our current grasp of science and the laws of physics is sufficient to definitively preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and hence of the sorts of powers that we believe God has."

And this: "Our grasp of scientific principles is finite, blinkered and not without flaws."

And this: "I am a big fan of science.  But I can't go along with endowing it with the ability to either discern the existence of God or disprove that existence.  Just not buying it."

11. In response to the first item in #10 above ("Anyway, you have said that disproving the existence of God is possible.  I don't think it is."), you said: "No, I said disproving the existence of God is possible depending upon the definition of God."

12. I responded: "The existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not an empirically testable thing."

And this: "Disproving the existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not possible."

13. You then shifted to a new argument, namely, that God is not "well defined."  This was sort of weird, since I haven't argued that God is "well defined," but that he is sufficiently defined to posit that we lack the eans of empirically testing/proving His existence or non-existence.

I remain persuaded that your approach (insisting on a hyper-specific definition of God) is not reasonable.  It seems like a cop out.  You want to be able to claim that "science" can empirically disprove the existence of God, but then proceed to impose unreasonable restrictions on such a postulation.

And weirdly, I think we end up at the same place: "Science" has not empirically disproven the existence of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Here's an example of how the definition of God creates disprovability, depending upon what it is:

Some people defined God as a Being who would be "returning" to earth in power and glory announcing himself to all mortals, and in many cases, that defined time for their God coming passed. Thus, one could say that, if their God's existence depended on that temporal prophecy now not taken place, then their God does not exist.

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Here's an example of how the definition of God creates disprovability, depending upon what it is:

Some people defined God as a Being who would be "returning" to earth in power and glory announcing himself to all mortals, and in many cases, that defined time for their God coming passed.

Hence the utility of either the broader definition I provided (the Judeo-Christian one, that does not posit a specific return date), or else a narrower definition relevant to this board (the teachings of the Church, which also precludes the testable-but-problematic definition you propose here (a specific return date)).

While you're at it, I think the ancient Greek concepts of Zeus-the-thunderbold-wielding-god-who-lives-on-Mount-Olympus, Apollo-the-driver-of-a-chariot-one-wheel-of-which-is-the-Sun, etc. are also essentially disproved.  But I'm not speaking of those.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hence the utility of either the broader definition I provided (the Judeo-Christian one, that does not posit a specific return date), or else a narrower definition relevant to this board (the teachings of the Church, which also precludes the testable-but-problematic definition you propose here (a specific return date)).

While you're at it, I think the ancient Greek concepts of Zeus-the-thunderbold-wielding-god-who-lives-on-Mount-Olympus, Apollo-the-driver-of-a-chariot-one-wheel-of-which-is-the-Sun, etc. are also essentially disproved.  But I'm not speaking of those.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yup. So with any concept of God, it can range in objective testability. There are probably many times people have described the Judeo-Christian God in testable terms, including specifically the church's beliefs on that God, but then people tend to "move the goal posts," or so it seems. But some God concepts are so vague that they offer no foothold for concrete testability.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Hence the utility of either the broader definition I provided (the Judeo-Christian one, that does not posit a specific return date), or else a narrower definition relevant to this board (the teachings of the Church, which also precludes the testable-but-problematic definition you propose here (a specific return date)).

While you're at it, I think the ancient Greek concepts of Zeus-the-thunderbold-wielding-god-who-lives-on-Mount-Olympus, Apollo-the-driver-of-a-chariot-one-wheel-of-which-is-the-Sun, etc. are also essentially disproved.  But I'm not speaking of those.

Yup. So with any concept of God, it can range in objective testability.

I think the broad Judeo-Christian concept of God is not within the "range" of "objective testability."  I also think the Church's narrowed, more refined concept of God is likewise not within this range.

Quote

There are probably many times people have described the Judeo-Christian God in testable terms,

Such as?

Quote

including specifically the church's beliefs on that God,

How are "beliefs" empirically testable?

Quote

but then people tend to "move the goal posts," or so it seems.

"So it seems," indeed.

What sort of empirical testing do you think exists that can disprove the existence of God (as defined in the Judeo-Christian tradition)?

What sort of empirical testing do you think exists that can disprove the existence of God (as defined in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)?

Quote

But some God concepts are so vague that they offer no foothold for concrete testability.

I'm not sure vagueness is necessarily to blame.

By way of example, let's look at the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  That's a pretty "concrete" thing.  The narrative posits a bodily resurrection after three days.  How would "science" empirically falsify this claim?

How about the First Vision?  How could "science" empirically falsify this claim?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2020 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The existence of God (as generally understood in the Judeo-Christian realm) is not an empirically testable thing.  

Now we get into "exists".

If 15 million people testify God exists, does that prove he does?

Do undiscovered species exist? Tell me exactly what one is. Is it like a newt or elephant or cherry tree?

Does Santa "exist' ? 

It seems a lot of people know a lot about him. In what sense does he exist?

[smac97]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Now we get into "exists".

If 15 million people testify God exists, does that prove he does?

Not empirically, no.

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Do undiscovered species exist?

Since new species are discovered every year, I'd say yes.

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Tell me exactly what one is. Is it like a newt or elephant or cherry tree?

I don't understand your question.

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Does Santa "exist' ? 

As a living, breathing, person?  Who lives at the North Pole?  Who is a jolly fat elf?  Who flies through the air on a magic sleigh drawn by reindeer?

No, I don't think that person exists.

Just now, mfbukowski said:

It seems a lot of people know a lot about him. In what sense does he exist?

In the same sense that Atticus Finch, Gandalf, Captain America, etc. exist.

Thanks,

-Smac