If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.
Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.
This is the world of Patrickatheism.
762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I should have posted this earlier about the solution of the problem of the “god of the philosophers” verses the “god of the bible”
quote:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1Co 1:22-25)
end quote:
nuff said
You’re changing the topic. The issue is this claim that you have made repeatedly:
I deny it because you are an admittedly fallible human being with no way of distinguishing between actual revelation and belief that you have had an actual revelation.
If I understand you correctly, you claim that the only source of knowledge is revelation from your god. Combined with your recognition that you are fallible, that means your views can be categorized in two ways:
1) Actual revelations from your god
2) Beliefs that you mistakenly think are revelations from your god
For some reason you want to idiosyncratically call the first “knowledge”. Let’s leave that aside for the moment.
The problem is that you have no way of distinguishing between the two. Because you limit yourself solely to revelation, you have no mechanism for determining which beliefs you hold are actually revelations from your god and which you have mistaken for revelation.
Because of your nature as a fallible human being there is no way that even an omnipotent god could reveal something to you such that you can be sure that it falls into the category you call “knowledge”. Unless you have another mechanism for determining the probability that a particular belief is an actual revelation, you have no non-circular basis to claim that it is. “I believe my revelation is real because of revelation.” is not a compelling argument.
No, it attempts to avoid the hard problem, and fails. Are you explicitly claiming that your god makes you infallible with respect to one or more of its revelations?
In case anybody is interested, a friend of mine from another site, responded to my question about the electability of atheists as follows:
And you have no way of distinguishing your wife from an alien.
Ok, Patrick’s wife might be an alien. Your wife might be an alien. My wife might be an alien. What are we going to do?
Full blown philosophical skepticism. It’s time for this site to get back to its roots!
Alan, tell me you’re not suggesting alien wife swapping.
let’s try this again
Suppose God wanted to reveal to you that 2+2=4 are you actually claiming that there is no possible way he could ever do that?
peace
It is your assertion that God has revealed to everyone the identity of God with truth and logic, but you have not supplied us with any reasons for why that assertion should be taken to be true, rather than merely your personal conviction.
Likewise, it is your assertion that any appeal to truth or use of logic is really an acknowledgment that God exists, but here too you have not supplied us with any reasons for why that assertion should be taken to be true, rather than merely your personal conviction.
Insisting that one’s personal convictions must be taken as true, without actually supplying any argument to the effect, is just table-thumping.
I should add that this is not a problem with presuppositionalism per se. Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen do have arguments (though not, I think, good ones).
Van Til was concerned to show how the only transcendental argument for realism was also a transcendental argument for theism. He seemed to think — based on my admittedly cursory knowledge of his work — that only by presupposing God could we make any sense of the idea that there is a determinate world of independently existing things that are knowable by beings with minds like ours.
I think that this is a profound error, and an extremely subtle one.
The root of the problem lies in what Jay Rosenberg nicely calls “The Myth of the Mind Apart”
The Myth is “the supposition that the world is a thing which is ontologically alien to us as we are, to us as representers and knowers — a thing which stands somehow outside us, and which challenges us to bring the inner life of our thinkings into harmony with it
In its most optimistic forms, the Myth of the Mind Apart welcomes the world as a collaborator. The world gives itself to us, and our project is then to set what is given in an order which mirrors the essences of the giver. In its most pessimistic variant, the Myth despairs of a world which is closed to us. We are abandoned to a solipsistic consciousness in which all diversity is necessarily self-engendered appearance and thus, ultimately, merely illusion. Our world becomes not a thing given but a thing made, all that it remains open to us to mirror then is our own essence as its makers.
The Myth of Mind Apart is a Platonic myth. That is why it lies at the heart of our history. It is embodied in the very question which which our history begins: What is the relation between the ideal or conceptual order and the real? The question is a perennial preoccupation of our discipline, but the question rests upon a thesis: that these are two orders, and not one. And that thesis is the Myth of the Mind Apart.
For the ideal order is the real, not in the false sense that “the world is the Idea”, but in the sense that our representings of the world are at the same time doings in the world. The world is not a thing apart from us as we are, but we are both in the world and of it — and our thinkings are episodes of its own determinate diachronic unfolding. As representer and as knowers, we are within the world as evolved organisms. And whatever principles govern the inner life of our thinkings are necessarily the principles according to which the world evolves as a whole simply because our inner life is an integral part and aspect of that determinate evolution. What follows from this, of course, is that there can be no question of a harmony between the conceptual and the ideal as something to be achieved.
. . . .
“What must change in philosophy is not its manner of coming to grip with problems but rather its sense of what is problematic. For once the relationship of the ideal order and the real order is grasped as that of evolved part to evolving whole, we can no longer meaningfully engage The Challenge of Skepticism or the Problem of Our Knowledge of the External World. Once the necessary processes of conceptual evolution are seen as integrative, holistic, and (in Peirce’s sense) abductive, we can no longer significantly frame the Problem of Induction or The Problem of the Reality of Theoretical Entities. Once the pragmatics of conduct and the rational justification of conduct are understood as prior to the notions both of ontological adequacy and of epistemic correctness, we can no longer feel challenged to adjudicate between Realism and Idealism or between Rationalism and Empiricism. And once the very structure of apperceptive cognition is appreciated as essentially involving an irrevocable appeal to communal norms of conduct, we can no longer be exercised by the Problem of Other Minds or even The Question of the Relation of Fact and Value. For all these great and classical questions are only icons of the Myth of Mind Apart.
(Jay Rosenberg, One World And Our Knowledge Of It, 1980, pp. 189-191.)
————————————————————————————-
In short, while it may seem that the question of how to establish that what we take to be correct representings really are correct representings is the question of philosophy, that question presupposes the Myth of the Mind Apart. And once the Platonic hammer has allowed a skeptical wedge to be driven between “the world” and “the mind”, it may indeed seem that we must either be driven back to theism (by transcendental argument, as in Van Til’s case) or else be content with skeptical postmodernism.
But the alternative, as articulated by Rosenberg here, is that we can and should reject the Myth itself, which is to say that since our representings of the world are also doings in the world — our thoughts are aspects of the activity of living organisms — then there is no Platonic/skeptical wedge, and therefore no need to presuppose God in order to establish a bridge between the mind and the world.
not at all,
where did you get such a goofy idea
Infallibility is not necessary for knowledge. Neither is certainty. That should be obvious.
Knowledge is simply justified true belief.
Are you explicitly claiming that for some reason you need to be infallible to know stuff?
Even if that strange claim were true how could you possibly know that this was the case?
What does any of this have to do with revelation?
If your wife revealed to you that she was sleepy would you need to be infallible to know your wife was sleepy? The whole idea is simply bizarre
peace
KN, I have a lot of respect for you. I think you find it difficult to just ignore someone unless they are just intent on being insulting. As much as I dislike some posters here at TSZ I don’t resort to just placing them on ignore.
You keep calling things “my assertion” when I haven’t asserted them.
why do you do that?
My assertion is merely that God has revealed himself to everyone so that they are with out excuse.
I really don’t care if you take it to be true or not.
Just like I don’t feel compelled to supply reasons why the the law of non-contradiction should be taken to be true, rather than merely my personal conviction..
I simply see no need to argue about it. It would be silly to argue about things that are so obvious.
I know that you know these things.
however If you like you could provide a list of characteristics that you demand in deity and we can discuss whether or not logic and truth make the grade.
peace
amen to that one.
I know that KN finds conversation with me difficult and I really appreciate him doing things that are hard. It shows courage and class
I have great respect for him and in fact in different circumstances I’m sure we could be great friends.
peace
That does seem to be what he thinks. The basic premise is that you are fallible, therefore you cannot know.
All one need to is look at the exchanges between KN and walto, and keiths. You have philosophers, and a pretender.
I’m impressed you’ve heard of Bahnsen.
Why anyone would think this is beyond me.
I think he is trying so hard to find a flaw in my presupposition that he is willing to burn down the whole edifice of knowledge to do it.
That just seems like a steep price to pay to hold on to a little autonomy.
peace
Beats me, it is your example. You characterized him as devoted
Yes, I know.Since atheists don’t have faith God exists, revelation does not require faith. Revelation eliminates the need for faith, you got a bible verse that covers that?
Right, I must believe in your version of God to know hitting my thumb with a hammer hurts. My dog must believe in God as well since he know where his treats are. Sorry fifth, you are again assuming facts not in evidence. Bible verses are hearsay
I don’t think Plato presupposed God, but I could be wrong. But Christianity at least offers a way to unite the God and the World through Jesus Christ.
How does Judaism resolve that question?
And hoping no one will notice. Perhaps he knows not what he does.
But when you make claims about what other people believe, and they have reasons to think you are mistaken about those beliefs, then the burden is on you to make the case — or else withdraw it. Doing neither shows a really profound disrespect towards the people you are talking with.
If you were to say, “It’s my personal conviction that God has revealed himself to you”, I might say, “oh, really?” or “if you say so” or “why do you say that?” But if your follow-up claim is “I just know that He has!”, then your claim that everyone really believes in God is just table-thumping.
What is “obvious” depends on background assumptions of the discursive community. If TSZ were a community of logicians debating the merits of paraconsistent logics, the law of non-contradiction would not be obvious!
Likewise, if TSZ were a community of believers (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.), then the claim that God exists would be obvious to all. But it is not. Some of us are persons of faith, and many of us are not. Some of us are Americans, and many of us are not. What is “obvious” to you is not at all obvious to anyone else here.
If what you want to say is, “it is perfectly obvious that God has revealed Himself to everyone, and since it is obvious, there is no need for me to supply an argument”, you are basically asked to not be taken seriously.
Hi! My name is Atheism!
And while I cannot possibly know that I am right, I know that you are wrong!
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that Plato resolved the problem through God. He doesn’t. Plato’s solution (if you can call it that) is that the soul “recollects” the Forms it encountered before birth. Aristotle also thinks that the intelligible order of the world is how the intellect knows anything. The form in the thing is the form in the intellect, etc.
The transcendental argument for God or TAG (and here I’m doing FMM’s work for him) is supposed to show that only theism can account for the intelligibility of the world. Since we do (in fact) experience the world as intelligible, we must believe that God exists. But I think that the TAG only works by ignoring how a sophisticated non-theist can happily graft Kant onto Darwin, or what is the same, by ignoring the sophistication available within pragmatist philosophy.
The theist wants to say that there are only two options on the table: theism or absurdism. Any consistent denial of God leads to the denial of the intelligibility of the world; any consistent acceptance of the intelligibility of the world leads to an acceptance of God. (This, at any rate, is the argument of Hart’s The Experience of God, but it has been confirmed amply by interacting with theists here and at Uncommon Descent before I left.)
My contention here has been that pragmatism is a distinct third option given those alternatives. It neither insists on answering the questions posed by Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes nor on casting us adrift on a sea of skepticism and nihilism. It allows for a viable epistemology and ethics that takes Darwinism seriously, so that Darwinism does not entail skepticism or amoralism.
(That is not to say that all pragmatists are or must be non-theists. There are pragmatists who are theists (following James and Royce) and pragmatists who are not (following Dewey, though Dewey was a religious naturalist. As was Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism.)
Well, for one thing, Judaism was never forced to confront systematic philosophy in its formative centuries as Christianity was. Since orthodox Judaism is much more about practice (“orthopraxis”) than about correct belief, orthodox Judaism didn’t have to become as philosophically precise.
(Of course Judaism had to become practically precise, in its interpretations of the Law, but the codification of Talmud is a different kind of philosophy than the kind of metaphysics and epistemology that Plato and Aristotle were developing in response to Parmenides and Democritus.)
Even the greatest of orthodox Jewish philosophers — Maimonides and Gersonides of medieval Jewish philosophy, or Soloveitchik in the 20th century — don’t have as canonical a role in Jewish identity as do Aquinas, Luther, or Calvin.
At its heart, of course, Judaism is a religion of revelation just as Christianity is. But unlike Christianity (under some versions) and very much like Islam, Judaism is a religion of communal revelation. It is that God dictated Torah to Moses while the Israelites were wandering in the Sinai. God gave Torah to them. (If I were Orthodox and observant, I would have said: “to us“.)
no,
Atheists do have faith that God exists, every time they use logic and appeal to truth they trust (have faith) that logic and truth exist
yes, You must believe logic exists to know hitting your thumb with a hammer hurts.
And I can know you believe that logic exists when you claim to know that your hitting your thumb with a hammer hurts.
it’s really not complex or difficult
no I’m assuming what has been revealed to me by your own behavior
peace
amen brother
peace
What possible reason can you have for thinking I’m mistaken when I claim that you know logic and truth exist? I’m all ears.
But it’s not my personal conviction it’s revelation.
If you disagree that logic and truth exist you need to demonstrate that without appealing to logic and truth.
On the other hand
If you think that truth and logic aren’t worthy of the title of deity that’s fine. It’s exactly what I expected you to do
I never expected you to honor God as God.
I am interested in your reasons for deeming God to be unworthy of his office.
I would be happy to explore that with you but you need to elaborate a little on what you demand in God.
Now if instead you want me to give an argument as to why I honor (truth and logic) God as God, all I can tell you is I honor him because he is God and that is the proper response.
peace
LOL
I thought it was pretty funny as well.
Just imagine someone knowing that hitting a thumb with a hammer would hurt while not trusting that effects follow causes.
It’s just silly
peace
Sure it is. every one else here demonstrates the obviousness every time they make an argument using logic and appealing to truth.
Now they might choose to claim it’s not obvious but they can’t even do that without demonstrating that it is.
That is why it would just be better to move on. There is no reason to argue about something like this. For the same reason there is no reason to argue about the existence of baseballs at a major league game
peace
I think that the transcendental argument is a powerful one and any one here is welcome to check it out. But it’s not my “work” to spoon feed folks apologetic arguments.
I came to this thread simply because Patrick was crowing about no theist being willing to offer a definition of God. Once I did that I was again immediately challenged to prove that Patrick’s strawman conception of God existed.
I’m simply not interested in arguing God’s existence. I’m especially not interested in arguing the existence of Patrick’s straw-man
Now if you want to talk science or philosophy or bar-b-q I’d be happy to oblige.
peace
Farewell goalposts….we hardly knew thee.
Trusting that causes follow effects is not the same thing as…
A baby can learn the effects of fire without having any belief in or conception of logic. As can practically all animals.
But if animals believe in logic, and logic is actually God, then my dog believes in God.
Is this true, FMM – does Maxi believe in God?
Just because the last time I hit my thumb with a hammer it hurt, it does not follow that the next time I hit my thumb with a hammer it will hurt.
Mung channelling Hume!
Maybe Judaism doesn’t see the need for a middle man.
Try it a couple of times, I could be wrong.
1) I have no problem if animals believe in God, it’s only the humans who are in rebellion
2) Not sure how you could demonstrate that animals know or believe in anything though.
3) a computer can be programed to react to causes that does not mean that it knows anything
4) knowledge and belief require a mind check it out
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
1) A full conception of logic is not necessary to trust in logic, If you can understand cause and effect you have a conception of logic
2) If a baby can learn he can know.
if he can know he must believe.
After all knowledge is justified true belief
3) When the Bible says that “they” know that God exists I did not see a disclaimer that excluded babies.
peace
Maybe they need to think it through 😉
peace
sure it is, logic is logic no matter how basic.
It would be impossible to know anything if logic did not exist.
and if you did not trust it to work every time
peace
Same way you demonstrate it with humans; test them.
My dog successfully finds her dinner bowl, her lead, her bed, my slippers….every single time. This demonstrates she knows where all those thing are – and believes they will be there when she sets out.
By every measure you would accept for a human (except verbal confirmation) my dog demonstrates knowledge and belief.
Woodbine,
“Dogs That Believe In God!”
The clickbait just writes itself on that one.
FFM claimed a while back that reason is not involved in the process of acquiring knowledge or postulating, so he must think that God can reveal himself to dogs, and things too.
He probably spends most of the time he’s not posting inanities here, yelling at his furniture “you already know god exists!!!11!1one”
no,
I accept that humans have a mind simply because they are made in the image of God. Your dog does not meet this criteria.
Since you don’t hold to the validity of scripture that criteria is not available to you. So I’m not sure how you determine whether another creature has a mind or not. Lots of animal rights activists would make the case that your dog is entitled to the same rights as you. I really don’t know how you would determine where to draw that line as an atheist
That is your problem not mine.
peace
It’s not that reason is not involved in the process of acquiring knowledge or postulating it’s that the focus should be on the revealer rather than the receiver of revelation, It’s about God and not you
God is omnipotent so God can reveal himself to whomever he chooses. However only minds can know things.
If God was to choose to reveal himself to an object or animal he would first have to give that object or animal a mind. It’s surely in the power of an omnipotent God to do so.
After all that is exactly what he did to each of us
peace
Imagine you visit a planet on which live a variety of species.
The only thing you know beforehand is that one of the species was made in the image of God….but you aren’t told which one.
Are there any tests you can perform to distinguish between those animals with a mind and those without?
nope,
That is what the problem of other minds is all about.
It’s one of the most vexing problems in all of philosophy. I can’t believe you have not heard of it
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
and
https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-other-minds
peace
You have a real bad memory issue. Let me refresh it:
If reason is involved in the process of postulating, and your postulates (God) are supposed to ground your reason, you can’t escape the obvious circularity: you need reason to postulate that God is needed for reason
God is reason
so yes
that is after all the point
peace
Thank you for conceding defeat right there.
please elaborate
suppose I said “you need cherry pie to have cherry pie”.
Is there something logically wrong or incoherent about that sentence?
peace