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.
Repeating nonsense does not magically make it less nonsensical.
Once again, you are claiming that something you call “god” created the universe. That’s not a definition of what “god” is, it is a baseless assertion about what your undefined entity did.
If you choose to provide an actual definition of whatever it is you worship, I’ll be happy to re-engage in the discussion.
Well, Bill believes the universe counts as objective, empirical evidence of God. Mung believes objective, empirical evidence of God can’t be found (and therefore, that the Bible is false and Jesus never materialized and never walked among us)
They obviously believe in different gods
GlenDavidson,
30k nucleotides that build a spliceosome of 3000k that build a human being is hard evidence of design. If you were going to build a yeast spliceosome how would you start? You would have to understand the function and then decide what arrangement of amino acids could perform that function. In order to do this you would need to know what arrangement would bind together and bind to specific 3′ and 5. sights to remove introns from transcript RNA. If you get this far then you need to generate the DNA codes that will generate these proteins. If you have a lookup table this is pretty straight forward. If you don’t know how these codes match you will fail no matter how much time you have. There are too many sequences for trial and error so you need to know exactly how the basic components (atoms and molecules) function.
As you think about this project you may come to realize that everything in the universe is a function of design and no longer a gaps argument.
I agree definitions are important. I just think Patrick’s got the cart before the horse.
He keeps asking for objective empirical evidence of [something] without knowing what that [something] is defined as.
I can think of two reasons for this:
1.) He does have an idea of the definition of God and is being dishonest when he says he doesn’t.
2.) He is bluffing.
Indeed. Repeated requests for objective empirical evidence for the existence of God are nonsensical, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Patrick,
I am sorry Patrick, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion. Lets call it a day 🙂
Care to address what follows from that? Once again: If objective empirical evidence for the existence of God is nonsensical, then Jesus couldn’t really be God. Don’t you agree?
Um, no, actually you haven’t even sketched out how this is done in live organisms–or does your designer know how to hold things in suspended animation while working on them and getting them going just right?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t have a designer 2 billion years ago that can knap a stone knife, let alone one that can perform the most sophisticated biologic engineering ever. Except in your religion.
Glen Davidson
colewd,
What is the theory of evolution? I have studied it for 18 months now and cannot answer this question with a consistently accepted answer. Is it Dawkins version or Moran’s version or Shapiro’s version or is it Behe’s version?
When I ask about the theory of gravity or electro magnetism or cell division I get consistent answers. Why?
GlenDavidson,
How does this work in living organisms? How do you get a new DNA sequence that allows an evolutionary transition?
I
dazz,
You need to get “object empirical evidence” defined and agreed upon.
You can’t really answer anything, and this is yet another deflection from your absolute lack of design explanation.
Anyway, you could find acceptable definitions of evolutionary theory if you cared, or you could actually study it meaningfully rather than reading junk pseudoscience.
Oh right, we have reason to care about Behe bollixed re-definition to fit his ad hoc beliefs on design, or Shapiro’s magic engineering version. Moran’s seems overly tilted toward neutral evolution, Dawkins is probably a bit over-dedicated to selection, but his is probably the closest to what really matters (neutral evolution isn’t obviously all that important, even if it probably supplies material for future changes).
Aside from the fact that you throw in good sources and bad, in your continual ignorance and lack of concern that your “alternative” explains nothing, have you ever noticed the difference in complexity of the subjects? Maybe you should consider biology, rather than making judgments about it without understanding it.
Of course you avoided the problem I brought up via this diversion to complain yet again about evolution without considering the lack of anything substantive in design, hence I’ll repeat this:
Diversion after diversion from the meaninglessness of “design” in biology.
Glen Davidson
Diversion.
Glen Davidson
Oh, of course. If by “objective empirical evidence” Mung means “trans-dimensional baked beans” then it’s nonsensical to demand such a thing. But I’m pretty sure Mung is referring to Patrick’s demand and Patrick simply means “objective empirical evidence” in the scientific sense
Patrick, do you believe that you are God, or do you believe that you are not God? Or is it that you just lack objective empirical evidence of your Godhood?
You mean, there ought to be a way to measure [quantify] God?
Yes, that is exactly what I think Patrick means, and why I find his demand so nonsensical. As if by using a powerful enough telescope, or powerful enough microscope, that God could be observed. How absurd.
A scientific “God detector.”
Nah. Evidence. Even circumstantial.
Once again. If Jesus was God, weren’t his witnesses observing him? (and that’s in the most literal sense of the term “observing”)
Wrong. I have consistently been asking for, first, a rigorous definition of “god” and, second, objective, empirical evidence for such a thing.
Some generic points:
1. One cannot establish the existence of anything based on the definition of that thing. (Anselm tried, in the Ontological Argument. Kant’s criticism of that argument is pretty devastating.) A definition is an explication of a concept; it illustrates the place of a concept in an inferential web. It doesn’t tell us whether anything exists to which the concept is correctly applied. (Notice that we can define “witch” or “phlogiston” perfectly well.)
2. The strategy of classical theism has always been to deny that God is anything like an entity, and therefore nothing at all like “”phlogiston”, “coffee-mug” or “quark”. Instead the strategy has been to insist that God is a necessary being, an absolutely transcendent being, and so on. That makes the whole thing an exercise in a priori metaphysics. What we have evidence for has nothing do to with it.
3. The problem here is that most people of faith merely parrot the words of classical theism without any understanding of what classical theism was, what metaphysical arguments are or were, and so forth. Since they don’t understand what classical theism was (or is) and simply parrot the formulations established by classical theism, they confuse themselves and everyone else.
4. However, since modern atheists also don’t understand what classical theism is or was, they are just as confused.
5. To avoid the confusion, one has got to pick up where Hume and Kant left off — it’s all about the a priori. Whether the a priori is only analytic or also synthetic, whether there are universal synthetic a priori truths, or whether synthetic a priori principles are true by virtue of the world or true by virtue of how the mind (or: language) function — these are the questions that would actually need to be worked through carefully and systematically in order to establish either the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the classical theistic conception of God.
And isn’t God supposed to be omnipotent? I know nobody has mentioned that as part of any definition, but if that’s what you believe, Mung… how come an omnipotent god can’t do what my dog does every day providing evidence of his existence? And my dog’s name is Chus (short for Jesus, not your Jesus tho, but still)
Asking for evidence that a claimed entity actually exists is absurd? You’re not real clear on this whole skepticism thing, are you?
Perhaps if you started with a rigorous definition of what you mean by “god” we could make some progress.
You regularly ask for the second without any mention whatsoever of the first.
By your own admission you have no reason to seek the second until you have the first. If this thread could accomplish one thing it would be to get you to stop asking for the second until you have asked for and received an answer to the first.
You try to make it appear like you have a “scientific” reason for your disbelief [lack of objective empirical evidence] when what actually turns out to be the case is that you don’t have a definition of God that you can find believable.
Your atheism is psychological, as pointed out far earlier by Erik.
I’m familiar with that argument. The problem is that it usually only gets trotted out when theists want to avoid supporting their claims. Then they immediately revert to their omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, sky god who is very concerned about what we all do with our dangly bits.
Their gods are all ephemeral and not subject to verification, but still used to justify misogyny, homophobia, and imposition of sectarian views by law.
I agree. See how easy that was? This should be your starting point, not demands for “objective empirical evidence.”
As I stated some time ago, your demands for “objective empirical evidence” assume facts not entered into evidence. (Perhaps that was in a different context, but if so it’s relevant here as well.)
I think if you review my posts in this thread you will find that is not the case.
I want both.
If it could accomplish anything, it will probably be to point out that no theist here is willing to provide a rigorous definition of what they mean by “god” or any objective, empirical evidence for it.
Prove me wrong.
Great. What’s your rigorous definition?
I usually don’t interact with you too much here but I read everything you write a few times and try to learn something from you.
I’m definitely in that category, not knowing much of classical theism.
So I understand that different epistemological approaches means that it’s unjustified to demand one’s principles apply to the other side.
…but I’m pretty sure even classical theists live by evidence every day, and many wouldn’t believe me if I claimed that I can throw lasers through my eyes without evidence: how is it justified to accept one epistemology for everything but God?
So you’ve decided that my cat is not God? And neither is dazz’z dog?
So you do have a concept of God.
Is there something you find incoherent about ephemeral?
Have I ever claimed to have a rigorous definition of God? If I have, I take it back. But I don’t think I ever have.
By rigorous do you mean subject to scientific observation and empirical testing? IS that what you mean by “not subject to verification”?
If so then how is it that you are not making claims that you need to defend?
As in, one must have a rigorous definition of God. That’s a claim, right? It’s a positive claim, right? It’s a claim you are prepared to defend, right?
Why would we need a concept of God? You are tacitly admitting that not two people believe in the same exact definition of God. Anything goes when it comes to deities. Well, some of those definitions, we lack a believe in those Gods. Others, we’re justified in believing they don’t exist… based on evidence or lack thereof
Now, are you going to answer my questions about your God being able to provide empirical evidence of his existence?
Because classical theism is founded on ontology, not epistemology. It’s an entirely different way of looking at things.
Cart before horse. See my conversation with Patrick. I don’t plan on going back over it with you while you make the same errors.
Quote:
That God as He is in Himself, cannot be comprehended of any but himself, dwelling in that inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto, whom never man saw, nor can see;
that there is but one God, one Christ, one Spirit ……….
God is of Himself, that is, neither from another, nor of another, nor by another, nor for another: But is a Spirit, who as his being is of Himself, so He gives being, moving, and preservation to all other things, being in Himself eternal, most holy, every way infinite in greatness, wisdom, power, justice, goodness, truth, etc.
In this Godhead, there is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; being every one of them one and the same God; and therefore not divided, but distinguished one from another by their several properties; the Father being from Himself, the Son of the Father from everlasting, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
end quote: 1644 LBCF
prediction– It will now be claimed that the definition is not good enough for some reason.
peace
I’ve read your interchange. Why can’t you ask a simple question like “can your God make himself observable” or “did Jesus’ witnesses have observable, objective, and empirical evidence of God”?
(Un)luckily for you, I am very good at definitions. You, on the other hand, are not. For about a year soon, you have not managed to define “proof” so that it would be relevant to our discussion.
Of course, God has been defined here in different ways. You seem to be reluctant to accept the definitions. Fair enough, because I also consider a bunch of definitions of God off the mark theologically and metaphysically, and/or irrelevant to science.
We don’t need just any old definition. We need a non-arbitrary definition on whose relevance we both agree on. Here’s a scientific (Spinozan) God calculated from ground up http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016012914521576.pdf Good enough for a start?
Erik,
Weird. I never heard anyone demanding any “proofs”. Just evidence.
Do you think, like Mung, that it’s nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence of God and why?
I think you could only conclude that the idea of objective evidence that Jesus is God must be nonsensical.
Patrick has been playing the burden of proof (yes, that’s proof) game very long now, including in this thread. This game is the essence of New Atheism and Patrickatheism.
Yes, given the definition of God of classical theism and mainstream Christian theology, empirical evidence of God is nonsensical. There’s “immaterial” in the definition, so it should answer your why question. Also, given the same definition, intelligent design theory is nonsensical, inasmuch as it involves empirical “detecting design”.
Unless the definition of God includes Jesus as God and a miracle maker. If Jesus was supposed to be God and the only one able to perform miracles, then those who could see him doing all that stuff should be deemed as having empirical evidence that Jesus is God.
My point is that it seems contradictory to me to claim that empirical evidence for God is nonsensical if the definition of God includes a materialized being able to do the things they claim he did. They claim there were witnesses back then. Much of their faith relies on believing there were witnesses. If God is undetectable by definition, then Jesus couldn’t be God
Sure it does. So because God’s immaterial, he’s undetectable.
Jesus was material and detectable, therefore… how many times do I need to repeat that? Do you agree that it follows that Jesus couldn’t be God if God is defined as immaterial and undetectable?
More importantly, if Jesus was a person, then he could not have detected an immaterial and undetectable god.
People here seem to have no understanding of the consequences of what htey ask for, what with the demands He make himself visible. It’s like they have a death wish.
“But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
Apparently it’s for your own good.
“no one may see me and live”
Remember it’s you who believes all this Mung. I couldn’t care less what the Bible says.
So if you were there in the time of Jesus, having the OT as your holy book and someone told you he’s both God and his son, you’d probably dismiss him as a lunatic and would quote Exodus 33:20 right?
All I’m asking is for YOUR definitions. You agreed those are important. But definitions may lead to some conflicts, so I’m asking you (for the last time) if Jesus was really God and your definition of God doesn’t allow for any kind of empirical perception of God, then if Jesus was God AND perceivable, there must be something wrong with your definitions.
Don’t be childish Mung. Pointing to a laughably sinister Bible passage that suggests one might die if he saw God’s face won’t cut it… by the way, how could anyone see God’s “face” if he’s immaterial and unperceivable?
Definitions are important. Let’s see how consistent yours are
Pretty sure you won’t answer any of that. If you had an answer you would have delivered already. Do you have kids? What if instead of an evil atheist it was one of them asking? Would you ground them? Disown them maybe?
Presumably — given my limited understanding of classical theism — it would be because of the kind of being or existence that God is defined as having.
If God is defined as a necessary being, or as absolutely transcendent with regard to all contingent beings, then it would make sense that our epistemic access to Him would have to be radically different from our epistemic access to contingent beings.
And that would in turn justify why the ordinary standards of empirical evidence, that do make good sense for navigating one’s perceptually salient environment, diagnosing an illness, or testing competing models of causal processes, do not apply to God. That’s why it’s nonsensical to ask for empirical evidence of God, if God is defined as classical theism has traditionally defined Him.
That said, there of course many people of faith who don’t understand classical theism and who do imagine God to be the kind of being to whom empirical evidence is relevant. To appreciate what classical theism is about, one has to have the ability to entertain a complex set of abstract metaphysical distinctions (necessary/contingent, transcendent/immanent, immaterial/material), and that’s a tall order.
1) God is a person. In fact he is tri-personal
2) No one said that God is undetectable
The problem is that as materialists you equate immaterial with undetectable. You also equate empirical with real.
God is detectable the same way your wife’s love is detectable.
Hint it’s not by empirical means
peace
act/potency
Makes sense. Thanks so much KN
I think dazz has me on ignore but I’d like to point out that no one ever concluded that Jesus is God’s son by looking at empirical evidence. If empirical evidence was what needed everyone would be a Christian
Instead God uses various means (including materiel evidence) to reveal himself to us through the Spirit.
It works like this
quote:
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
(Act 13:48)
end quote:
peace
You’re stealing my thunder. I was going to put that in an OP. 🙂
alovism – the lack of belief in love or Love.
Perhaps the problem is that we don’t have a rigorous definition of love or Love.
Along the lines of dazz’s questions:
Mung, fifth,
1. Is Jesus God? (I’m guessing that you’ll both say yes.)
2. Does Jesus’s face qualify as God’s face? Why or why not?
3. If yes, then how do you reconcile this with Exodus 33:20?
Why didn’t the disciples drop dead when they saw Jesus’s face?