Malaclypse the Younger

99Percent

That's one conception of god.

One reason that I'm a strong atheism is that I do indeed reject, on the grounds that supernaturalism, as you describe it, is logically contradictory.

There are other conceptions, however. Even if god is beyond the laws of nature, there are conceptions of theism where man too is beyond the laws of nature. Therefore a god would be comprehensible, at least in part.

Or our logic might be faulty. It is possible that there is a different logic that retains the power of current logic, but makes the existence of a god not only plausible, but obvious.

Or my understanding of logic might be faulty. I might be using logic against the wrong assumptions about naturalism. A conception of god might be entirely compatible with naturalism in some unforeseen way.

The point is, that there are a lot of ideas. They need to be discussed specifically, rather than creating a narrow definition of atheism.

As noted, this is one conception of "God". It is not necessarily the only conception.

CX

I normally post in BC&A, btu it's kind of slow there right now and I'm between projects at work. I'll keep this short.

1)Your definition of atheism is a straw man. Atheism is not equivalent to materialism.

2)Kalaam's Cosmological Argument has a couple problems. A)It is predicated on a false dilemma either the universe has a material cause OR an intelligent god created it. B)It is predicated on the idea that the universe began to exist and that as such something must have existed before the universe, but the language is sloppy since time as we understand it is an inseperable part of the universe the notion of a "before" is meaningless. C)If any entity is permitted spontaneous existence not as a product material causes, it is a much simpler hypothesis to suppose that the universe is one such. Any god is superfluous to the argument.

99Percent

The concept of "dog" means it has four legs, is mammalian, barks, etc. In other words it is a canine (equivalent of "divine" ).

When we are talking about dogs, the word "dogs" holds all the concepts related to dogs. Of course you can't prove that any particular dog is necessarily a canine (it might be some weird non canine species, or I can name my cat "Dog" just to make things confusing).

The existence of dogs are verifiable and logically consistent by definition. The existence of gods are not verifiable neither logically consistent by definition. Its like saying the Invible Pink Unicorn is a logical posibility when its definition is clearly contradictory (How can it be pink and invible at the same time?). Likewise omnipresence or omnipotency are obviously clear contradictions. So the existence of gods can be discarded by definition alone.

I believe that this is the strong atheist position. Well that is where I stand anyway.

tronvillain

So does Zeus count as a god? While a little silly, there's nothing logically impossible about him.

Also, omnipresence or omnipotency are obviously clear contradiction? You'll have to explain that one in more detail. In any case, those aren't attributes of a god.

tronvillain

99Percent:
As Malaclypse points out, that is one conception of "God." I see no reason to consider it the conception - if your atheism is limited to that conception, are you agnostic about the existence of an entity who is simply above the laws of nature?

tronvillain

Anyway, I am a strong atheist in that I strongly believe that God does not exist. "God" encompasses a multitude of hypotheses, and I assign all of them a probability at (logically contradictory hypotheses) or near zero.

99Percent

tronvillain: So does Zeus count as a god? While a little silly, there's nothing logically impossible about him.

He does seem silly doesn't he. I am not sure how much the Greeks seriously believed in these gods, but obviously in those times, a lot of natural phenomena was not scientifically explained, so it would be almost inevitable that they would invent deities for what would be seemingly random events of nature that also seemed to sometimes have a will of their own (such as earthquakes, volcanos, etc). So the idea of Zeus as god would be a way to project the unknowable to a humanlike diety with powers of his owns, but still the way how this diety has a connection to nature remained ultimately unfathonable to the Greeks. Still it is a wonder that atheism was debated even in those times. Now for us, who understand the origin of lightning, earthquakes, and hurracance, these gods are even "silly". This is what would actually happen if you understand the un-understandable (ie God) you just say, "but of course, why not", and the god concept vaporizes.

are you agnostic about the existence of an entity who is simply above the laws of nature?

Before, yes. But now I have to affirm that any such entity that is above the laws of nature is automatically self refuting, and therefore its actual existence not possible, by its very definition that this god would be above the laws of nature

God" encompasses a multitude of hypotheses, and I assign all of them a probability at (logically contradictory hypotheses) or near zero.

Skepticism is a very healthy proposition, but there is a point in logic where the impossible has to be completely discarded in reality or else you are epistemologically accepting the possibility that there could be no logical persistency in reality itself and that would be catastrophic, not to mention insane.

tronvillain

99Percent:
Perhaps you would like to actually show how such an entity is self refuting, rather than simply asserting that it is. There is nothing logically necessary about "the laws of nature" so being above them does not appear to entail a logical contradiction.

I suspect that you meant that "there is a point where the implausible has to be completely discarded", because the impossible is completely discarded by definition. While some probabilities are so insignificant that they can be ignored or approximated by zero, they remain possibilities and decarling them to actually be zero is irrational.

tronvillain

Oh, and are you admitting that Zeus is a logical possibility? It is obvious that he is not the best explanation of observed phenomena, but that does not necessarily give him a probability of zero, though it may effectively be zero.

joedad

Could you provide an example or description of a deity you have in mind, either one from human history or even the model of a new one?

Seems like the inference has been made that whatever is possible is logically consistent. Does "possible" therefore include simply any imagined phenomenon?

Let me know if I'm misrepresenting your positions.

joe