Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Automaton · 07-04-2002, 05:58 PM

There are two major types of atheistic argument: From evidence, which claim if God existed, the universe would be in some way different to the way it is now; or from definition, which attempts to show that God is logically impossible due to a contradictory definition. This one falls into the latter category. The attribute of God in dispute is that of him being a conscious observer. The argument can be phrased in a modus tollens syllogism:<ol type="1">[*]If God exists, he would have to observe something other than himself.[*]It would have been logically impossible for God to observe something other than himself.[*]Therefore God doesn't exist.[/list=a]The implication in premise 1 states something about the very nature of observation. To observe, you must observe something other than yourself. Something that only refers to itself is pure self-reference, such as p: "p is false", and things of this nature obviously cannot be. If one is an observer, and the only thing it observes is itself, this is pure self-reference, and the observation in this case is logically impossible. Number 2 rests on the notion of God being the ultimite ground of all existence. There must have been some ontologically prior state of reality, in which only God existed, otherwise he would not have been the cause of all other things. Theists may object to this by claiming that God created other things to destroy the implication of 1, but God would have still had to observe that there were no other things but himself to create, and that God would still require ontological primacy over all other things to be the ground of being. So this argument appears to be sound, any serious objections?

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Jobar · 07-04-2002, 08:27 PM

Automaton, I believe it is one of the Hindu Sutras, perhaps the Diamond-Cutter Sutra, which says "The Knower and the Known is one Knowing."

Also, one of the problems of quantum mechanics involves the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of separating the observer from the system observed. I don't see how we can declare it impossible for God to be both observer and observed- I agree that it is one of those problems that can set one to chasing your own tail, as do several in QM.

Of course, if you are attempting to disprove a creator God (a la Yahweh) who is separate from His creation, I think your argument succeeds.

h · 07-04-2002, 08:43 PM

The idea of God looking on himself has always been, to me, one of the most intriguing aspects of mysticism. Similar to this is the contemplation on "between", isolating the relationship from that which is relating. I greatly admire any attempt at making headway here, so please consider my criticism as constructive.

--
The implication in premise 1 states something about the very nature of observation. To observe, you must observe something other than yourself.
--

I think you may be to quick to categorize the possible forma of observation. When we commonly think of observing, we might understand this to mean a nonparticipant looking on something or, more precisely, the effects of something. For instance if I were to look out my window and see a dog pissing on a lunchbox, (1) the dog and his action of defacement are themselves communicated by the light being reflected. (2) The light reflected becomes known to [me] by means of the distance between myself and the event, my instruments of perception (in this case, my eyes), and my method of perceiving. (3) Finally, I somehow come to an understanding that and of what I've observed.

Now, is observation this entire process, the act of relating the material, the tendency to observe, or the understanding only? I am uncomfortable reducing all things that don't rely on a focus towards "something-else" to "self-reference".

The last clarification I can offer (both because I am about to go to bed and because I admit to not being as eloquent as I'd like to be) is by way of another analogy:
A bum sits on the steps of a public building hungry and frustrated. He thinks to himself, "Damn, I'm hungry." Soon a man in a suit walks by and the beggar asks, "Sir, could you spare me two or three bucks so I can get a cheeseburger or something?" But the man rebuffs him, claiming he needed the money to buy a tall thin latte. Again and again he asks passerby for a hand-out, each time resulting in nothing. He becomes angrily annoyed. Along comes a little rat with an oversized piece of cheese in its mouth. "Gimme that thing, fucker," the bum says to the rat as he snatches the cheese for himself.

The point of my argument is best understood if you can differentiate between the directions of the bum's statements. Herein the objective self/other,internal/external are elaborated into a more relation-oriented from/in, from/to, and from/at. From/at and from/to appear the same but behave very differently. You'll find From/to is the only element that will prove problematic to your thesis because it can exist independent of specifications.
-h

Bill Snedden · 07-04-2002, 10:25 PM

Ayn Rand offers a similar argument against an existence-creating consciousness by noting that consciousness requires self-awareness which in turn is only possible if there is something other than the self from which the self can be distinguished.

In other words, in order to be conscious, one must be conscious of something. If there were somehow to be nothing outside of oneself in existence, there would be nothing for one to be conscious of.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

07-04-2002, 10:46 PM

I don't think Ayn's is a valid argument Bill. I think it presupposes that God consists only of consciousness.

Consciousness in humans does not appear to be an essential property but a product of many other properties. Why should the case be different with God?

Secular Pinoy · 07-05-2002, 01:54 AM

Golly, that Ayn Rand sounds pretty much like I. Kant (I heard she doesn't approve of him). As it happens, I am reading a past issue of <a href="http://www.philoonline.org" target="_blank">Philo</a>, where the first article is <a href="http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm" target="_blank">Why God Cannot Think: Kant, Omnipresence, and Consciousness by Matt McCormick</a>.

Quote:

Abstract: It has been argued that God is omnipresent, that is, present in all places and in all times. Omnipresence is also implied by God's knowledge, power, and perfection. A Kantian argument shows that in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind.

I believe Automaton can find this article to be a nice complement to the argument he is trying to make. Have fun!

07-04-2002, 05:58 PM	#1
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Atheistic Argument from the Nature of Observation There are two major types of atheistic argument: From evidence, which claim if God existed, the universe would be in some way different to the way it is now; or from definition, which attempts to show that God is logically impossible due to a contradictory definition. This one falls into the latter category. The attribute of God in dispute is that of him being a conscious observer. The argument can be phrased in a modus tollens syllogism:<ol type="1">[]If God exists, he would have to observe something other than himself.[]It would have been logically impossible for God to observe something other than himself.[]Therefore God doesn't exist.[/list=a]The implication in premise 1 states something about the very nature of observation. To observe, you must observe something other than yourself. Something that only refers to itself is pure self-reference, such as p: "p is false", and things of this nature obviously cannot be. If one is an observer, and the only thing it observes is itself, this is pure self-reference, and the observation in this case is logically impossible. Number 2 rests on the notion of God being the ultimite ground of all existence. There must have been some ontologically prior state of reality, in which only God existed, otherwise he would not have been the cause of all other things. Theists may object to this by claiming that God created other things to destroy the implication of 1, but God would have still had to observe* that there were no other things but himself to create, and that God would still require ontological primacy over all other things to be the ground of being. So this argument appears to be sound, any serious objections? [ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2002, 08:27 PM	#2
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Automaton, I believe it is one of the Hindu Sutras, perhaps the Diamond-Cutter Sutra, which says "The Knower and the Known is one Knowing." Also, one of the problems of quantum mechanics involves the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of separating the observer from the system observed. I don't see how we can declare it impossible for God to be both observer and observed- I agree that it is one of those problems that can set one to chasing your own tail, as do several in QM. Of course, if you are attempting to disprove a creator God (a la Yahweh) who is separate from His creation, I think your argument succeeds.

07-04-2002, 08:43 PM	#3
h Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: florida Posts: 17	The idea of God looking on himself has always been, to me, one of the most intriguing aspects of mysticism. Similar to this is the contemplation on "between", isolating the relationship from that which is relating. I greatly admire any attempt at making headway here, so please consider my criticism as constructive. -- The implication in premise 1 states something about the very nature of observation. To observe, you must observe something other than yourself. -- I think you may be to quick to categorize the possible forma of observation. When we commonly think of observing, we might understand this to mean a nonparticipant looking on something or, more precisely, the effects of something. For instance if I were to look out my window and see a dog pissing on a lunchbox, (1) the dog and his action of defacement are themselves communicated by the light being reflected. (2) The light reflected becomes known to [me] by means of the distance between myself and the event, my instruments of perception (in this case, my eyes), and my method of perceiving. (3) Finally, I somehow come to an understanding that and of what I've observed. Now, is observation this entire process, the act of relating the material, the tendency to observe, or the understanding only? I am uncomfortable reducing all things that don't rely on a focus towards "something-else" to "self-reference". The last clarification I can offer (both because I am about to go to bed and because I admit to not being as eloquent as I'd like to be) is by way of another analogy: A bum sits on the steps of a public building hungry and frustrated. He thinks to himself, "Damn, I'm hungry." Soon a man in a suit walks by and the beggar asks, "Sir, could you spare me two or three bucks so I can get a cheeseburger or something?" But the man rebuffs him, claiming he needed the money to buy a tall thin latte. Again and again he asks passerby for a hand-out, each time resulting in nothing. He becomes angrily annoyed. Along comes a little rat with an oversized piece of cheese in its mouth. "Gimme that thing, fucker," the bum says to the rat as he snatches the cheese for himself. The point of my argument is best understood if you can differentiate between the directions of the bum's statements. Herein the objective self/other,internal/external are elaborated into a more relation-oriented from/in, from/to, and from/at. From/at and from/to appear the same but behave very differently. You'll find From/to is the only element that will prove problematic to your thesis because it can exist independent of specifications. -h

07-04-2002, 10:25 PM	#4
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	Ayn Rand offers a similar argument against an existence-creating consciousness by noting that consciousness requires self-awareness which in turn is only possible if there is something other than the self from which the self can be distinguished. In other words, in order to be conscious, one must be conscious of something. If there were somehow to be nothing outside of oneself in existence, there would be nothing for one to be conscious of. Regards, Bill Snedden

07-04-2002, 10:46 PM	#5
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	I don't think Ayn's is a valid argument Bill. I think it presupposes that God consists only of consciousness. Consciousness in humans does not appear to be an essential property but a product of many other properties. Why should the case be different with God?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.