h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Your "irrefutable argument for the non-existence of God":

"The concept of God is entirely a construct of the human imagination as a result of an inability to understand perfectly natural processes. All of today's current incarnations have evolved from these primitive beginnings. He has no actual, physical or metaphysical existence apart from human imagination. Ergo, god does not exist in any real form."

And now, my three refutations:

1. Your definition of "God" is inadequate. The only definition you have provided is the Merriam-Webster one, which is completely profane. You erroneously assume that *all* conceptions (or for that matter *any mature* conceptions) are embraced by this definition. Your argument does not address a concept of God that is created, not to explain natural phenomena, but to unite other concepts such as Nature, Disorder, The Good, etc.

2. Your definition of "existence" is inadequate. Actually, you fail to provide a definition of "existence". Don't feel bad, though; it's probably impossible. It was silly to claim that any argument of existence or non-existence is "irrefutable". More specifically, you imply in your argument that the only real existence is that which is independent of ("apart from") conciousness ("human imagination"). There is, in fact, no such existence.

3. You inconsistently admit the existence of Mind as an abstract concept which we experience, yet you deny that God exists, although It is an abstract concept which we experience.

Now, each of us has claimed victory in this wager, let us submit to the judgement of our peers, shall we? Each researcher in attendance gets one vote... oh, here's the original wager: "You show me an irrefutable argument for the non-existence of God and I'll refute it no less than 3 ways." Did I do it? (Yes, I know, I should have written "no *fewer* than three ways"... rrrr)

Irrefutable arguments can be made in Mathematics and Logic. That's about it!

In the wake of such flattery, I must at least make the attempt...

Your trap reminds me of an old logical puzzle... A man stands 8 feet from the wall. Every time takes a step, he closes half the distance between himself and the wall. When does he reach the wall?

The answer, of course, is that he never reaches it. That's how my beliefs run... every time I hear another argument in favor of theism, and watch it go down in flames, I'm brought another step closer to completely disproving god. But I will never hear every argument, and so I will never reach the ultimate disproof. At this point, I am close enough to describe him as nonexistent, but 100% surety will always be my unattainable ideal. And like the man stepping towards the wall, I feel like I am making continually shrinking amounts of progress, because I feel like I've already tackled the major arguments, and am left with mostly minor doctrinal questions to address.

And now I'll tackle the atheism/pantheism connection, because in fact, I've argued for a similarity elsewhere. Pantheists believe that the whole universe, from living organisms to stellar bodies, comprise what we might call "God." Scientific research brings us closer to God, for in research, we discover the mind of God itself. How does this differ with an atheist scientific approach? We simply don't call it God. "Universe" is an acceptable term for us atheists to describe the pantheist god, and doesn't carry the connotations of mysticism, nor of a guiding force with a clear purpose, that is wrapped up in the g-word. Unlike other theists, pantheists make good scientists, because they don't tend to leap to answers and then look for observations that support those answers, as Christian "scientists" are apt to do. In fact, pantheist and atheist worldviews are so compatible that I've never felt an overwhelming urge to criticize the pantheists. Atheists simply accept the universe as it is, while pantheists assign a consciousness to it. That is the only real difference between the two.

"An atheist is a pantheist with a bad attitude,
A pantheist is an atheist in a really good mood!"

- David Garza

Colonel, you disappoint me! Fragilis lead me to believe you are more or less indistinguishable from Superman in this arena, and yet you resort to sleight of hand:

"Your trap reminds me of an old logical puzzle... A man stands 8 feet from the wall. Every time takes a step, he closes half the distance between himself and the wall. When does he reach the wall?"

In your analogy, reaching the wall represents objectively proving (or disproving) the existence of God, a feat which is impossible. You introduce the man walking progressively more slowly, never quite reaching the wall. The implication is that the wall *is* reachable, but the odd rules governing the man's perambulations prevent him from doing it. The analogy is nothing except misleading.

"...every time I hear another argument in favor of theism, and watch it go down in flames, I'm brought another step closer to completely disproving god."

This is a devious little calumny. No matter how many arguments you resolve (to your own standards of satisfaction, whatever those may be), you move not a single step closer to an objective resolution. There *is* no objective resolution; this isn't an objective issue.

The zeal with which you present your case is indistinguishable (to me) from that with which a committed Christian (Jew, Moslem...) would defend his beliefs. And the attempt to claim opinions as objective arguments is another similarity. Is your need to be *proven* right so strong?

Personally, I'm happy to admit that my beliefs are (objectively) unprovable. That they cannot be disproved is enough for me. I believe what I believe because it feels right. Why do you atheists, just like the theists, work so hard at proving yourselves right? Surely you know it can't be done? Is it the crutch of certainty that you need to support you in your journey through life?

[Yes, I know I'm being vicious here, throwing back arguments that have been levelled at theists in the past. I suppose I'm just a nasty piece of work. ]

The strongest argument that might be brought to bear (IMO) is Occam's Razor - that there are simpler ways of accounting for life, the universe and everything than inventing a God (or some Gods). This is merely an estimate of probabilities, and proves nothing.

-------------------

The comparison of pantheists and atheists, in contrast, is a fascinating one. I claim membership of the former group, as you may have gathered? I had no idea the two perspectives were so close. I believe, as you say, that God is composed of the universe, all of it, great and small. But I believe this is the sort of composition where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. "God is an emergent property of the universe" is the way I would put it.

This view isn't entirely compatible with an atheist just referring to God as the Universe. Would you expect the universe (God) to act proactively or only passively? I would not be surprised in either case; I suspect the former might catch you, an atheist, unawares. Am I right?

Gotta go. Work to do. Catch y'all later.

Pattern-chaser

Hi Pattern-Chaser, I think you are right. But there's one thing I'd like to add:

If I had little green invisible elephants on my mind, stating they created life and the universe and everything, would it be your duty to disprove me?

Or would it be *my* duty to prove them?

I call it the razor of irrelevance. To only deal with things which are provable real.

Christian belief is irrelevant, as there is no proof. Christian cyberspace is real, lots of people acting like computers running that cyberspace. Dangerous and real.

Wonko, lover of little green elephants (aaaaah, aren't they sweet?) wrote:

"If I had little green invisible elephants on my mind [...] would it be your duty to disprove me? Or would it be *my* duty to prove them?"

I see no "duty" on either side. Surely we would discuss the subject only if we both wished to? Then, having confirmed a mutual interest, we would presumably give each other the benefit of the wisdom we have...

"I call it the razor of irrelevance. To only deal with things which are provably real."

Am I being too picky if I observe that nothing is "provably real" except perhaps yourself?

Pattern-chaser

Sorry for posting the equations without an explanation. I try to do it now. First thing, they are no equations.


Abstraction + association = spirituality.

Yeah, I thought about it for a while since I posted it. And I stick to it. Art is another way of escaping reality, as is spirituality. Everything which is not real, and yes, there is a reality (rule of thumb: everything that can be measured by artificial, technical sensors), is not worth dealing with. It only distracts you from the beauty of reality. Even that statement has spirit in it, but I'm working on it. There are some few things which are beautiful on the ground of reality. My genes, of example, are such that I adore women and love their beauty. But I'm only a little step away from beeing naive (I once was filled with that spirit, silly me) in thinking that their beauty is dependable in a romantic way. The human brain is like a helicoper with too much traction: it easily lifts in the air, leaving the ground of reality underneath.


Spirituality + obsession = god.

So we create symbols for things, and we associate them with other symbols, so we link random events with these symbols, wonderful brains as we have, and we finally and joyfully reach the top of all symbols: god. Obsessed like collecting food or like having sex, we collect the truth for this symbol. The obsession relinks the brain, giving joy and destructing the view on reality.


god + misuse (domination over people) = religion.

There are always some people who strive for power and will use it without hesitation. Religion is probably the biggest misuse concept of all.


religion + some time in history = cyberspace.

I used the word cyberspace for something which isn't real, jet is real. Cyberspaces are not real in that they live in computers only. They are real in their influence on the real word. That's why I use the word cyberspace to describe religion which is so old that it is deeply engraved in our society. Where are the computers this cyberspace runs on? It is you and me, all people in our western society are the computers. Where is the influence on real word? Wars, money in large amounts, mental illness. Yes, one of three person is mental ill. Because of this silly separation of body and soul religion forced upon us. And feeling guilty when doing perfectly normal things, like masturbation.


There's one thing I'd miss in a world without spirit: the Blues.

Do you know that comic where tarzan crashes into the back of one elephant?

Ok, maybe "duty" wasn't the right word. It *should* be checked whether something bares any resembly with reality or not.

Reality surly is a concept that is not provable. But it is *not* binary. It is not that way: I can't prove reality, so I am free to define everything. No, I disprove of that. There is a reality. Even information is real, it has real storage, the communication ways are hardware, everything is hardware, and so to say matter. And please don't someone tell me about electrons that don't behave. They do behave. Not a single pixel on your screen flashes. And they are drawn by electrons.

I take something for real if there are many sources for it. Take for example radio waves. You can't see or feel them. Yet there are many ways to get in contact with them. Receivers get radio programs with music. You can play around with the antenna. Micro waves heat our food. You can see the waves with an oscilloscope. You can put up a bulb near a sending antenna and it will light. There are many *different* ways. Technical ways. And many people. And that is the point.

Of cource everything could be simulated inside a huge computer. So reality is not an absolute concept, but limited to our universe. But not as limited as freely associating brain makes us think.

Wonko said "It *should* be checked whether something bares any resemblance to reality or not."

Why is that, then?

Then he said "There is a reality"

I've written a spiel on this, see my home page non-submitted Entry "What is reality?" It is *my* considered view that there is a reality, but I know and accept that I can't prove this. The Entry explains why I think this is so.

Pattern-chaser

The very concepts of knowledge and sceince, too, are entirely constructs of the human imagination as a result of an inability to understand perfectly natural processes.

I prefer the taste of non-believing agnostic ...

~^M^~
¨
¨

I've read your home page and some of your writings and postings. Quite impressive. I followed the link to Richard Dawkin, reading his reply to Prince Charles. I mostly agree, but there's one remarkable thing he said about standing on a little hill of evolution and not going down to get on a better mountain. I think that is the point we are discussing here. Evolution of Life, and the Evolution of Humanism, cannot make long term steps, as this would imply someone forcing others to make these steps. By faith, or spirit, or God, or communism. And exactly that has proven to be evil.

And I disagree about nature being selfish and not seeking long term achievements. Of course there are many selfish elements in Life, and in each Human Being (and especially in Women, sadly). But there are also long term achievements, like the Evolution of Humanism.

To reality: real things are real things and can be comprehened in many different, technical, ways.

Requests for clarification:

1. Wonko said "By faith, or spirit, or God, or communism. And exactly that has proven to be evil."

Sorry, I missed that. *What* is it that's evil?

2. Then he said "...there are many selfish elements in Life, and in each Human Being (and especially in Women, sadly)."

Misogyny? Or do I misunderstand?

Pattern-chaser

There are two possible approaches:

(1) things evolve, slowly and without aim

(2) someone sets an aim and is in control

Examples of (1) are Evolution, kapitalism without too much government, self regulating systems.

(2) is religion, communism, too much government, fascism.


I do love women, but they give me the blues, sometimes.

Is that the women's problem or your problem?

~^M^~

I think evolution, whether biological or ideological, may either take big leaps or small steps.

I don't think we can force evolution ... but we may be able to reinforce it at times. What may be more important question is 'can we influence its direction?'

What seems to be bad is forcing others to change according to your own wishes/beliefs/etc. The reason it is bad is that humans haven't ever been any good at societal engineering and design.


~^M^~

You are right, Merdo!

I think it is the women, they are jealous and they tend to think of themselfes first. It takes a long time to make them recognise their partners as individual human beings.

But where does Evolution take big leaps? Could be please give an example?