My simple argument against Theism.
Offline Of all the arguments against god (and I really love them all, especially when you are stumped by one and have to re-read it to find the fallacy - for example, WL Craig has challenged my understanding, but eventually I have seen where his arguments fail).
Anyhow, I thought I'd share my basic problem with theism, and while this is quite basic, I find that returning to the original problem helpful in resetting oneself in light of all the arguments that follow.
Basically, it is a Noncognitivist position.
To anyone, I pose the scenario:
It is blue, triangular, wavy, pumpkin-like and causes the leaves on the trees to move. I call it "flurb".
It is maximally good, it is maximally powerful, and maximally knowing and causes the universe to exist. I call it "god".
They are both equal propositions. The issue would be "do you believe that flurb exists? Yes or no? (The answer "it could exist" isn't a position, since it is also the mirror statement "it also might not exist". And this is simply not a position at all.)
No?: Why not? What evidence do you have?
Yes?: Why? What evidence do you have?
I can point out that blue, triangles, wavy-ness and pumpkin-like things exist, and point to the trees moving. But the clever people out there might notice the problem:
How did I determine the qualities of "flurb" if I have never experienced it? What first gave me the idea that flurb existed in the first place?
What IS flurb? At this point, the theist arguing for god would start to pile on any number of arguments about how flurb COULD exist, but never address the main problem: What is flurb, and how do you know it exists in the first place?
I could presuppose that flurb exists and build some arguments around that presupposition, but this would be rather asinine.
I could point to the obvious, and objectively agreed upon fact that the leaves on the trees are moving. Since this is a quality of flurb, it certainly seems to prove flurb... but it doesn't - it begs the question.
Then, I could throw in the kicker: there is no proof of flurb (can you prove you love someone?), but that you have to have FAITH that flurb exists! How do I know this? Well, by Faith, of course!
So, I know this is basic stuff, but I'd like any Theist to address the basic problem of how you determine the existence of something that is undetectable?
I know some will say "well, something had to make the universe", but it didn't have to be a god, as we know.
As far as I can see, Theists essentially say something akin to: "a bottle cap, a radiator, the love of a woman and a shoe = Gob". In other words, they take a collection of random things, lump them together and name them. That is, they define their god INTO existence.
"The existence of the universe, humans, my warm fuzzy feeling and Moses = God exists."
Philosophy is fun, and logic can be a ball when wrestling with any number of hypothetical questions, but the basic reality seems to be the problem with Theists.
If a Theist can explain how they came to even know that there is something to name as a single entity, I'd like to hear it.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
You could have saved yourself some time by simply typing "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster." I'm not entirely sure that what you've presented is actually a non-cognitive argument. To my knowledge, those generally hinge on the inability of the theist to apply meaningful and coherent definitions of their "god." What you've written seems to be just a reductio ad absurdum.
In any case, it occurs to me that I have as of yet failed to address any of the points made in your post. To that end, I would simply say, if you wish to believe in the flurb (or just flurb? I don't know if an article would be necessary here), then please feel free to.
My simple argument against Theism is that it is religion of separation, as silly as the idea that zero exists .....
Atheism Books.
Sure, let people believe whatever they wish, but that is not a rebuttal to the basic problem. As it stands, theists have only offered a variety of definitions for "god", but none of them have established why their definition is more accurate than the other. How would they know?
You say you are a Theist. How did you figure there was a god (by whatever definition you use) in the first place?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
This premise is, as far as I know, not part of any non-cognitivist argument. In fact, that premise seems to run contrary to the argument. The whole of the argument is based upon the premise that the deity in question is NOT a construct of definition, and therefore cannot actually exist.
I don't see how that follows.
It is a fairly strong rebuttal to the argument, though. Your argument hinges on the fact that I will find the idea of your believing in "flurb" to be absurd. I do not.
Again, this is not a non-cognitivist argument. And, as you said, it boils down to the whole faith thing. And, as I said, I'm fine with you having faith in flurb.
I went to the mall one day, and purchased a fruit smoothie. As for my beliefs, and the deity in question, I am, unfortunately, unable to discuss it. You see, "god" is an irrational and illogical concept. To speak about it using a language which is so romantically entwined with logic, would be quite impossible. You see, one cannot share feelings over the confines of the internet. Only words. And this is a case where my ability to use them falls quite short.
Yes, God is an irrational and illogical concept. Made more so by your claim that you have feelings of God.
What gave you the idea that those feelings were connected to god in some way? Faith? How does Faith work, and how did you verify it?
I am well aware of NC and if you stretch my argument to the logical conclusions you will see I have expressed the issue well enough.
In order to attach a property to something, you must actually know that that thing has the capacity to exhibit that property. Plus, in order to define something you must use Primary characteristics, not Secondary or Relational - otherwise you are simply playing with words.
You claim God creates feelings in you. How do you know God does this; has the capacity to do this?
Are you sure it wasn't just the B-12 in your Smoothie? (Or, perhaps, this IS god, to you, like our other friend who defines things as he goes...?)
Again, how did you first know there was a god: by what mechanism was it transmitted to you - and how do you know that that transmission was god and not something else?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
I always thought the following quote made all your "flurb" and FSM style arguments rather well.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
Sure. (Not sure what kind of argument that is supposed to be)
Well, I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the whole idea behind what is called "theistic faith" is that it is non-contingent. So verification would be rather pointless, don't you think?
Ah, but it isn't my responsibility to stretch any argument you make to its logical conclusion. It's your argument, if you want to expand it to make it non-cognitivist, then be my guest, but until then, I'm not going to avoid pointing out that you've yet to do such.
To be very frank, playing with words more than suffices for my entertainments.
"Creates feelings" is a rather odd way of putting it.
It isn't something I haven't considered. It would seem apparent to me, though, that without all the components of the Smoothie, it would not create all of the feelings, no?
It's not a matter of knowing.
Ah, I see what you are saying. I will respond in kind:
Oooh, you're quite the cheeky fellow. I like that.
It would appear that we've nothing left to discuss.
I agree with you.
In that case, I wish you luck in using your arguments in the future and would like to express regret that my being a theist prevented me from helping you to refine this particular argument.
Good day.