Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 pm That’s easy, uwot.

In order to not believe in God...

(in other words, to not believe in a “guiding intelligence” presiding over the universe)

...then what an atheist “has to believe” (by default) is that blind and mindless processes have taken hold of the fabric of reality and somehow managed to fashion it (like a potter’s hands) into a context of order that defies comprehension.

That without the slightest hint of teleological impetus, the noumenal underpinning of the universe (the quantum), not only managed to self-arrange its patterns of information in such a way that would eventually lead to the manifestation of an unthinkably stable setting upon which life (life?) could then effloresce into existence,...

...but also managed to blindly and fortuitously equip that setting with every possible ingredient necessary to enable and sustain the efflorescence throughout its journey to self-awareness.

Now that’s basically what an atheist “has to believe” (again, by default) in order to not believe in a guiding intelligence.
_______
-1- wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:22 pm ...I firmly believe that you would not find the above ridiculously improbable, had you not been indoctrinated by upbringing and by peers, and by constant reinforcement by your own repetitive thoughts, to be a devoted god-fearing person.
Although some of what you say is no doubt true, I have had some utterly mind-blowing experiences in my life that set me on my spiritual path - a path that has nothing to do with my upbringing in the way you are suggesting.

In fact, if you haven’t noticed, the ideas concerning God to which I was indoctrinated in my youth are precisely what I am attempting to demonstrate as being dubious and shallow (but not without elements of truth).
-1- wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:22 pm The above quote by you is what is, in my belief system. You find it ridiculous; I find a god-belief ridiculous.
Might I humbly suggest that what you find ridiculous (as do I, btw) are the brazenly absurd depictions of God handed down to us from ancient minds.

In which case, can you not see that your own indoctrination to religious nonsense is influencing your current point of view?

Come on now, -1-, consider what Werner Heisenberg stated...
The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.
...or how about Lord William Kelvin...
I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.
...or Max Born...
Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.
...or Paul A. M. Dirac...
God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.
...or more recently, Michio Kaku stated...
I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.
...The point is that if that tiny sampling of top physicists can be open-minded about the issue of God, then why can’t you?
-1- wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:22 pm ...Thanks for being here.
Right back at you, -1-.

And thank you for all of your kind words.
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds »

Viveka wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:52 am Exactly! Atheism in this sense is a form of Nihilism in that it denies true meaning to the universe in saying that random, blind causes and selfish-genes caused all of life in its varied and obviously intelligently designed nature.
You got it, Viveka.
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:16 am
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm What do you think an atheist has to believe, in order to not believe in god?
That’s easy, uwot.

In order to not believe in God...
Etc, etc. Ok seeds; same question to you:
Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?
1. I believe that god does not exist.
2. I do not believe that god exists.
Yes, uwot, I understand the difference between those two sentences.

The first represents “positive atheism” (or strong atheism/hard atheism).

While the second represents “negative atheism” (or weak atheism/soft atheism).

However, that’s not the issue in this particular situation.

You asked a highly specific question:
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:16 am What do you think an atheist has to believe, in order to not believe in god?
And I provided a highly specific answer pertaining to what an atheist “has to believe” (by default) in order to not believe in God.

And by “default” I mean that both the hard and soft atheists – by reason of what atheism (in any context) means - must therefore hold an implicit (unspoken) belief in hardcore materialism that can simply be inferred.

It’s just simple logic, uwot.

Apparently, you didn’t like the answer.
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds »

Arising_uk wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:51 am How are you knowing that the noumena is 'quantum'?
To quote something I posted elsewhere:
seeds wrote: Clearly, I am taking license with the word “noumena” by applying it to Heisenberg’s “raw potentia,” or to the substance delineated by Schrödinger’s equation, or to that implicate level of reality implied in David Bohm’s theories, etc., etc..

However, I don’t think that Kant would have a problem visualizing how well the word correlates with the hidden (yet verified) underpinning of the objective structures of the universe where the “thing-in-itself” resides in the infinitesimal articulations of information written in the invisible script of quantum waveforms.
_______
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:58 am
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:16 am
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 pm
That’s easy, uwot.

In order to not believe in God...
Etc, etc. Ok seeds; same question to you:
Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?
1. I believe that god does not exist.
2. I do not believe that god exists.
Yes, uwot, I understand the difference between those two sentences.

The first represents “positive atheism” (or strong atheism/hard atheism).

While the second represents “negative atheism” (or weak atheism/soft atheism).

However, that’s not the issue in this particular situation.

You asked a highly specific question:
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:16 am What do you think an atheist has to believe, in order to not believe in god?
And I provided a highly specific answer pertaining to what an atheist “has to believe” (by default) in order to not believe in God.

And by “default” I mean that both the hard and soft atheists – by reason of what atheism (in any context) means - must therefore hold an implicit (unspoken) belief in hardcore materialism that can simply be inferred.

It’s just simple logic, uwot.

Apparently, you didn’t like the answer.
_______
It's nothing to do with liking the answer, or not; it's a false dichotomy. As you say, there is a difference between strong and weak atheism. As a weak atheist, I can accept 'god' as a plausible hypothesis, I just don't happen to believe it. For which reason, I am not committed to hardcore materialism.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by -1- »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:56 am Right back at you, -1-.

And thank you for all of your kind words.
_______
I agree with you that just like your theism, my atheism also has been formed by my educators. Not only the pedagogues, but all the educators.

I also agree that from time to time a person of faith a la atheism or theism, crosses the floor.

Why can't I be open-minded? I actually am, but my open-mindedness gets lost in a sea of barrage up against the arguments of theists. I am open-minded inasmuch as I believe that everyone has the right to believe in god or to believe in no god.

This is a very strong misconception on this site, by other members, that I am not open-minded.

BUT FOR THE RECORD, HERE IT IS: I accept that it is possible that god exists; except I don't believe it does. I would accept the existence of god if its existence was proven. But no such proof exists. I accept the right of anyone to believe in god or to believe in no god. I reject the right of anyone to bring up stupid, or fallacious, or logic-less arguments when attempting to prove anything. Most theists bring up such arguments. I will viciously fight such attempts.

What I am against, and very vocally and fiercely so, is stupid arguments that try to prove that god exists. THIS is what I am against, not faith.

If you took the bother, seeds, to look at my posts, you will notice that I always argue strongly against the arguments of those theists, who think they own the truth. In my opinion neither theists, nor atheists own the truth, and they should both respect that. And theists actually do -- they don't advocate the existence of no god, they fight against the unfounded and unreasonable arguments theists bring up to advocate the unadvocatable, the existence of god. That existence is merely up to faith, and nothing more, nothing less. You can't prove it true, and you can't prove it false. Nobody can.

You theists always come up with a plea, "please, atheists, why not be a bit more open-minded?" We, theists, feel, but don't verbalize, although we should, "please, theists, why not be more respectful of others' faith in no god?"

I tell you what. Not too many atheists believe they own the truth. But most, if not all, theists believe they own the truth. When the theists come forward with their misinformed entitlist, elitist and yet stupid arguments to prove god exists, that's what the atheists find extremely insulting. They are hurt, their intellect has been insulted, and that's why we atheists so vocally and fiercely criticize your opinion. At least this is the case with me, I can't speak for others.

I, for one, don't for one minute deny the right of anyone to believe in a god. I deny the right on this philosophy site, however, for anyone to bring up a stupid argument. And most, if not all, theists resort to fallacies, or to simply ill logic, because, like I said, they try to prove the un-provable.

And this is what the fight is all about on this site. Not that atheists are not open-minded; it's that theists act as if they owned the truth.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by -1- »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:16 am
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm What do you think an atheist has to believe, in order to not believe in god?
That’s easy, uwot.

In order to not believe in God...
Etc, etc. Ok seeds; same question to you:
Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?
1. I believe that god does not exist.
2. I do not believe that god exists.
I am watching this argument unfold. I think you are both right, except your right-ness depends on two assumptions, unnamed, and that is why you are arguing.

Seeds assumes that an atheist has a knowledge of the physical world to the depth he described. BUT SEEDS DID NOT NAME THIS ASSUMPTION. I took that assumption as granted.

Uwot, on the other hand, ignored -- rightfully -- the unnamed assumption, and acted accordingly. He is absolutely right, the conclusion is false, if you ignore the (unnamed) assumption. Which uwot has the right to ignore, since it has not been stated.

Hence, pending on the presence or absence of an unnamed assumption, you are both right, but not at the same respect.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Arising_uk »

seeds wrote:Clearly, I am taking license with the word “noumena” by applying it to Heisenberg’s “raw potentia,” or to the substance delineated by Schrödinger’s equation, or to that implicate level of reality implied in David Bohm’s theories, etc., etc.. ...
Well you are of course allowed to apply it as you wish, as Kant did himself.
However, I don’t think that Kant would have a problem visualizing how well the word correlates with the hidden (yet verified) underpinning of the objective structures of the universe where the “thing-in-itself” resides in the infinitesimal articulations of information written in the invisible script of quantum waveforms.
Given his reasoning I think he'd have a serious problem with such a claim about the Noumena.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:17 pmOkay, there is no god...on what authority do you make this statement...
I don't. Clearly you do not understand the difference between:
uwot wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:41 pm 1. I believe that god does not exist.
2. I do not believe that god exists.
Well, if lack of belief is your only justification then what is the difference between you and the religious who claim god exists. If the sole difference is strictly belief, is atheism any more rational than a theology?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:17 pm...in simpler terms you are victim of the Universe, considering suffering is all powerful, why should I or anyone take you seriously as a victim?
If you haven't the wit to understand the above, it's not me that is a victim.

Unfortunately I understand it just fine.
You believe that god does not exist = god does not exist.
This however does not argue the absence of god, it is strictly a statement that god does not exist.

You do not believe that god exists = You do not believe.
This however does not argue the absence of god, it is strictly a statement that you do not believe god exists; whether he exists or not is irrelevant.


So, as I said before, you are a victim of the universe...considering "there is no god" the universe remains as the sole authority over your life. Suffering is the norm.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

-1- wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:09 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:17 pmOkay, there is no god...on what authority do you make this statement...
WTF? You need an authority to make a statement?
One's own at minimum, Yes/No? But if there is no God, the authority of man is no different than that of an animal's, as man cannot claim any form divinity...because he is not a god.


Under what authority do you ask that question in the quote?
Reason.

Under what authority do you act stupid?
Apparently you since you seem so interested in it.

Who allowed you to say irrelevant things on a philosophy forum?
You of course.

You say who? Your minister or preacher? I guess then it's okay. Carry on, keep on saying wholly ignorant things.
If I am so "stupid" and "irrelevant"...then why bother with me?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pm Unfortunately I understand it just fine.
Unfortunate? Is that your idea of suffering?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pmYou believe that god does not exist = god does not exist.
This however does not argue the absence of god, it is strictly a statement that god does not exist.
Yup.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pmYou do not believe that god exists = You do not believe.
This however does not argue the absence of god, it is strictly a statement that you do not believe god exists; whether he exists or not is irrelevant.
Yup.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pm So, as I said before, you are a victim of the universe...considering "there is no god" the universe remains as the sole authority over your life. Suffering is the norm.
I'm sorry that your life is so miserable, but I really don't see myself as a victim.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pm Unfortunately I understand it just fine.
Unfortunate? Is that your idea of suffering?
Is it yours?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pmYou believe that god does not exist = god does not exist.
This however does not argue the absence of god, it is strictly a statement that god does not exist.
Yup.
We can agree that you applied no argument then and simply just state things as axioms.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pmYou do not believe that god exists = You do not believe.
This however does not argue the absence of god, it is strictly a statement that you do not believe god exists; whether he exists or not is irrelevant.
Yup.
So you are an agnostic then? Considering you allowing the possibility of God(s) you do not believe in?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:09 pm So, as I said before, you are a victim of the universe...considering "there is no god" the universe remains as the sole authority over your life. Suffering is the norm.
I'm sorry that your life is so miserable, but I really don't see myself as a victim.
That is because you are a victim of chance...your perception of this will change, you have no choice in the matter.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by uwot »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 pmSo you are an agnostic then? Considering you allowing the possibility of God(s) you do not believe in?
In fairness, agnostic has come to mean 'don't know'. So in that sense you can call me an agnostic, if you wish, but I don't call myself that, because it is not the meaning that was originally attributed to the word. This is how Thomas Huxley, who invented the term, defined it:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology."
I actually accept theists' claims that there is evidence for some god; I just don't think it is very compelling.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:16 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 pmSo you are an agnostic then? Considering you allowing the possibility of God(s) you do not believe in?
In fairness, agnostic has come to mean 'don't know'. So in that sense you can call me an agnostic, if you wish, but I don't call myself that, because it is not the meaning that was originally attributed to the word. This is how Thomas Huxley, who invented the term, defined it:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology."
I actually accept theists' claims that there is evidence for some god; I just don't think it is very compelling.
So you are an atheist, that believes there are possible degrees for the existence of God(s)? However this "evidence" does not reflect strongly with your personal axioms as to why "God(s) do not exist"?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Viveka »

Here's some argument of an empirical, statistical nature that proves that the world is growing to have more goodness over evil, which counters his argument from evil, and on top of that, it has been carried out by people with a free will:

Global supplies of clean water have increased. In 1990, 76% of the world’s population had reasonable access to drinking water. By 2010 that had increased to 89%, according to a report from the Food and Agricultural Organization at the U.N.
The per-capita supply of fish worldwide climbed roughly 30% over those years.
World hunger and poverty have dropped dramatically. The share of the global population that is undernourished declined more than 40% between 1990 and 2015, U.N. data show. The share of the global population living in abject poverty went down by more than 35%.
The land has gotten far more productive, not less. In fact, the share of land devoted to agriculture hasn’t budged since 1990, according to the U.N. report. Think about that for a minute: We are able to feed 34% more people, and feed them better than ever, using the same amount of land!
In the U.S. at least, air pollution is down since 1992 for every single pollutant the EPA measures. And our CO2 emissions are down since the mid-1990s, thanks not to government regulations, but because of the fracking innovation.
Post Reply