NoGodBlog.com

Even you are making this too complex. The argument has a very simple logical flaw. Step one states that the MPB (Most Perfect Being) either exists or doesn't. Step two then assumes existence. If step two were stated correctly, it would say:

* The MPB has many traits, if it exists. (Conversely, if the MPB does not exist, it has no traits at all.)

Then, step three would have to say:

* If MPB exists, one of its traits is existence. (Of course, this does not apply if the MPB does not exist. A non-existent MPB has no traits.)

Of course, stated that way, it's fairly obvious why this does not prove existence.

My non-existent non-collection of stamps is absolute perfection. I have not collected every possible stamp known and unknown to man.That is what makes its non-existence infinite.

That's St. Anselm's argument, isn't it?

I believe the ontological argument is flawed for reasons too long to go into here. However it's naive to suggest it's a silly little word game. It was wrestled with by the likes of Hume and Russell.

The argument has stood for a thousand years and you all still bust your brains over it. Kind of like picketing the Pope.

The argument only applies to that than which no greater can be conceived. It does not apply to any other thing such as a perfect unicorn or some such thing.

And by the way, Krystalline, it is St. Anselm's argument. Since you asked.

Probably the reason the argument won't go away is because there actually is a God. And the argument makes the point that we can conceive of such a being. Since there is a God, even though the argument seems rather circular, it's not, because it's true.

It is one of the three foundational arguments for the existence of god. The other two being the teleological and cosmological arguments.

With all three of these arguments in mind, one comes to the undeniable conclusion that there is a God. After that, one must find the best revelation of God, and that, as we all know is Jesus Christ.

thx1138

I disagree. I think the argument is easily shown to be nonsense by a child. When I asked my seven year old daughter about this argument she, as seven year old me would have, said how do you know that something is perfect. In other words there is no measure for perfection.

Also this perfect thing that is imagined may be assigned traits that are mutually exclusive even after one has defined what perfection means.

It is just stupid.

No Edward. The argument was dismantled by my seven year old daughter. Like millions of others you lack her clarity of thought and that alone explains the persistence of such nonsense. Anxious rationalizations are characteristic of addicts when their addiction is confronted by others. Your high is gone and you wont be getting it back. You will likely spend the rest of your life looking in vain for another "fix".

Get help.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because.....

If an entity existed with unlimited knowledge and power, and let this kind of stuff happen, he'd be evil --- much more evil, and therefore much LESS perfect -- than his nonexistent counterpart.

First of all, I'm a believer and I think that logic is flawed, especially step 4.

We live in a world where disease runs rampant, natural disasters wreck cities, etc. If an entity existed with unlimited knowledge and power, and let this kind of stuff happen, he'd be evil --- much more evil, and therefore much LESS perfect -- than his nonexistent counterpart.

Dave, I respect many things you post on here. But in this area, your lack of Biblical knowledge, and a true understanding of what most Christians (and Jews, for that matter) believe is showing. God hates sin, and because of the sinful nature of man, there was a separation of heaven and Earth. But thankfully, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and the kingdom of God is in the process of returning, the unification of heaven and Earth. When that day comes (which we believe is not just a theoretical day, but a finite day in the future), there will be no more disease or death.

I just finished a book by N.T. Wright that said there were three distinct theories of God (or gods). He called them Option 1, 2 and 3. (I get Option 1 and 2 mixed up, but the label is unimportant)

Option 1 is belief that God is everywhere, in everything. He addresses the very same issue I quoted you with here. If God were everywhere and in everything, and there is evil in the world (death, disease, rapists, murderers, etc.), then God must be evil.

Option 2 is belief that God is completely separate from our world, sending instructions from a far away place. This is kind of like the belief the Greeks had about their gods.

Option 3 is what the Bible teaches, that God (and heaven) is partially separated from our world, but because of Jesus, is on the way to re-unifying.

...by partially separated, I mean he is present in prayer, worship and holy actions in the name of Him

What,

Your daughter is a genius :)

My inner seven-year-old self applauds her. My actual fifty-seven-year-old self applauds you for encouraging her to think for herself.

I'm with uoflcard on this one.

Here I've been praying for the same thing the religious have been all along and didn't know it.

The end of their drivel. I just didn't know they called it when heaven and earth unify.

Of course, you all understand that when the unification of heaven and earth occurs, that is the end of existence. So the end of the religious' hatred, wars, intolerance, misogyny, etc.

I finally see the light.

Great News uoflcard!

An ad to this blog says that the end time will occur this year.

http://www.the-end.com/

Blessed be Ron Weinland for letting us know the end will happen this year, or as uoflcard says, the unification of heaven and earth.

Now we can finally quit arguing over all this silly stuff and sit back and watch the fire works.

Bring them on.

Oh, Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. Prince Eddie in a christ can.
The people here all KNOW these 'arguments'. The reason the ontological argument has 'stood' for 1000 years, is that folks don't tend to be too bright.
The only 'brain-buster' here, is that people actually mistake this sort of vacuous noise for logic, an argument, or anything resembling a connected synapse.
"If you imagine it, it will be."
Snort. Chuckle. (Shakes his head)

• If God were perfect he could have created humans with free wills who could not sin.

Therefore God is not perfect.

• That which does not exist cannot have flaws, therefore the highest form of perfection is non-existence. Ontology argues against the existece of God.

• What if God were prefect?

To paraphrase What's genius daughter in a syllogism:

• Perfection is unknowable.
• God is perfect.
• Therefore God is unknowable.

Don't you have to define "exist" first?

"Unlimited" power just doesn't cut it for a perfect being. It's got to have all power, otherwise there would be some power which it does not have, rendering it imperfect. I'm sure we're all aware of what the term 'freewill' means. If freewill is true, a MPB with respect to power cannot exist. Choose your poison.

Option 1 is belief that God is everywhere, in everything. He addresses the very same issue I quoted you with here. If God were everywhere and in everything, and there is evil in the world (death, disease, rapists, murderers, etc.), then God must be evil.

Or one could just say that 'evil' is meaningless outside human ideology and cannot describe God, etc. But that would directly contradict christian theology and it kinda sounds alot like pantheism.

What

I love your daughter!

Since the human imagination is imperfect it cannot imagine a perfect being.

The following comment is hilarious :) Some jeebus freak apparently wrote it:

God hates sin, and because of the sinful nature of man, there was a separation of heaven and Earth. But thankfully, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and the kingdom of God is in the process of returning, the unification of heaven and Earth. When that day comes (which we believe is not just a theoretical day, but a finite day in the future), there will be no more disease or death.

So in summary, the christian god-idea is accordingly hateful. The christian god-idea created "man" (Lucky women, apparently evolved on their own) and as the christian god-idea mythically created everything and knows everything, it also created sin and that thing that christians love above all else - deception. Even better is that the supposedly perfect christian god-idea created "man" with a "sinful nature" therefore, "sin" is christian perfection and the christian god-idea is flawed because it "hates sin".

Now, apparently the christian god-idea was in some sort of perfect tizzy about perfect sin and perfect man. Because the perfect solution to the perfect tizziness was, it is said, to create a perfect jesus by impregnating its perfect daughter-mother-(bride?), owing to the need to have the jesus die (on a mormon christian perfect death cross, no less) for the perfect "sin" of the perfect "man". In this perfect way, the perfectly separated heaven-idea and the earth can be perfectly reunited.

Also, as a perfect result of the perfect tizziness plan, perfect man will need to render the earth perfectly uninhabitable, which of course, will cure any disease and no death is to be happening, perfectly.

Which certainly would be a perfectly amusing tale if, it wasn't so perfectly destructive, deadly and, deceptive.

Leaving at least one glaring and unanswered question (which has been answered perfectly incorrectly many, many times in the past); when is the perfectly un-theoretical and perfectly "finite day", hhhhhhmmmmmm??????

In the name of FSM; Pasta be upon you "perfect" christians (Bible = the perfect joke from ancient authors), jesus god-idea christ!

Marinara :)

A perfect being would have created a perfect world which is obviously not the case, ergo god does not exist.

Hey Uoflcard,

Great post.

Of course, you all understand that when the unification of heaven and earth occurs, that is the end of existence. So the end of the religious' hatred, wars, intolerance, misogyny, etc.

I can't quite make the connection you are making. I agree that it will be the end of hatred, wars, etc. I don't see how it would be the end of existence; rather, I see it as only the beginning of the way God intended our existence to be before we screwed it up.

The only way I can make that connection is if you believe our sole purpose is to pursue knowledge. Because at that point there would be nothing left to pursue! We would be engulfed in the absolute Truth. Science and engineering would have no purpose, either, because their ultimate purpose is to either satisfy human curiosity and/or advance the betterment of human civilization and life. There would be no need for any of that at that point.

I'm curious about something. As atheists, do you actually believe we have a purpose? And I'm not talking about a purpose as a parent, spouse, or businessman, but an absolute purpose. The purpose of humanity. Some potential purposes I can think of are:

- Gaining an understanding of everything in the known universe(s)

- Getting all of mankind to understand the truth about EVERYTHING in the universe(s) (If this is where you stand, then I completely agree!)

- Continuously improving human life, or life in general

- Lengthening human lives

- Acheiving complete peace among all people

- Acheiving complete happiness among all people

- Discovering if there is other intelligent life in the universe(s)


It seems to me that, as atheists, you would feel that we have no more purpose than a stone that has been smoothed by a stream for centuries, since both were theoretically formed by completely natural causes.

And I'm not try to attack your beliefs (although I disagree with them or put you down. I'm just trying to understand exactly what you believe. Attack me with sarcasm and names if you feel the need, but I would value just an honest answer

it also created sin

Try to get at least a basic understanding of Christianity before attacking it. It's like someone trying to disprove Quantum Physics while thinking the smallest thing in the universe is a grain of sand

God hates sin

Now how could a perfect gawd hate what it created? Is hate part of the xian's measure of perfection? And wouldn't that be wasteful - to create with the possibility of hating what you have created. So wastefulness is part of perfection as well. And on and on and on ...


Karen

Me too.

Ufo

Try to get at least a basic understanding of Christianity before attacking it.

Reall? And what is it that we don't understand about xianity?

Your physics analogy is flawed. Lets see if your confused mind can find the painfully obvious flaw.

My actual fifty-seven-year-old self applauds you for encouraging her to think for herself.

I assume this is a slap at Christians teaching our children what we believe. Here's my thought on that.

Unless you live in a compound, like the cult in Texas that forces 14-yr-olds into marriage, where you can completely filter the outside world, your kids are obviously going to come across theories that contradict your beliefs. They will inevitably think for themselves. Eventually, when their minds mature, they will decide for themselves what they believe.

I was a "cradle Catholic", but when I reached college, I knew that what I had been taught in Church was only one side of a widely-disputed argument. I could not help but pursue the Absolute Truth, and my personal conclusion is slightly different from Catholic beliefs, but I do believe there is a God, and I believe Jesus as described in the Bible was/is real and true. Their have been millions of non-believers who have come to believe. There have been millions of "cradle Christians/Jews/etc" who have come to believe there is no God.

My point is that, as a Christian, I will not "let" my children think for themselves. And before you say "Aha! Brainwasher!", let me finish...I will not let them because I will not have to let them. When they grow up they will naturally pursue and believe what they will. As small children, I will teach them what I believe, because I am called by God, in the Bible, to do so. It does not say "force your children" to believe.

Also, the Bible says nothing about not asking questions. In fact, that is one of the MOST important things a believer can do, to ask questions!

When I asked my seven year old daughter about this argument she, as seven year old me would have, said how do you know that something is perfect. In other words there is no measure for perfection.

what, I love the question your daughter asked. And if I had a 7-yr-old bright enough to ask that question, I would be quite impressed. Ironically, you answered her question with that last sentence. We cannot "measure" or even comprehend or imagine perfection, because we are not perfect. You unintentionally reiterated something that is continuously present in Bible, the imperfection of man leading to our inability to comprehend the absolute wonder of God.

is there a way to edit comments? accidentally put that entire comment in blockquote

Edward,

If your local community college offers a Basic Thinking 101 class, you should brush up.

Probably the reason the argument won't go away is because there actually is a God. And the argument makes the point that we can conceive of such a being. Since there is a God, even though the argument seems rather circular, it's not, because it's true.

You were so close to a coherent though. You brushed it and then turned away at the last second.

The argument is circular. Your quote can be paraphrased as "The argument is true because it's true." Logic can't get any more circular than that.

The problem with using the word "perfection" the way it's used in this argument is that it's entirely subjective. I believe that the Biblical God's sense of justice is very poor, ergo he can't be perfect, ergo he can't exist. All it takes is one person to disagree with one aspect of God's character and the Ontological argument falls apart.

You also mentioned the Teleological argument. This argument is an argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine how the universe came into being without a deity, therefore a deity exists." All that does is point out that we don't know everything there is to know, but nobody is going to argue with that. By itself, it is useless as an argument for the existence of a deity.

Finally, the Cosmological argument. This one breaks down immediately since it requires that the "first cause" is immune to the causality that the rest of the argument relies upon. What basis do you have to believe that your personal deity was this first cause? The first cause could be anything, it could even be some natural event that we have no current knowledge of. Again, all this does is point out humanity's ignorance. Any other conclusion requires a leap.

Your physics analogy is flawed. Lets see if your confused mind can find the painfully obvious flaw.

Because to be aware of quantum physics would mean you have an understanding that a grain of sand is NOT the smallest thing in the universe? lol good catch

So it was an imperfect analogy. I'll try to think of a better one...

So it was an imperfect analogy. I'll try to think of a better one...

Okay, I think I have a better one, although it is also not perfect. Systematically disproving Christianity w/o an understanding of all of its beliefs is like trying to prove that an engine will not cycle if there is no crankshaft present.

For more completeness, assume that you've never seen or heard of an engine before, but you have a brilliant "mechanical" mind so you can picture how an assembly of parts would theoretically work

Finally, the Cosmological argument. This one breaks down immediately since it requires that the "first cause" is immune to the causality that the rest of the argument relies upon. What basis do you have to believe that your personal deity was this first cause? The first cause could be anything, it could even be some natural event that we have no current knowledge of. Again, all this does is point out humanity's ignorance. Any other conclusion requires a leap.

Since there is no evidence that there is *not* a God, wouldn't it then be fair to assume you took a leap to believe there isn't one?

Even if the logical was sound, you still need proof to certify the existence of something. Disprove the logic of this statement:

1. My school cafeteria is serving meatloaf made by some animal, but it is not known what type.

2. Sperm whales are animals.

3. Therefore, the meatloaf could be a Sperm whale.

Common sense has to be considered when justifying a course of action or belief.

Since there is no evidence that there is *not* a God, wouldn't it then be fair to assume you took a leap to believe there isn't one?

You don't see that everyday: a theist who admits that even if the cosmological argument worked, it wouldn't even come close to proving the existence of his personal deity.

And, no, it wouldn't. I don't belive there isn't one, I just don't believe the current arguments and evidence (used loosely) presented by different religious institutions justifies a belief in one.

uoflcard,

No, there is no way to edit posts. Once posted, they're there to stay. That's to keep people from editing their posts after being responded to.

I'm curious about something. As atheists, do you actually believe we have a purpose?

This question makes the assumption that atheism has an ideology attached to it. It's not much different from asking "As a skeet-shooter, what is your opinion of tropical penguins?"

Atheists, as a group, only agree on one thing: That the arguments for the existence of deities are unconvincing. You can ask your question to 1000 atheists and you might get 1000 different answer.

To me, "purpose" is an abstract construct and everyone defines it themselves. You've defined your purpose to fall in line with your interpretation of the Bible. But you've still defined it yourself. I feel my purpose is to increase the total happiness on earth while I'm here. Humanity as a whole can't really have a purpose if you define it this way, but I'm not sure all (or even most) atheists would agree.

My point is that, as a Christian, I will not "let" my children think for themselves. And before you say "Aha! Brainwasher!", let me finish...I will not let them because I will not have to let them.

This is only true to an extent. Children are impressionable and the more you indoctrinate them the less likely they'll be able to break from that indoctrination and truly be able to make up their own minds.

The only way to raise a child that doesn't involve some form of indoctrination is to present all the evidence and refuse to guide them to a specific conclusion. I'm not sure this is even possible unless emotionless computers do all the teaching for you (which is not a good solution).

If it were true that children could completely overcome their indoctrination and draw their own conclusion, then we would see no statistical correlation between parent's beliefs and their children's beliefs because people would accept or reject religion regardless of what their parents did. But there is a very strong correlation which implies that children can and are often coerced to believe what their parent's believe.

We cannot "measure" or even comprehend or imagine perfection, because we are not perfect. You unintentionally reiterated something that is continuously present in Bible, the imperfection of man leading to our inability to comprehend the absolute wonder of God.

Fair enough, but why should be believe what the Bible says? Assuming that the Bible is perfect because God is perfect is another example of circular reasoning. It only makes sense if you're starting from within that particular circle.

uofclard,

My actual fifty-seven-year-old self applauds you for encouraging her to think for herself.

I assume this is a slap at Christians teaching our children what we believe.

Uh, actually no, but if your paranoia takes it that way, all right.

Since you brought it up, though - when I was seven years old and figured out how silly a belief in gods, heaven, and hell was I was also savvy enough to keep it to myself. That's because it was perfectly clear to me that none of the adults in my life (including my parents, who didn't even attend church and had never discussed religion with me) would ever have encouraged or allowed such "blasphemy." My young instinct to keep it to myself was definitely confirmed as I grew older, so I did not have a chance to explore or discuss my nonbelief as I grew to adulthood. It certainly contributed to an uncomfortable and awkward adolescence.

You need to present both sides. My kids grew up knowing that I didn't believe in god(s), but I never pushed it on them or tried to sway them in that direction. They just knew that was an viable and permissible option. I also permitted them to attend Sunday School so that they could gather information to make up their own minds. I wasn't going to get upset with them no matter what conclusion they came to. But...you can't truly make up your own mind if you don't have all the information. Do your young children know that it is okay to not believe? I mean truly okay? Or will they have to wait until they go to college to have the slightest chance to figure that out? Cuz the blanket, default message to most children, at least in this country, is that you must believe, or else there is something wrong with you. That is what is "brainwashed" into most kids.

I just think it is great that What allows his daughter to see that other side of the picture, so she CAN think for herself. Trust me, no matter what conclusions she ultimately comes to, the process will be much happier for her.

do you actually believe we have a purpose?

no

uoflcard,

Since there is no evidence that there is *not* a God, wouldn't it then be fair to assume you took a leap to believe there isn't one?

To reiterate KIP: Since when do I believe that no deity exists?

If you want to define "God" and "exist" then we can talk about the likelihood of your personal deity's existence.

If you define the Sun to be "God" then God exists. If you define "existence" to allow for an abstract existence, then the Biblical God absolutely exists.

I could never say that no deity exists because it's a poorly defined word. I simply remain unconvinced that any useful deity exists.

We cannot "measure" or even comprehend or imagine perfection, because we are not perfect.

This is not 'perfectly' true. For example: a sphere is perfect. Well, okay? How is it perfect? Simple, if one defines perfection as symmetry, then a sphere, having infinite planes of symmetry, is perfect. The problem with the word 'perfect' isn't that perfection is unknowable, the problem is that without the 'how' of perfection, the word perfect is basically meaningless. Fortunately, christians decided to attribute positive claims to their god's perfection: perfect power, perfect presense, perfect knowledge, and perfect benevolence. These claims do lead to contradictions with reality as evidenced by the problem of evil.

uoflcard,

Systematically disproving Christianity w/o an understanding of all of its beliefs is like trying to prove that an engine will not cycle if there is no crankshaft present.

Uhhh, it's pretty easy to prove that an engine (at least, a common internal combustion engine) won't run without a crankshaft (assuming you don't redefine "run"). All you have to do is test it.

If an essential component of Christianity is wrong, then Christianity as a whole is wrong. You're right that this wouldn't disprove every aspect of Christianity though.

But it's not up to us to disprove Christianity. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the person who says "I don't believe you."

No, humans have no "absolute" purpose.

It is what it is.

It is by faith in God alone that you can get into heaven. Oh and by the way, nobody truly knows what heaven looks like. On top of that heaven isn't even a physical place, it is a spiritual place where the soul goes to. Oh, and there is no evidence of a physical soul either.... by scientific standards none of these exist. There is no inverse square law for the human soul, at least nothing emperically testable, you just have to believe it on faith alone.

Although, when we tell them we believe in evolution, well, they get all made about it. Hey, we have "faith" in evolution.... true, but that doesn't mean the same thing as blind faith in evolution. I have faith in many laws of science, I believe my car will start when I turn the ignition switch since that is an experiment that hardly ever fails and when it does it has many possible explanation, but only one undeniable explanation. That is the beauty of science, it doesn't lie to you or pull ideas on a whim.

KIP,

Excellent post, "perfect" reasoning. ;)

I'm curious about something. As atheists, do you actually believe we have a purpose?

Yeah, you're going to have to define 'purpose' before I decide whether or not to answer that one. I've noticed that many theists (perhaps an unjustified stereotype) attach baggage to that word that make answering the question a virtual minefield.

uoflcard

As atheists, do you actually believe we have a purpose? And I'm not talking about a purpose as a parent, spouse, or businessman, but an absolute purpose. The purpose of humanity.

alatham already addressed this, but atheism doesn't cover purpose; it only addresses a nonbelief in deities. That bears repeating, because theists just don't seem to understand that simple point. Beyond that, atheists do not concur on a wide variety of issues.

I do not think humanity overall has any absolute purpose that distinguishes us from other animals. We are however, individually free to choose, decide, make, our own purpose above and beyond what is in our animal nature. A thirst for knowledge and the use of our large brains I would categorize as second nature to us- something we no longer choose, but now pursue instinctively. Whether this fits with what you call -" Getting all of mankind to understand the truth about EVERYTHING in the universe(s)" you'd have to tell me.

ufo

your kids are obviously going to come across theories that contradict your beliefs.

Wrong again. I do not believe in anything period. Belief is not necessary. The entirety of your perspective falls apart on that alone.

What,

I do not believe in anything period. Belief is not necessary.

I think this is only true if you adhere to a particularly narrow definition of "belief." You should think about re-wording it.

I suggest something akin to "I don't believe in anything that doesn't have evidence to support it."

I realize you're trying to avoid the ever-present Equivocation Fallacy, but I think there are better ways to do that.

Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely.

-Robert A. Wilson (interview with "innerview")

KIP,

I agree in spirit with that quote, but I think the argument boils down to semantics. 1 + 1 = 2 because it's defined that way, so why shouldn't I believe it?

In other words, I like that quote, but I don't think it applies to abstract concepts. But then again, maybe the word "belief" doesn't apply to them either.

My purpose is simple. To point out to anyone who will listen just exactly the harm caused by the religious and their religious organizations.

Is it a fact that some good comes out of religion? Hell yes. the Catholic Worker:

"I have said, somewhat flippantly, that the mass of bourgeois smug Christians who denied Christ in His poor made me turn to Communism, and that it was the Communists and working with them that made me turn to God." — Dorothy Day

The strong anti-war movement and the abolition movement were strongly identified with organized religion.

But the amount of harm far out ways the good done by other more intolerant, and dangerous religious zealots, such as the 19 men who attacked the Pentagon and the WTC and killed a couple of thousand souls. I will never understand how anyone can defend the idea of belonging to any religious organization after September 2001.

Anyone who wants to believe or not in talking snakes and talk to imaginary friends is one of the unalienable rights of all Americans. Of course, today with all the blutech cell phone usage, I can no longer tell who is talking to a imaginary friend and who is just asking someone for the time.

alatham,

Systematically disproving Christianity w/o an understanding of all of its beliefs is like trying to prove that an engine will not cycle if there is no crankshaft present.

Uhhh, it's pretty easy to prove that an engine (at least, a common internal combustion engine) won't run without a crankshaft (assuming you don't redefine "run"). All you have to do is test it.

If an essential component of Christianity is wrong, then Christianity as a whole is wrong. You're right that this wouldn't disprove every aspect of Christianity though.

But it's not up to us to disprove Christianity. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the person who says "I don't believe you."

I think you missed the point of the analogy. It's not that he proved an essential part of Christianity wrong; he defined a belief that does not exist in Christianity (that God created sin). The religion he was analyzing was indeed flawed, but it was not Christianity.

First, I just want to point out for the record that ontology is NOT strictly confined to proofs for the existence of a god. Ontology is the study of being.

Second, Dave and bjimba have the argument slightly wrong. In Anselm's Proslogion, where the most infamous argument first appears, he argues that it would be 'greater' for a most perfect being to exist than not to exist. Greatness being quite ambiguous.

He doesn't outright say that existence is once such attribute or trait. That would be patently circular and easily refuted. As Edward correctly pointed out: "The argument only applies to that than which no greater can be conceived"

I am not defending the argument by the way. But for sake of clear and fair argumentation, you have to have it right before trying to refute it. The best refutations are offered by Aquinas and Kant.

The problem is that it seems simple and silly on the face of it, but it actually has some philosophical teeth when you really dig into it (I know Krystalline, you think it is drivel...I don't know what to tell you). This is not to say it is intractable or anything. Kant pretty much put it to bed.

uoflcard,

I did indeed miss that. But I disagree with your premise unless your particular flavor of Christianity is one I haven't been introduced to before.

If God created the universe and God is omnipotent and all-powerful, then God did "create" sin (at least, as far as any abstract concept can be "created").

God knew ahead of time what he was getting into with the whole creation business, so God is wholly responsible for everything that came afterwards since God is all-powerful.

I can't build a robot that kills people and then claim that I'm not responsible.

Well, I could, but I don't really want to.

The common response from theists at this point is something along the lines of "God's greatest gift was free will," but that's a conclusion that does not stand up to logic.

The Christian idea of free will is an illusion. Since God already knows the future, that means the future has already been determined. And if the future is already determined then we are just actors on a stage and we have no control over our lives. Only a God who is all-powerful could intervene in such a case.

On the other hand, if you don't believe in the three premises I gave, then this criticism only applies to vanilla Christianity and not your personal view of God.

Rusty:
"Since the human imagination is imperfect it cannot imagine a perfect being."

Anselm only requires "that which no greater can be conceived" in his argument.

(okay, suddenly I can't use the blockquote feature lol)

quantum,

Hey, we have "faith" in evolution.... true, but that doesn't mean the same thing as blind faith in evolution.

Well we don't have blind faith in God and Jesus, either. For someone who only believes in scientific explanations of things, and doesn't believe in the soul, then it would seem it would take blind faith to believe.

It may seem hypocritical to criticize people for having faith in a natural origin of everything while dismissing God (while I have faith in God). But Christians are called to have faith; it is written in the Bible to do so. Science, however, is not based on faith. In its essence, it is entirely objective. No theory is to be rejected without sufficient, quantifiable, experimentally-proven evidence of its falsehood. And while not all atheists are atheists because of scientific reasons, those that are seem to be contradicting one of the pillars of science.

In fact, some scientific beliefs, like the belief that life evolved from a slime in the bottom of a pre-historic ocean, are seemingly founded on blind faith at this point. Read this article to get an idea of the astronomical odds (with the science we are aware of) that things happened as popularly theorized by evolutionary biologists.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3209

Basically, if you believe in a scientific explanation of everything, either you believe in odds that are one-in-(a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe) happened, OR you believe there is a more likely scientific explanation (which has yet to be proved or even theorized).

Alatham,

you don't need to 'believe' 1 + 1 = 2, at least as a matter of faith. This is because there are mathematical proofs to show that it is the case.

I think one problem here is the difference in use of the term 'belief' and 'knowledge', which epistemologists tend to define as true, justified belief. Further, the use that most of the posters here will tend to harp on is a loaded term for "unconditional acceptance". But we can all safely use a semantically distinct version of the term 'belief' to refer to something more akin to 'contents of consciousness'

I don't see anything wrong with using the term belief to refer to mental contents.

alatham already addressed this, but atheism doesn't cover purpose; it only addresses a nonbelief in deities. That bears repeating, because theists just don't seem to understand that simple point. Beyond that, atheists do not concur on a wide variety of issues.

In retrospect, I guess my original question was a little misleading. Yes, my tiny, confused mind can wrap my mind around the idea that the only thing atheists have in common is that they believe in the absense of dieties. My question was meant to get your indiviual opinions, not the belief of atheism as a whole. Thank you for yours

uoflcard,

I think people can define their purpose however they like. Atheists might* agree though that it is umlikely we have some external deontological (fiat based) purpose. Rather, it would be something more existential and personal like happiness, or personal growth or the attainment and achievement of goals etc.

So many of the terms used in these discussions are loaded and so ellicit strong reactions when an otherwise civilized conversation could suffice. For example, if someone says "atheists don't believe in a greater purpose" they could mean any number of things. It could be an academic remark, or a blanket misconception.

I for one would disagree. I think I can define a 'greater' purpose as a goal or end that achieves something beyond my own selfish needs, wants and desires. Like doing something good for other people.

In fact, I think if you really think about it, a lot of the 'purposes' people believe in are self generated and not at all deontologically couched. "Being a good christian" for example... This is a personal goal. Similarly, 'being an ethical person' is a personal goal. Both of these can serve as a purpose for being. The difference lies in the fact that as atheists, we do not believe there is a metaphysical system of rewards or punishments for such actions. That our own well being, the well being of others and our sense of accomplishment are motivation enough.

Well we don't have blind faith in God and Jesus, either. For someone who only believes in scientific explanations of things, and doesn't believe in the soul, then it would seem it would take blind faith to believe.

You misunderstood Quantum_flux's meaning. Understandable, though. The word 'faith', like all words in the english language, has multiple denotations or literal meanings. For example:

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

From www.thefreedictionary.com

Now, each of those definitions is a denotation: the word 'faith' can be used properly to mean each of these things. However, the word 'faith' has a very specific connotation, namely denotation #2. Quantum_flux specifically used 'faith' in order to illustrate that though denotation #1 would indeed apply to quantum's confidence in the validity of the Theory of Biological Evolution (ToBE), however the connotation would be incorrect or misleading; a fact that many theists use to equivocate their faith in god(s) with quantum's 'faith' in the ToBE.

That having been said, I have a question: if your faith is not blind as per denotation #2, what logical proofs and/or material evidence convinced you?

i guess i'll weigh in on this circular thread. if one takes any human defined quality; be it perfection, beauty, honesty, etc., then the same argument could be made that somewhere there must exist some ultimate version of that trait. if that were true there should also exist an anti-perfection entity to the same ultimate degree that would be just as capable and powerful (in a negative way) as xtians think of their god (in a positive way). i see no evidence of either so to me the argument holds no water.

The difference lies in the fact that as atheists, we do not believe there is a metaphysical system of rewards or punishments for such actions. That our own well being, the well being of others and our sense of accomplishment are motivation enough.

Recently, I have noticed a great number of misconceptions of Christianity on this blog. I guess that makes sense because, if you don't believe in God, why learn the fundamentals of a religion? Well, if you're going to attack Christianity, it would be appropriate to understand the concepts you are attempting to undermine.

Christians, ideally, don't do good things because of a punishment/reward system, or for personal benefit. The only thing that determines whether we go to Heaven or Hell is whether or not we accept Jesus Christ as our savior. Everything else, serving the poor, homeless, sick, missionary work, evangelism...none of that is for our benefit, but rather is ultimately intended to save others.

And even if you are an atheist, there are still potential rewards for helping others. You've never heard "Donate here! It's tax deductable!"

uoflcard said:
"Christians, ideally, don't do good things because of a punishment/reward system, or for personal benefit."

you have described what a "true xtian" might be like and maybe what you, yourself are like. but many xtians are in it for the show or dough. these are the ones that cause problems for all of us no matter one's own religion or lack thereof.

as for accepting jc as saviour for entrance into heaven, think about it. if you are a mas murderer on death row, by your defintion, if you accept jc, then all is forgiven. does that sound like a great and powerful god's way. when on the other hand a catholic that mistakenly ate meat on friday 30 years ago and died without confessing it would go to hell, even if they were saintly.

so mass murder can still get you into heaven, but that damn hotdog banishes you to hell. you see where i'm going with this? if one looks at this stuff rationally it all falls apart. and you realize that the only way this could be so inconsistent and screwed up is because man invented it all. an all powerful, all knowing being would not be this flawed in character or logic.

btw, does your handle have anything to do with university of florida (uofl)?

That having been said, I have a question: if your faith is not blind as per denotation #2, what logical proofs and/or material evidence convinced you?

Arguably, one type of material evidence in the existence of God is the fact that we are here, conversing. Obviously, that would be disputed between us

Other things are...

...where did everything come from? Conservation of mass and energy makes you scratch your head...The universe couldn't have just popped out of nowhere, according to modern science. So people who don't believe in God rely on completely untested, unproven theories; some even have "faith" in a theory that hasn't even been thought of. I just read in article in Discover magazine about three new "revolutionary" theories to explain how it all began. One of the theories was traced back further and further "in time". That theory ran into a wall since it basically concluded that either the Universe began as a result of an astronomically unlikely (think 10^(googleplex)) sequence of events, "or, worse, a miracle." Yes, that last part was a quote, proving that the "science-based" author has already subjectively eliminated God as a possibility. The theorist then pursued some other wild theory to help explain his theory w/o the presence of a deity.

An interesting thing I've learned lately is how wildly unlikely a certain part of the "primordial soup" theory is (according to all understandings of modern science). The enzyme/RNA/DNA formation sequence is basically a statistical impossibility, even if every planet in the solar system had the "ideal" conditions for producing a primordial ooze. There are somewhere around 10^22 planets in the universe. To our understanding, for the random formation of self-regenerative RNA, that number is somewhere around 10^120. Not only is that vastly greater than the number of planets, but it is greater than the number of *atoms* in the universe. That might not be evidence that there is a God, but it certainly makes me severely doubt the theory of natural evolution as it is currently presented.
DNA is the only "code" in the universe that people actually believe naturally developed. And it is by far more complex than any code we have ever created. The most complex code in the universe developed from an ooze with natural, random interactions? I don't see why it is possible to believe this (with absolutely no proof or viable theory) while thinking others are "out of their mind" for believing in God (btw, I'm not saying you believe this, but many other atheists consider theists to be "insane"). From Francis Crick, one of the most brilliant minds in history, co-discoverer of DNA (and an atheist, to my knowledge) once said, "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

uoflcard,

Yes, my tiny, confused mind can wrap my mind around the idea that the only thing atheists have in common is that they believe in the absense of dieties.

No, that is wrong. How many times have I personally told you this so far? And how many times has it been mentioned by other posters?

Generic atheists do not believe in the absence of deities. The generic atheist is simply unconvinced. Any attempt to attack atheism as a whole based on any other premise is a Straw-man argument and will only make us more inclined to completely ignore you.

Feel free to attack those who believe that no deity exists, but know that it's no skin off my back, and it's no skin off the back's of the rest of the bulk of atheists.

In my experience (and I know quite a few atheists personally), the positive belief that no deity exists is very rare.

I also disagree with this statement regarding science:

No theory is to be rejected without sufficient, quantifiable, experimentally-proven evidence of its falsehood.

Theories can also be rejected if there is a mutually exclusive competing theory with strong evidence to back it up (evidence that doesn't amount to disproof of the rejected theory).

In many cases it is impossible to prove a negative, but the grounds for rejection are much less stringent if there is reason to believe otherwise.

you have described what a "true xtian" might be like and maybe what you, yourself are like. but many xtians are in it for the show or dough. these are the ones that cause problems for all of us no matter one's own religion or lack thereof.

I actually agree here.

as for accepting jc as saviour for entrance into heaven, think about it. if you are a mas murderer on death row, by your defintion, if you accept jc, then all is forgiven. does that sound like a great and powerful god's way.

Great topic! I think the forgiving nature of God is one of the greatest, most beautiful things I've ever begun to wrap my mind around.

when on the other hand a catholic that mistakenly ate meat on friday 30 years ago and died without confessing it would go to hell, even if they were saintly.

I'm no longer a Catholic, so I don't believe it is a sin to eat meat on Fridays during lent, or anything. But even if I still was, it is a sin, not a warrant for a ride to Hell. If someone believes anyone with an un-confessed sin will go to Hell, then they should consequently believe that everyone will go to Hell, because there are NO sinless people in this world. The only one that was sinless was Jesus. Thankfully, it is not impossible to gain the grace of God. These are Biblical fundamentals, not just my own personal spin on this conversation

btw, does your handle have anything to do with university of florida (uofl)?

Sort of on the right track. It actually stands for:

"uofl" - University of Louisville
"card" - Cardinals (mascot)

Are you a UF fan/student/alum? I have a friend that just graduated from there. I also just married into a UT family that absolutely despises all things "Gator". Personally, I'm indifferent.

Generic atheists do not believe in the absence of deities. The generic atheist is simply unconvinced. Any attempt to attack atheism as a whole based on any other premise is a Straw-man argument and will only make us more inclined to completely ignore you.

from dictionary.com (which I know is not an "official" dictionary):

a-the-ism, n.

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


from answers.com...

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.



Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary (1957):

"Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods."



Oxford English Dictionary:

"atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."


If you, or others, neither believe that there is or isn't a god, you probably aren't an atheist (according to these definitions). According to your definition of an atheist, though, then I guess you are an atheist and I am wrong. It depends on which definition you apply

Theories can also be rejected if there is a mutually exclusive competing theory with strong evidence to back it up (evidence that doesn't amount to disproof of the rejected theory).

That is true. I do apologize for an incomplete description. With that said, there is nothing even remotely close to a competing theory with evidence convincing enough to dismiss the existence of God

Alatham

I think this is only true if you adhere to a particularly narrow definition of "belief." You should think about re-wording it.

I suggest something akin to "I don't believe in anything that doesn't have evidence to support it."

I see no reason for rewording it. I do not believe. Is there a definition of "belief" that you think I should recognize?


Ufocard

Because to be aware of quantum physics would mean you have an understanding that a grain of sand is NOT the smallest thing in the universe? lol good catch

Nope that's not it. One can be aware of the axioms of quantum mechanics without being aware of scale. Care to try again? Why do you make such analogies in the first place? More importantly, when you do so you make it painfully obvious that you are willing to twist reality and our best theories about reality to fit your assertions. That's just juvenile.

uoflcard,

Arguably, one type of material evidence in the existence of God is the fact that we are here, conversing.

Logical fallacy, argument from circular logic.

To paraphrase, "we exist because God created us, therefore our existence proves God's existence."

...where did everything come from? Conservation of mass and energy makes you scratch your head...The universe couldn't have just popped out of nowhere, according to modern science.

Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance.

So people who don't believe in God rely on completely untested, unproven theories; some even have "faith" in a theory that hasn't even been thought of.

Logical fallacy, straw-man argument.

I, for one, do not rely on theories about the possible origin of the universe. I am perfectly content with my current ignorance. It would be nice to know though.

An interesting thing I've learned lately is how wildly unlikely a certain part of the "primordial soup" theory is (according to all understandings of modern science). The enzyme/RNA/DNA formation sequence is basically a statistical impossibility... That might not be evidence that there is a God, but it certainly makes me severely doubt the theory of natural evolution as it is currently presented.

Three problems here:

#1) Since when is the Soup Theory the only theory around? It's not even the leading theory, Abiogenesis is in it's infancy.

#2) Where are you getting these numbers from?

#3) You recently chastised this community for attacking Christianity without a real understanding of it (despite there being more than 1000 different flavors of Christianity, many of which disagree on the basics). And now you turn around and use your disbelief in Abiogenesis in order to attack Evolution. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

This was already explained to you (by me) in the "Atheist dad sues Catholic mom" thread a few weeks ago. Did you just completely ignore that? I'll repeat myself here The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind the diversity of life. It does not attempt to explain the origin of life. That is the realm of Abiogenesis. If you find Abiogenesis to be currently lacking then join the party.

How an engineer could have such a basic misunderstanding of evolution is beyond me, regardless of the field of engineering. I expect comments like this from some of the incoherent fools we see here, but I thought you were brighter than that.

DNA is the only "code" in the universe that people actually believe naturally developed.
Please define "naturally developed."

Didn't language naturally develop?

And it is by far more complex than any code we have ever created.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? It strikes me as wildly inaccurate.

According to the Human Genome Project, human DNA contains about 3 billion bits of data (1 pair of bases = 1 bit). That's roughly equivalent to 750 Megabytes of data, which is not a lot compared to today's programs. Microsoft Windows XP is about twice the size of the human genome (though it's hard to say how much of Windows XP is actual program code).

Furthermore, DNA is a very inelegant code. It has tons and tons of wasted data that makes zero difference in the physiology and the behavior of humans. The best guess right now is that 80% of DNA is junk, though I have a feeling the number is quite a bit lower. If DNA were designed, it was by liberal arts majors who thought that Computer Science 101 sounded "cool."

The most complex code in the universe developed from an ooze with natural, random interactions?

Straw-man argument #2. I think I've already explained this one above.

Also, I like Crick's quote, I've never seen that one before.

Time for my 2¢ worth, I think.

uoflcard.
1st off, 1 can't prove a negative. So you are beholden to prove the positive. To say,

With that said, there is nothing even remotely close to a competing theory with evidence convincing enough to dismiss the existence of God

is known as the Negative Proof fallacy. You can play semantical games to your heart's content - atheism isn't a worldview, so your approach is askew. Treating as such is the "Tu quoque" fallacy.

To our understanding, for the random formation of self-regenerative RNA, that number is somewhere around 10^120. Not only is that vastly greater than the number of planets, but it is greater than the number of *atoms* in the universe.

That, mein freund, is a load of crap, I don't care who said it.
A lack of intent isn't necessarily random.
How do any of these folks arrive @ these numbers? Nobody knows how many atoms there are in the universe. Hell, nobody's even found the borders of the damn thing.

I think the forgiving nature of God is one of the greatest, most beautiful things I've ever begun to wrap my mind around.

That's only if you view yourself as intrinsically flawed. Which is 1 fucked up way to 'create' your kids.
So this deity of yours, he whips up a batch of proteins, slapdashes the design about on a drunken spree (don't even get me STARTED on the inherent design flaws of the human body), decides in a fit of pique to deliberately introduce some 'flaws', condemns all of them (billions of his own kids! Imagine that! What a freakin' sadist.) to pain, humiliation, suffering, & for what? Some 'grand plan'? Are you kidding me?
Your gawd is a sociopathic little punk.
Oh wait. No he isn't.
'Cause he ain't there.
How do I know this?
When I knock on a door, & it doesn't get answered, chances are good nobody's home.
Multiply that by some billions of prayers unanswered (because they ALL go unanswered - this is fact).
Do spare me the 'be patient' routine. Or all those other ridiculous arguments.

Arguably, one type of material evidence in the existence of God is the fact that we are here, conversing.

Yeah, great level playing field. You give 'gawd' credit for everything. Something goes horribly wrong, something goes great, or everything plateaus to ennui, credit the great Pumpkin in the sky.
Don't get me wrong - you seem to have a lot more on the ball than old Prince Edward.
Problem is, you're in possession of a very stupid opinion. & a bucketful of cheap rationalizations based on a comic book POV. Your opinion is stupid, doesn't necessitate that you are.
Masticate on that, get back to me.

Nice post, Alatham, BTW.
Zac - I don't think ALL philosophy is drivel. Not sure how you arrived @ that conclusion, old friend.

Zac

But we can all safely use a semantically distinct version of the term 'belief' to refer to something more akin to 'contents of consciousness'

Sorry but your definition just makes the word "belief" to nebulous to be useful. Whats more "contents of consciousness" is the definition of a noun. So is belief. It is the verb (an action) "believe" that is of interest here. What action is associated with "contents of consciousness"? The recalling of the contents? That would be "remembering" according to usual definitions.

The webster dictionary provides these definitions of "belief":

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

I do not believe as defined above.

uoflcard,

I fall into the most generic category of atheists. I disbelieve in the existence of a deity.

disbelief:
"Refusal or reluctance to believe."

I am reluctant to believe in a physical deity. That falls in line with the most generic of all those definitions.

Furthermore, the word "atheist" is derived from "theist" and means "not-theist." I am emphatically not a theist, ergo I am an atheist.

Many people confuse my position with agnosticism, but the word "agnostic" is not well enough defined for my tastes.

As accurately as possible, I am an explicit weak atheist (as per the wikipedia article on atheism).

Zac

Call it "than which no greater can be conceived" or call it "perfection" both terms have no metric. I'm sorry but the argument fails trivially without definition of the words used.

Sorry. I grabbed the definitions of belief rather than believe which are these:

1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

3: to hold an opinion

Once again, I do not believe.

uoflcard - I suggest you read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro
which neatly dispenses of the creationist "10^120" claptrap you've regurgitated here.
Hoyle had his head up his tuchis.

10^120. Not only is that vastly greater than the number of planets, but it is greater than the number of *atoms* in the universe.

Let's look at some numbers.

1,460 teratonnes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

1x10^12 tonnes = 1 teratonne = 1 exagram = 1x10^18 grams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne#Multiples

1 mol=6.02214x10^23 entities
1 mol (water)=18.016 grams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28unit%29

1,460 teratonnes of water? That's alot. Anyway, the first thing I'm going to do is teratonnes to grams:

1460 teratonnes = 1.46x10^21 grams

Then I'll divide I'll divide by 18.016 grams which is the mass of 1 mol of water:

(1.46x10^21 grams)/(18.016 grams) = 8.104x10^18 mols

And multiply that by Avogadro's number to figure out how many entities there are:

(8.104x10^18 mols)x(6.02214x10^23) = 4.88x10^42

Wow, 4.88x10^42 molecules of water.

And water is only 1/4400th of the total mass of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Surface

The Sun is 332,946 times the mass of Earth and 74% of that mass is hydrogen which mass to mol ratio of 2:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

So your saying that 10^120 is more than all the atoms in the universe is very amusing to me. But that's really beside the point, I just like playing with numbers.

What

You don't hold any opinions? You can't even say, like WCFields, "I believe I'll have another drink"? ;-)

Karen

When pressed to be precise I must say that yes I hold no opinions. I sometimes make guesses or hypotheses. The problem is that the definitions of the word "opinion" are too vague for me. This does not mean that I don't ever say things like "In my opinion". It is just to time consuming to be precise at all times and so sometimes I will use that phrase as a vague placeholder for a more precise statement.

I think the "scientific model" for the acquisition of knowledge works. I use what works. I see no need to believe. It is simply not necessary when observing, describing or predicting.

What..

So... you don't hold opinions either? Those are beliefs. Look, I get what you are trying to say that you prefer to, say, 'maintain a position' on a subject until the relevant data on it changes. But there is more to the term 'belief' and the act of believing than your simple websters definition allows.

How else would you taxonomically refer to the propositional and semantic contents in question? The te