Debate: The Logic of Atheism

Thank you 180 Proof for considering my invitation to debate the logic associated with one’s belief system, in this case, your disbelief in a God (or concept of a God). The format I chose for the debate is somewhat interactive. Please note that I reference it that way for the following (existential) reasons.

You are an Atheist, and I’m a Christian Existentialist. There is an old cognitive science meme that says: what you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Neither of us know what it is like to be each other. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation. As opposed to pontification, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments and experience here, as I hope we can question and answer our concerns with a higher degree of transparency without distractions and impart our knowledge accordingly.

But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some kind of universal truth? Although a universal truth or a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?

Should an Anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider that kind of universal truth to be? Alternatively, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require mathematical (or musical) genius to survive in the jungle? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s own empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to our debate about one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.

More importantly, in pursuit of some sense of logic or even pragmatism here, although the concept of a kind of God may simply be a paradigm or axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a criterion in the various domains of philosophy, why is it posited to begin with? I would think one could easily insert another axiom or archetype there. There must be some innate reason why one makes a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. We must believe something caused something: is it a regressive tower of turtles?

And finally, is that synthetic judgement about causation purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe anything and/or even care? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory about existence? Said another way, can logic itself help us define a causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of an axiomatic God? Or is it simply human Will causing this problem; a dumb blind feeling? Ultimately, if there is total skepticism in saying; a blind person is telling yet another blind person that the objective concept of red exists, how do we proceed with that inquiry under those circumstances? I’m sure you and I will come back to those philosophical questions and much more, later.

In all, I would like to argue against your belief system, your so-called A-theist belief system. And if you are willing to risk the sojourn, I’ll provide persuasive arguments as we understand them it to be, that your belief system is not purely of a logical nature. Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude/narrative or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about your A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even some intrinsic or innate metaphysical phenomena (think Kant) as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to you may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.

To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as somehow relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In trying to understand the above dictionary definition/judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Common sense may even tell us that if an Atheist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, and even ironic situation, of defending same. It seems by default that he is being put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, this seems similar to the Taoist argument about unity of opposites; something v. nothing.)

Accordingly, and notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one (Round-1), for you to provide a response:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?

Central to my argument about logical impossibility is that if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox exists both in the universe (Time, being and becoming, etc.), and logically impossible explanations exist relative to the explanations of even our own conscious existence (cognition/the subconscious & conscious mind working together) as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is both the Theist/Atheist belief systems seem flawed. (Perhaps, that may comprise a kind-of justification for Agnosticism.) As I think maybe you can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, in this case having an illogical description of conscious existence itself, and having only theories to the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) to work with.

Like this notion of finitude or state of Being, as a Christian Existentialist, my exceptions to that Question-1 above relate to use of synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which can be analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there are similarities to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent God paradox. Meaning in our argument, something beyond pure reason causes a human being to deny (or affirm) the existence of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet logically impossible Omnipotent God. And of course, I hope to uncover what exactly that something might be… .

To state my case differently from an existential angst point of view, and perhaps more clearly (pun intended), I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still have hope or even somehow know or infer red exists. But the blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjective-ness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: Can we learn from the belief systems of a Helen Keller? (You might find them intriguing.) And, if the mystery of consciousness and the color red is the straw man, I also submit, so is your Atheism!

1

Quoting 3017amen

Thank you 180 Proof for considering my invitation to debate the logic associated with one’s belief system, in this case, your disbelief in a God (or concept of a God).

Thank you for the invitation, 3017amen, and for working with Hanover to set up this debate.

Given the proposition before us is
Quoting Hanover

whether Atheism is a logical position to hold. 3017 will take the position it is not and 180 will take the position that it is. The opening argument will be submitted by 3017...

... state an argument which supports the proposition by logically defeating the dictionary definition you've cited
[quote=3017amen]Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[/quote]
since I've not been asked for or yet provided a definition of my own position. I could not find one in your opening post.

Reply to 180 Proof

Thank you for your response. In reading between the lines, it may be a good idea to define your A-theism. The following definition, I thought, was agreed to by both of us:

Quoting 180 Proof

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. — 3017amensince I've not been asked for or yet provided a definition of my own position. I could not find one in your opening post.

However, it seems you have another definition that you would like to argue, or at least define as part of your belief system. Please provide that if you care to... .

Otherwise, I am attacking your disbelief by way of the definition of a God, in that case Omnipotence.
I shall post the question again for you to respond:

1. If you consider part of your disbelief on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?

Quoting 180 Proof

Thank you for the invitation, 3017amen, and for working with Hanover to set up this debate.

You're certainly welcome 180.

2

Apologies for the delay, 3017, life got in the way.

Quoting 3017amen

The following definition, I thought, was agreed to by both of us:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

However, it seems you have another definition that you would like to argue, or at least define as part of your belief system. 

My friend, you admit to have taken that definition from a dictionary and not that we'd agreed to it. I had offered to make the opening post with my position stated as the object of the debate proposition but you insisted on making the opening post instead. In doing so it appears to me you have shifted the emphasis of this debate from my position to "atheism as the term is commonly used", which is fine, as far as it goes, but then you've still not shown that this is "not a logical position to hold." Now back to my position, is it? Okay, no problem, I'm more than happy to comply and state my position in sum as follows:

(A) logical form:

If ~Type, then ~Tokens.

~Type, therefore ~Tokens.

(B) content (assuming cognitive theism):

If theism is not true, then theistic deities are fictions.

Theism is not true, therefore theistic deities are fictions.

The devil is, as they say, in the details. First things first, however: (1) you ought to show that the logical form expressed here is invalid (re: the debate proposition) before (2) we examine the veracity of the content of my position: theism is not true.

Quoting 180 Proof

My friend, you admit to have taken that definition from a dictionary and not that we'd agreed to it. I had offered to make the opening post with my position stated as the object of the debate proposition but you insisted on making the opening post instead. In doing so it appears to me you have shifted the emphasis of this debate from my position to "atheism as the term is commonly used", which is fine, as far as it goes, but then you've still not shown that this is "not a logical position to hold." Now back to my position, is it? Okay, no problem, I'm more than happy to comply and state my position in sum as follows:

180,

I'm confused. Below, is a quote from you, and I believe you called it weak/ negative Atheism.


Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
— 3017amen
?3017amen No, but that will suffice for ... weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend.
— 180 Proof

(If you changed your position that's okay just let me know what you want to defend logically.)

3

Reply to 3017amen I don't find that attribution anywhere previously posted on this thread. For the purposes of our debate, it's a non sequitur, so please focus on replying to my last post. Thanks.

(If you changed your position ...)

FYI: I've not changed my position in all the time we've interacted on TPF (and long before). For specificity and clarity's sake, I've stated my position succinctly in my previous post. Invalidate it if you can, amigo.

Quoting 180 Proof

If theism is not true, then theistic deities are fictions.

Theism is not true, therefore theistic deities are fictions.

The devil is, as they say, in the details. First things first, however: (1) you ought to show that the logical form expressed here is invalid (re: the debate proposition) before (2) we examine the veracity of the content of my position: theism is not true.

Thank you 180,

Okay, let's help each other validate our reasoning. My interpretation of that proposition is that it is an attempt at a type of logico-deductive argument/reasoning, correct? I think we have to determine if, or whether, it is sound reasoning. Or, if the veracity (in accordance with your item-2) of your premise is logical and makes logical sense, to determine whether it is valid. Hence:

1.Your definition of deities. (Does that mean a God?)

2. Your definition of fiction. (Does that mean a some thing that is not real?)

I'm thinking once we agree to those or any variation of those definitions, we can then determine whether the premise is sound. Is that the approach you prefer?

4
Quoting 3017amen

1.Your definition of deities...

Whatever the object of theism is that is what I mean by "deity". This is why I say "theistic deity" rather than "God".

2. Your definition of fiction...

More precisely in this context, by "a fiction" I mean a (non-abstract) entity that is not, or never has been, a fact.

Is that the approach you prefer?

Given the affirmative stance you've taken with respect to the debate proposition, you must demonstrate that "my atheism" is not logical (i.e. not valid). On other hand, in order to defeat the proposition at issue, I must express "my atheism"s" logical form only to show its validity and not to demonstrate that its conclusions are also sound (i.e. true). It's not "my preference", 3017, but what the terms of the debate require.

Quoting 180 Proof

Is that the approach you prefer?
Given the affirmative stance you've taken with respect to the debate proposition, you must demonstrate that "my atheism" is not logical (i.e. not valid). On other hand, in order to defeat the proposition at issue, I must express "my atheism"s" logical form only to show its validity and not to demonstrate that its conclusions are also sound (i.e. true). It's not "my preference", 3017, but what the terms of the debate require.

Thanks 180,

Okay, I think I can follow that. You want to demonstrate 'validity' through use of logico-deductive reasoning to support your Atheism. I think that is a great place to start for two quick reasons; it reduces the amount of Einsteinian emotion as it were, and it certainly fits into the many axioms that I alluded to earlier, along with common logic associated with language. However, I'm not sure that will really help your case, but let's try anyway because as I've also alluded earlier, Atheism seems to rely exclusively on logic, and in this case, deduction as a means/method for their belief system.

That said, let's first parse what it means for an argument to have logical validly (which would be a good idea if we were to stay on this topic for awhile), so allow me to provide the basic example.

Here's the classic ontological argument based upon the same logico-deductive reasoning:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.


Correct me if I'm wrong, here's your argument:

"If theism is not true, then theistic deities are fictions.
Theism is not true, therefore theistic deities are fictions."

Using your validation criteria, you seem to be saying that both the conclusions are true, and that the premises do not have to be sound, correct? And if so, what have you gained? How can both be correct?


You correct me please, but I'm thinking if both were correct, we would have to somehow agree to the multiple definitions of a God and of 'fiction', and so forth. Meaning, let's look at your definitions thus far:


"Your definition of fiction...
More precisely in this context, by "a fiction" I mean a (non-abstract) entity that is not, or never has been, a fact."

I cannot agree to that definition because you have not provided an example of ' a fact 'or what exactly is a fact. For example, are you speaking of mathematical facts or truths, or some other fact or truth? Subjective truths or facts, or objective truths or facts?

Also, you said:

"Your definition of deities...
— 3017amen
Whatever the object of theism is that is what I mean by "deity". This is why I say "theistic deity" rather than "God"."

What is the "Whatever" mean? Are you saying for your argument to be valid, that the premise behind the meaning of "whatever" does not have to be validated? If so, what have you accomplished? In other words, isn't that like saying: I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in "Whatever"?

As I've said in my opening statement, this debate is interactive. We must first understand, through logic, what each other's belief's are based upon. For example, initially you were okay with this definition:

"Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
— 3017amen
?3017amen No, but that will suffice for ... weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend.
— 180 Proof"

As an ancillary note, when I originally offered the challenge to you, you agreed to that definition standard. But I am now giving you a mulligan and allowing you to change it and explain your new position. Not a problem. And so in some ways, we are starting over. Painstaking I know, but necessary as a starting point.

5

Quoting 3017amen

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Gladly. :roll:

In order to affirm the proposition at issue, 3017, your choices are either (A) show the dictionary definition of "atheism" is not logical as stated in your OP or (B) show "my atheism" is not logical as stated in my second post. All the rest of your fucking about is irrelevant and stalls this debate.

Just work with all terms as stipulations and read meanings from the contexts of usage. I'll let you know if you miss my meaning, friend. We're not here to play "twenty questions" quibbling over definitions.

You challenged me to this debate, 3017, not the other way around; and I accepted confident you would fail, so was I right? Either you can affirm the debate proposition or you cannot. Iff you can, then I will have to negate both you're affirmation and the debate proposition. If you can't, then the debate proposition lacks support and is negated by default. That's how things stand with me.

Any further delays via definitional quibbles, non sequiturs, goal post shifting, quoting from posts on other threads (violates ground rule #2), strawmen, rhetorical questions or what have you, 3017, and I'll accept your forfeiture of the debate. The proposition at issue was proposed by you – deal with it as is (i.e. shit or get off the pot)! :brow:

Quoting 180 Proof

All the rest of your fucking about is irrelevant and stalls this debate.

Are you suggesting that deduction is not important here?

Quoting 180 Proof

You challenged me to this debate, 3017, not the other way around; and I accepted confident you would fail, so was I right? Either you can affirm the debate proposition or you cannot. Iff you can, then I will have to negate both you're affirmation and the debate proposition. If you can't, then the debate proposition lacks support and is negated by default. That's how things stand with me.

And you changed your position for some reason.

Quoting 180 Proof

In order to affirm the proposition at issue, 3017, your choices are either (A) show the dictionary definition of "atheism" is not logical as stated in your OP or (B) show "my atheism" is not logical as stated in my second post.

Sure, your atheism is not logical because "Whatever" is not coherent.

6

Reply to 3017amen More delay.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552739

Reply to 180 Proof

Please provide a coherent logico-deductive premise. So far, your atheism is:

I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in "Whatever"

7

Reply to 3017amen More delay.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552739

Reply to 180 Proof

2nd Request: Please provide a coherent logico-deductive premise. So far, your atheism is:

I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in "Whatever"

8

Reply to 3017amen Again, more delay. Next post if you do not affirm the proposition at issue, then you forfeit (yes @Hanover?) Any relevant questions, refer to the link provided, 3017.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552739

Let be established that 180 Proof has not proved The Logic of Atheism as being coherent.

9

Reply to 3017amen And where have you affirmed the proposition at issue which you had proposed in challenging me to this debate? Over-promised and under-delivered again (you can take sildenafil for that, y'know).

TKO in Round one I'm afraid. (Or go back, read yours and my comments, get a drink and some coaching from your corner :razz: )

I'll continue the debate if you do your homework on logico-deductive reasoning 180! Again, your belief in "Whatever" is not coherent.

Quoting 3017amen

TKO in Round one I'm afraid

[quote="180 Proof;552801"]Again, more delay. Next post if you do not affirm the proposition at issue, then you forfeit (yes Hanover?) Any relevant questions, refer to the link provided, 3017.

I've been summoned!

I declare neither a forfeit nor a TKO, but you may each argue such has occurred. I leave to you guys when and how to conclude and to those in the discussion group to agree or disagree with your conclusions.

Unless you guys both want more in terms of moderation, I'll remain scarce.

Reply to Hanover

Thanks Hanover. I'll leave the invitation open to 180 if he wants continue the debate. I'll change the terms again if he wants... .

10

Reply to 3017amen You don't debate. You don't affirm the proposition as you have agreed to do. It takes two, 3017, and until you do your part – which you've not done since OP – there's literally nothing to which I need or can respond. @Hanover doesn't rule your failure is a default and, sportingly, I accept his judgment though I can't agree with it.

Anyway, I return to this: you challenged me, you proposed the proposition to me which you had said you would affirm, insisting the you open the debate with the first post to that effect, and yet here I (we) still await your affirmative argument which, apparently, is not forthcoming. This just wastes your time, 3017, and mine (ours). :shade:

Reply to 180 Proof

Do you want me to go back to the dictionary definition of Atheism and argue against that?

I mean you said that wasn't your preference, but I'll be happy to make a case against it. The problem is it's not a very long-winded case ( almost to slam dunk for me) but if you're okay with sussinct conclusions, feel free to poke holes in it? Fair enough?

For example do you want me to argue against this judgement:

Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

??

11

Reply to 3017amen Whatever, man. Just make your case if you've got one.

Okay great!

All right folks we've conceded to an even score in round 1; stay tuned for round two!

Not sure what the exact status of this debate is here, but unless a substantive post is made here soon, I'll close this one down.

12

Reply to 3017amen Make your case if you've got one.

Closed due to inactivity.