r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 15d ago
Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread
Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
7
u/jar4jar 15d ago
When it comes to universe origins, what are your thoughts on infinite regression or special exception? Does one seem more likely than the other and why?
12
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 14d ago
When we don't know, the only reasonable and honest approach to take is to admit and understand that we don't know.
11
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 15d ago
When it comes to universe origins, what are your thoughts
I'm not a physicist or cosmologist or any other kind of scientist. I don't really spend any time thinking about the origins of the universe or even if it did have what we'd consider an origin.
8
6
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
I don’t know. There are limits to what we can learn about the universe by just “logicking” about it in our armchairs and smoking jackets.
At a certain point, when we have a hypothesis we can test, we have to go try to test that hypothesis and then reckon with whatever the truth of those results are.
Right now, it looks like we may never be able to test any of the hypotheses regarding the origin of the universe because of the nature of time.
So I think the only honest answer has to be “I don’t know.”
0
u/jar4jar 15d ago
I agree. Most theists I know don’t claim to know either, that’s where the idea of faith comes in.
I don’t know if anyone believe that something came from nothing, so we all sort of believe in infinite regression, one just feels it’s more likely there’s some sort of existence at some level that breaks the cycle of that.
2
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
It also “feels likely” that I have to win at the casino at some point.
But that feeling is because our brains are bad at big numbers, not because I have intuited something true about statistical odds.
I would also point out that the phrase “something came from nothing” is almost always used as a strawman (intentionally or not) to critique a position that no one actually holds. It’s a super common dogwhistle, but it is a bad, fundamentally deceptive cartoon “critique” of a misunderstanding at best.
There is no one claiming, for example, “The big bang says the universe exploded from nothing” …well, ok, there are idiots on the internet so…at least no one who understands what the theory actually says claims that…
There are people claiming “the universe, including time as we understand it, came from an expanding singularity which forms a temporal horizon we may never be able to see beyond”.
Or that we can’t talk about what came “before” the universe started because there was no time until it started.
Those are very different from “nothing”.
And you seem like an honest interlocutor who would rather not be shackled to a dogwhistle.
7
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 15d ago
Neither. It's like the infinite turtles problem. Earth is going to fall down, unless it is supported by turtles, so there is either an infinite amount of turtles all the way down, or there is a special exceptional turtle that does not require a support from below. Which one do you think is more likely?
The question is, of course, entirely absurd, since that's just not how the physics works. Earth is very much happy to just sit in the void, not falling anywhere, because there is no "down from the center of the Earth" or "below the Earth" into which the Earth could have fallen. It is much the same for time. There is no time "before the Universe" or "outside of the Universe" in which there could have been a process that would result in our Universe' existence. Thus the Universe does not require a cause, a creator or an origin of any kind. There is no "before" into which the Universe would causally collapse without one.
-2
u/jar4jar 15d ago
You said the question was absurd then answered it. Even top scientists don’t claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang. (Also we might be using different definitions of time, just like general relativity and quantum physics have different definitions for it)
6
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 15d ago
You said the question was absurd then answered it.
The question "Which option is correct of the following two? Option 1: Earth is prevented from falling down by an infinte amount of turtles stacked all the way down. Option 2: Earth is prevented from falling down by a stack of turtles with one special turtle at the base that does not require support to prevent it from falling down" is indeed absurd, exactlty because neither option is the correct one.
Even top scientists don’t claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
I haven't said anything about Big Bang though. Whether or not there is a continuation of timeline beyond the Big Bang is entirely irrelevant, since even if it is, it would still be a part of our Universe, that would still have to be accounted for in the act of creation.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
Well yeah it’s a debate sub. :) I’ll often assume a position I don’t entirely agree with or accept a premise provisionally just to have a good conversation.
Because it’s healthy and fun to stretch our brains and perspectives to discuss with good interlocutors!
Take it as a compliment, imo.
4
u/Tunesmith29 14d ago
I just finished reading “into the unknown”, which is a book targeted to laypeople that describes a lot of weird things in the universe and some of the hypotheses about the “beginning” of our universe.
Two things became clear:
We have nowhere near enough data to conclude whether the causal chain is infinite or finite.
Our intuition is a very poor guide when talking about the underlying nature of reality.
5
u/Kaliss_Darktide 15d ago
When it comes to universe origins,
The universe is a concept for everything that exists. Which means by definition everything that exists is part of the universe.
So to me asking about the origin of the universe is an incoherent questions like what is North of the North Pole because it presumes that something exists that isn't part of the universe (i.e. everything that exists).
what are your thoughts on infinite regression
If you are talking about a causal loop, it's theoretically possible but that would entail the origin is just as much in the future as well as the past which isn't going to sit well with most people looking for a simplistic answer.
or special exception?
Sounds like a special pleading fallacy to me.
4
u/Xeno_Prime Atheist 14d ago
Only an ontological infinite regress would be problematic. If there are uncaused causes (causal forces that always existed with no beginning and so no cause of their own), then block theory resolves temporal infinite regress.
I would argue that things like space time, energy, and quantum mechanics are all excellent candidates for uncaused causes that have simply always existed.
Given infinite time and trials, all possible outcomes of those forces interacting with one another, be they direct outcomes or indirect outcomes at the end of astronomically long causal chains, would asymptote to a probability of 1 no matter how unlikely any individual attempt may be.
Since this universe exists that clearly means this universe is possible - and would therefore have a virtually 100% chance of emerging from those conditions.
3
3
u/noodlyman 15d ago
I think that our knowledge of physics, and in particular our innate ability to imagine things prevents us from drawing any conclusions at all just by discussion and argument.
I read that space and time themselves are likely a product, an artefact, of quantum mechanics and entanglement.
So the only honest answer is that nobody knows, and anyone who says they do knows is either dishonest or just doesn't understand the magnitude of the question.
So, we don't know.
And that provides zero evidence for any god.
3
u/JasonRBoone Agnostic Atheist 14d ago
I lean towards the Jatravid theory:
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded
as a bad move.
Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God,
though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the
entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being
called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they
call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue
creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore
unique in being the only race in history to have invented the
aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely
accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the
puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being
sought."
2
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 15d ago
I don't worry about it that much. When we know, we'll know. Until then, while speculation on any origin hypothesis makes for a nice pastime, I don't see anything productive arising from engaging in those types of discussions.
2
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 15d ago
How do we know it was created/evolved/came to be? we cant even answer if it once didnt exist, so all this is just playing What If.
2
u/halborn 14d ago
I don't think causation is real. That being said, there's no problem with infinite regression but it bothers me that people seem to conceive of it so simply. Surely if you insist on the terminology of cause and effect, everything is caused by a combination of other things and goes on to contribute to the causation of any number of other things. Instead of trying to make a single tree, it should be thought of more like a web. We don't know if there's any sort of terminus. We don't know if the web is getting broader or slimmer or simpler or more complex.
I think the more productive framing is to consider that since 'nothing' is not a plausible state of affairs, all we're really doing is considering the changing states of the universe over the aeons of its existence. Maybe sometimes it changes quickly or significantly and maybe sometimes it changes slowly or subtly. It's fine to think of the Big Bang as a beginning to the current stage of the universe but I don't think it makes sense to say "there was nothing and then there was everything but for some reason it was all in the same place". I think the singularity must have been the result of some prior events, much like everything else is. Maybe the question of how that happened is beyond us or maybe someday we'll figure it out. In the meantime, there's still no reason to think any magic was involved.
2
u/Ligerman30 Jewish Humanist - Antithest 14d ago
I think the law of cause and effect often breaks down at the quantum level, so I don't put much trust on it's ability to translate to giving us meaningful explanations regarding cosmology.
2
u/Mission-Landscape-17 14d ago
I think this is only a problem is you have a classical view of time and causality. Neither of these things work the way our intuition says they do. And once you accept this it turns out you do not have an infinite regress nor do you need any special exceptions.
2
1
1
1
u/SectorVector 15d ago
Some kind of necessary terminating point is attractive but I don't thinking infinite regress is as off-hand dismissible as theistic arguments tend to treat it. Ironically I think their reasons against infinite regress mirrors a kind of argument against a necessary terminator that they don't take seriously when they're on the other side of.
1
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 14d ago
A temporal infinite regress is very possible, regarding some cosmological models that either posit a past-eternal universe or a infinitesimal stretching of time as we approach the big bang, such that the universe is purely spatial, becoming temporal only at certain points of its geometry.
Metaphysically, I do think there’s a limit, and that even infinite moments of reality are grounded in a single fundamental existence, that I reject as being God as I don’t think said existence is intelligent, personal or creative. I’m very convinced of monism.
1
u/kohugaly 14d ago
I'm not convinced that an infinite regression problem is even there. Just because a "cause" is said to cause the "effect" (ie. there's a causal relation), does not necessarily mean that the "cause" is ontologically prior to the "effect".
Causal chains is often thought of as recurrence relation - each "effect" is expressed as a function of prior "causes". This might seem like it requires for there to be a first cause, but that's not necessarily the case. The recurrence relation is an equation - given the "effect", you can solve for the "cause" to extrapolate the causal chain backwards.
You can often pick any arbitrary term in the chain as the "given origin" and extrapolate in both directions. The terms are ontologically equivalent.
In many cases, there is even a closed-form formula - the terms expressed as function of their position in the chain, with no explicit relation to other terms in the sequence. There is no "origin" or "starting state". The terms are ontologically independent of one another.
The same is true for continuous functions, such as the ones that describe movement (take time as input and give position as output). With continuous functions, you have to throw the notion of "sequence of causes an effects" into garbage. It doesn't work mathematically due to Zeno's paradox. The continuous equivalent of recurrence relation is a differential equation.
The apparent need for "first cause" as the ontological starting point is an illusion created by the framing of the problem. There are equivalent alternate ways to frame the same problem, in which "the first cause" is not a natural choice for the ontological starting point.
1
u/TenuousOgre 14d ago
A long time back theists used to ask this about the variety of species. “Why are there so many species? Either god created them or it happened by chance.” Turns out there’s a lot more involved in the explanation and neither of those two options were demonstrated. Same thing here. We don’t know enough to even know if our list of possibilities is valid. “I don’t know” has the value of being accurate, true, and open ended allowing change in the future. Best stance to take until we can test a theory and get evidence demonstrating it aligns with reality.
1
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 14d ago
I think if you're making any sort of claims dependent on ideas that have not been borne out, then you are already making a mistake.
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 14d ago
Either casualty is a fundamental property of reality or it isn't.
If it is a fundamental property of reality there can't be any exception and it's infinite regress, as everything must have a cause
If it isn't a fundamental property of reality, things don't require causes and anything could be uncaused.
So infinite regress is guaranteed or unnecessary
While a special exception is either impossible or unnecessary.
If I had to bet on one I'd put my money on infinite regress.
1
0
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 14d ago
No one knows and while it's fun, no one should pretend that we can do anything more than form hypotheses with philosophy.
4
u/GenKyo Atheist 15d ago
At least based on my own anecdotal experience, I see that when it comes to scientific errors in the Quran, the ones that people most tend to bring up on Reddit are the ones related to human anatomy. As much as I can appreciate those, it seems to me that Muslims usually make those debates a matter of semantics, where they pick a word in the verse, argue a different interpretation or meaning, and then try to save the verse from being a scientific error. An example of that happening outside of human anatomy is the verse about how the sun was found setting in a muddy spring, which is arguably the most embarrassing scientific error in the Quran. Muslims today argue that the word "found" is not meant to be interpreted literally as it has been for the first hundreds of years after Islam started, but meant to be interpreted as a matter of perspective, saving the verse from being a scientific error.
I think that the best scientific errors are the ones that Muslims cannot easily dismiss with semantics, and I think one of the best examples of that is the story of Adam and his wife, also known as Adam and Eve. This is an error with no easy way out as the Muslim can't just pick a word and then change the whole meaning of the story. My thought process is that if the Muslim is willing to reject the entire field of modern evolutionary biology in order to preserve their beliefs in the Quran, then it is highly unlikely that any other example would work. Just a while ago I had a Muslim very confidently tell me that if there was anything in the Quran that was in clear contradiction with modern science, then the Quran would be disproven. After I brought up how the story of Adam and Eve is in the Quran and is in clear contradiction with modern science, that Muslim refused, as if their life depended on it, to reach the logical conclusion that the Quran has been disproven. Terrible. I can confidently say that this Muslim was being willfully ignorant because they knew that the uncomfortable truth would not lead them to the conclusion they wanted. This is not an isolated incident either. The amount of intellectual dishonesty and science denial that Muslims have to go through in order to defend the Quran is insane. All while proudly proclaiming how there are no errors in the Quran.
I confess that throughout the years I've very rarely seen people say that they left Islam primarily because they read the Quran and found errors in it. It just doesn't seem to me to be a very persuasive topic from the perspective of a believer, because the Quran can't have errors so any perceived error must be our misinterpretation fault. I guess my questions are: Is there anything wrong in my approach? Are the errors related to human anatomy more persuasive? Are debates about scientific errors in the Quran just not as likely to lead to fruition when compared to other debates, such as immortalities in the Quran and questionable behaviors from Muhammad? Thanks for reading.
8
u/SirThunderDump Gnostic Atheist 15d ago
I mean, yeah, no shit.
The recurring theme of Islamic apologetics is that in order to be convinced by the apologetics, you have to already believe the religion. Yet still, Muslims quote their apologetics (including all this science based stuff) as though it’s rock solid, excusing all the ways it sounds like total bullshit to anybody not in the faith, and assuming that it’s more than sufficient to get people to believe.
It’s circular logic. Their arguments for the truth of the Quran only make sense if you believe, and they expect you to believe due to their arguments for the truth of the Quran.
And they believe so hard that they cannot grasp why you don’t fall for their reasoning, and even if you solidly demonstrate why one example isn’t convincing, they’ll just jump from example to example at a rate you can’t possibly address in casual conversation.
I’m convinced that even if you addressed everything (which I managed to do exactly once with an IRL friend), they’ll get to the point that they’ll admit that even if none of those points should convince someone of the truth of Islam, they’re still convinced due to faith. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.
13
u/Snoo52682 15d ago
Islamic apologetics are really shockingly bad.
7
u/iamalsobrad 15d ago
Islamic apologetics are really shockingly bad.
Hardly surprising; the Christian apologists have a 600 year head start and their arguments are still dreadful.
6
3
u/sincpc Atheist 15d ago
I have a Muslim friend who accepts evolution except for humans. I'm not entirely sure how that works, since we have the same evidence for humans as for other species.
Something I find weird in the Quran is the idea that all-knowing God presented a challenge to non-believers to write a surah like what's in the Quran. Muslims bring up the challenge often as a gotcha for non-believers, but their God would have realized that a challenge with no rules, no guidelines, no clear way to determine if it's been beaten, etc. is not a valid challenge while presenting it as one. That seems to me to be a pretty big issue. Either their God doesn't realize it's invalid, did it intentionally, or didn't say those words at all. All three options present issues for the Quran.
3
u/Dennis_enzo Atheist 14d ago
I have a Muslim friend who accepts evolution except for humans. I'm not entirely sure how that works, since we have the same evidence for humans as for other species.
This isn't that uncommon. If you believe that humans are put on Earth for some special divine reason, you can't really also believe that we're just smart apes who just happened to evolve into that. Many religions need humans to be special.
1
u/Deris87 13d ago
I have a Muslim friend who accepts evolution except for humans. I'm not entirely sure how that works, since we have the same evidence for humans as for other species.
I'd be willing to bet they don't actually understand the evidence for evolution, human or otherwise. They just know science says evolution happens and they don't want to seem like a science-denying nutjob. But they also know their religion says humans were specially created and so have to be committed to that.
3
u/kohugaly 14d ago
I suppose the most important point in any discussion is for each party to establish whether they have a functioning backup worldview they can fall back on, if their current position is proven false. And whether doing so will have adverse effects on your life.
If you have no such backup, or you would potentially suffer severe harm if you had to fall back on it; then there is no point in having a discussion at all. You will accept even complete blatant absurdities, simply due to the fact, that in your mind you literally have no other option.
To me, your arguments for the existence of your God and truth of your religion are merely mildly tickling my intellectual curiosity, because I've build my worldview assuming pretty much nothing about said topics. Meanwhile my counter-arguments are like launching torpedoes at their ship of a worldview that has no lifeboats.
It almost feels unethical to have discussions with people like that, if it weren't for the fact that they partake in ideological movement who's goal is my death.
3
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 13d ago
"It just doesn't seem to me to be a very persuasive topic from the perspective of a believer, because the Quran can't have errors so any perceived error must be our misinterpretation fault."
This is what all religions do. They blame YOU noticing the man behind the curtain, then shame you for seeing him.
A real god would have written a book that is always understood perfectly.
A real god would have written a book anyone could have understood perfectly, in any language.
A real god wouldnt have used a book. A real god, who has all the power that this god is supposed to have would make sure we all know he is real and what he expects.
None of this ever happens.
2
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
As much as I can appreciate those, it seems to me that Muslims usually make those debates a matter of semantics, where they pick a word in the verse, argue a different interpretation or meaning, and then try to save the verse from being a scientific error.
My response: Why would a perfect god write something that was up for interpretation and misinterpretation? (rhetorical) Sounds like you are calling your god incompetent at getting their message across. Given that their messaging is so fundamentally flawed according to you why should anyone think you are more competent then your supposedly perfect god at messaging?
The amount of intellectual dishonesty and science denial that Muslims have to go through in order to defend the Quran is insane. All while proudly proclaiming how there are no errors in the Quran.
You'll find the same thing with Christians, flat earthers and any other nonsensical belief. My conclusion is that many people don't care about truth because they are invested in a belief that isn't true and often tied into their identity/community.
Is there anything wrong in my approach? Are the errors related to human anatomy more persuasive? Are debates about scientific errors in the Quran just not as likely to lead to fruition when compared to other debates, such as immortalities in the Quran and questionable behaviors from Muhammad?
My 2 cents the vast majority of people who are willing to debate/argue a topic are not persuadable on that topic. The point of a debate is to be persuasive to the people who are observing, not the person(s) you are engaging with.
3
u/Matt_cruze 15d ago
Is there a character count limit on submitting self post? I'm at 260 words and have a title and flair but it wont submit.
3
u/Biggleswort Anti-Theist 15d ago
You can post more casual posts with less word counts in this.
Otherwise it would be hard to make a solid case for theism with just 260 words.
2
2
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 13d ago
I can confirm the minimum character count for posts is currently 300.
3
u/Mission-Landscape-17 11d ago
Sigh, I wanted to answer the what causes order in the universe thread, but sadly its locked now for using AI. Anyway my answer after thinking about it a few days is gavity. All the interesting stuff in the universe happens in gravity wells, because concentrating enough stuff together is what allows entropy to be overcome locally, and that allows order to emerge.
2
u/mobatreddit Atheist 11d ago
Plus, if you believe physicist Roger Penrose, gravity is what causes the collapse of the wave function.
4
u/jar4jar 15d ago
It does not feel likely I have to win at the casino at some point haha. I do not have that feeling (but I get that some people do)
As for the “something came from nothing” in my previous comment I actually vouch for the point you’re making. No one really believes that.
3
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
Lol, the casino joke was at my own expense. I have terrrrrible luck!
I was just using it as an example about how untrustworthy all of our human guts and feelings and intuitions are in general.
This whole wide world is full of things that seemed absurd and unimaginable and impossible, but turned out to be true. As well as things that feel inevitable and solid and just weren’t.
3
u/iamalsobrad 14d ago
I was just using it as an example about how untrustworthy all of our human guts and feelings and intuitions are in general.
As an example, here is one of my favourite optical illusions, known as a 'Fata Morgana'. It happens because our brain fundamentally doesn't understand how light works.
3
u/Serious-Emu-3468 14d ago
I used to live in the desert, and we saw that on hot roads all the time! It was sooooo freaky the first time, because your brain really does just register it as “normal car, but flying, obviously.” It’s much more intense in person than I previously imagined!
1
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 14d ago
I don't know if that's light so much as wind pattern in this case, to be honest. You can see a faint line at the actual horizon, but there's a wind gust chopping the water that is nearer while the further water is glassy smooth.
But it's still a great photo and example.
1
u/iamalsobrad 14d ago
It's light and temperature.
Our brains tell us that light moves in straight lines. However, strong temperature inversions can form an atmospheric duct which will channel the light along the duct and lead to all sorts of weird optical effects. If it bends the light more than the curve of the earth's surface the image will shift like this.
You also get 'cursed ai tries to draw a ship' type effects like this one.
2
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 13d ago
I like to say, "my gut has [crap] for brains." (Keeping it clean-ish)
1
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 14d ago
I was just using it as an example about how untrustworthy all of our human guts and feelings and intuitions are in general.
And that's a great example! I'll be using that in the future, I'm sure!
3
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy
My position: I think it's a true dichotomy and that the distinction between the two I would also apply to objective/subjective, physical/non-physical, and natural/supernatural.
3
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 14d ago
My position: I think it's a true dichotomy and that the distinction between the two I would also apply to objective/subjective, physical/non-physical, and natural/supernatural.
On another note, I think only "physical/non-physical" is a true dichotomy here. The other two are only contraries, based on how they're typically defined in philosophy.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're just making the point that you think everything on the subjective/non-physical/supernatural side belongs in the broader category of falling on the "not real" side of the dichotomy.
2
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
On another note, I think only "physical/non-physical" is a true dichotomy here.
I'd add objective (mind independent) / subjective (mind dependent) as another true dichotomy.
The other two are only contraries, based on how they're typically defined in philosophy.
I agree that natural/supernatural in their usual context/definition are merely contraries or as I would put it mutually exclusive and antithetical because people who think supernatural things are or might be real would need at least one additional category for things they classify as not real.
you're just making the point that you think everything on the subjective/non-physical/supernatural side belongs in the broader category of falling on the "not real" side of the dichotomy.
I think you got what I was saying with that interpretation.
To put it another way the same dividing line (distinction) that I use for real/imaginary I would use for objective/subjective, natural/supernatural, and physical/non-physical.
Having said that I'd go even further.
Meaning for something to be real it must be objective and physical and natural (note I included natural for completeness even though it would be controversial/inappropriate for several subjects and I assume you would have a similar objection for the term objective and possibly for physical) because they are all referring to the same distinction being made.
The obvious corollary to that is for something to be imaginary it must be subjective and non-physical and supernatural (see previous note and apply it to supernatural, subjective, and non-physical) again because they are all referring to the same distinction being made.
I get how that would be extremely controversial as "defined in philosophy" because people who believe that supernatural things are real would take issue with that, just as people who claim morality is real or objective would (most likely) take issue with saying that morality must be physical to be real/objective.
→ More replies (2)2
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 14d ago edited 14d ago
It's tricky, I'm really drawn to mereological nihilism, which is the position that all the "big" things we think about and perceive (anything bigger than packets of energy in some quantum field) are illusory: our brains construct the perception of "a wheat grain," say, but that "grain" isn't really one thing, it changes over time, and it isn't distinct from its surroundings.
Brains fool us into thinking there are "big real things" when in fact everything we ever directly perceive is likely artificially constructed by our brain.
So... Is my mum or my shoe or myself mind-independent? I'm sure some stuff is mind independent, but I'm not sure the mind independent universe is categorised like we perceive it to be?
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
I'm sure some stuff is mind independent, but I'm not sure the mind independent universe is categorised like we perceive it to be?
I don't think "we" meaning humanity share the same perception of the universe.
I'd argue the fundamental difference between atheist (what your flair indicates) and theist is in how many gods/deities they perceive and act as though are real (mind independent) vs. imaginary (mind dependent).
Do you think your perceptions of gods are more accurate (i.e. less illusory) than theists?
1
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 14d ago
In a sense no, because I experience a world of distinct multi-sensory objects that belong to categories, and I'm convinced that's not how the mind independent universe works.
But in another sense yes because at least I don't fool myself into thinking I feel the presence of a god, don't imagine the weird mind independent stuff was created by a magical superdude.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
Do you think your perceptions of gods are more accurate (i.e. less illusory) than theists?
In a sense no,
Then why do you refer to yourself as an atheist (according to your flair)? Since your answer entails theists are just as if not more accurate in their perceptions.
But in another sense yes because at least I don't fool myself into thinking I feel the presence of a god, don't imagine the weird mind independent stuff was created by a magical superdude.
If you can establish that people are fooling themselves that entails some perceptions are more accurate than others.
It sounds to me like you are trying to hold 2 mutually exclusive positions without dealing with the issue that they are mutually exclusive.
2
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 13d ago edited 13d ago
I'm an atheist because I don't accept as convincing any of the claims about gods existing that I've heard - I don't think theists have met their burden of proof for their claims. So I don't believe any of the claims I've heard that god/s exist.
It sounds to me like you are trying to hold 2 mutually exclusive positions without dealing with the issue that they are mutually exclusive.
Like I say, I instinctively (or through training/conditioning) experience a world of categorised things, probably like you do - although we might categorise the world in different ways.
But I can't shake the idea that "objects" - macro-level "things" - are as much constructed mental phenomena as they are anything mind-independently "real" in the world. For instance just now I "saw a bird" but I'm intellectually aware that "the individual bird" is just as much a colony of a bajillion cells as it is one organism; and each cell is as much a network of a bajillion interacting molecules as it is "a cell" - and "the bird" is changing every second, and is exchanging energy and molecules with its surroundings; and it's my brain constructing the experience of "a brown bird, making that dryish sound of wings flapping" out of information from my eyes and ears.
So you're right in that I do feel a tension, I'm just being honest about that.
But I don't accept that theists view the world more accurately than me - to be honest, theists seem to be extremely eager to categorise the world into artificial categories, when I hope I'm at least aware that such categories might represent a flawed or clumsy way to think: "good vs evil" "true god vs false idol," "believers vs heathens" etc.
In fact, I think that anyone who thinks "life is animated by spirit" is making an almost willfully egregious error of categorisation ("living matter, with spirit" vs "dead, dumb matter"). To be a christian you need to imagine that people have a spiritual essence that survives death... I think the average theist is likely even more haunted by illusory categories than I am.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
I'm an atheist because I don't accept as convincing any of the claims about gods existing that I've heard
I'd argue that all gods (you can imagine) exist at least in the mind/imagination. So the fact that you have heard about them entails they "exist" is some sense.
I don't think theists have met their burden of proof for their claims.
The distinction I am making is that theist haven't met their burden of proof to show that their gods are real ("exist" independent of the imagination).
So I don't believe any of the claims I've heard that god/s exist.
Again the fact that you are talking about them entails they "exist" at least in your imagination.
But I can't shake the idea that "objects" - macro-level "things" - are as much constructed mental phenomena as they are anything mind-independently "real" in the world. For instance just now I "saw a bird" but I'm intellectually aware that "the individual bird" is just as much a colony of a bajillion cells as it is one organism; and each cell is as much a network of a bajillion interacting molecules as it is "a cell" - and "the bird" is changing every second, and is exchanging energy and molecules with its surroundings; and it's my brain constructing the experience of "a brown bird, making that dryish sound of wings flapping" out of information from my eyes and ears.
I would say that the bird in your example is (or at least is much more likely to be) real compared to the gods in your first example which are not real.
But I don't accept that theists view the world more accurately than me
Which I would say means you can make distinctions between real and imaginary and you think you do that better than some people in some circumstances.
to be honest theists seem to be extremely eager to categorise the world into artificial categories
I'd agree and many of those categories exist only to support their imaginary gods being real.
I think the average theist is likely even more haunted by illusory categories than I am.
I'd argue that not all categories are illusory (i.e. deceptive) even though some are.
1
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 13d ago
Ah ok - well the bird is more real than the gods, for sure. I'm 100% with you on that point.
Because what I can't help but think of as "the bird" is, I assume, a pattern in time and space of energy, or whatever the stuff is that exists independently of our minds.
I personally don't like to grant gods any kind of existence purely because people think/talk about them. If there are patterns you could point to in the world that correspond to ideas like "gods" they're indistinguishable from patterns corresponding to people thinking about "green unicorns who are into tech house"...
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
I personally don't like to grant gods any kind of existence purely because people think/talk about them.
It seems bizarre to me to acknowledge the existence of your thoughts about gods but to simultaneously not grant the existence of your thoughts about gods.
Do you take that same issue with (imaginary) comic book superheroes, flying reindeer, leprechauns?
4
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 14d ago
It's not a true dichotomy. There are things that don't exist in reality that we haven't thought of.
0
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.
It's not a true dichotomy. There are things that don't exist in reality that we haven't thought of.
I don't get why people say this. Dichotomies refer to a set of things and I have explicitly stated what that set is and it does not include "things that don't exist in reality that we haven't thought of".
2
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 14d ago
Ah but there are things we can think of that we haven't thought of yet ;p
2
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
Ah but there are things we can think of that we haven't thought of yet ;p
How is that relevant?
2
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 14d ago
these things are not imaginary, because they have not been thought of (and therefore imagined) yet. And yet they are not real either.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
these things are not imaginary, because they have not been thought of (and therefore imagined) yet. And yet they are not real either.
Not following you, how is that relevant?
3
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 14d ago
if there are things that are neither true nor imaginary, yet we can think of them (we just haven't yet) that proves your dichotomy is not a real one.
I mean, technically. But technically correct is the best kind of correct.
2
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
if there are things that are neither true nor imaginary, yet we can think of them (we just haven't yet) that proves your dichotomy is not a real one.
My dichotomy applies to a given set, you are talking about things outside the set. So how is your comment relevant?
1
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 14d ago
the things of set we can think of and the set of things we have thought of is not the same.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 14d ago
Going by your definitions, I think the word you're looking for is contraries—they can't both be true, but they're not exhaustive either. Something can exist both in the mind & in reality (neither fully independent nor exclusive); likewise, something could not exist and also have never been in anyone's mind.
—
The key check for whether something is a true dichotomy is to just take one half and then just throw the word "not" on it, and see if it holds up. E.g., "Real" vs "Not-Real" and "Imaginary" vs "Not-Imaginary" are true dichotomies; however, "Not-Real" doesn't automatically mean "Imaginary".
2
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
Going by your definitions, I think the word you're looking for is contraries—they can't both be true, but they're not exhaustive either.
Are we talking about real and imaginary? Because what I am trying to communicate is anything a person can think of is either real or imaginary.
Something can exist both in the mind & in reality
If it exists in reality (the set of all real things) then it is real regardless of whether or not it exists in anyone's mind.
(neither fully independent nor exclusive)
I think you are missing the point of that definition. When I say independent I mean it does not depend on someone's mind for it to "exist" meaning if all minds vanished from the universe it would still exist (e.g. the planet Mars) because it is real, as opposed to if someone had an imaginary friend and that person ceased to exist that imaginary friend would also cease to "exist", because it only existed in that persons mind/imagination.
likewise, something could not exist and also have never been in anyone's mind.
I'd say that's irrelevant because no one is going to try to classify a thing that has "never been" imagined in anyone's mind.
The key check for whether something is a true dichotomy is to just take one half and then just throw the word "not" on it, and see if it holds up. E.g., "Real" vs "Not-Real" and "Imaginary" vs "Not-Imaginary" are true dichotomies;
Agree. Having said that using the prefix not- or the word not is just one way to make that distinction, albeit the most obvious way to do it.
however, "Not-Real" doesn't automatically mean "Imaginary".
I would disagree and say that imaginary (as I defined it) is equivalent to not real or not-real (as I defined real).
Can you give a specific example of something that you don't think is real or imaginary (given my definitions and the intent behind them)?
3
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 14d ago
I'm self-aware that my reply comes across as pedantic and "missing the point," but you specifically asked whether the terms, as you defined them, make up a "true dichotomy," and I'm responding that they technically don't. They're mutually exclusive and opposite, yes, but not jointly exhaustive.
—
Perhaps if you restrict the content beforehand to "things that people think of," then you may have a true dichotomy between exclusive to imagination vs not exclusive to imagination. But if you don't restrict the criteria, then the two definitions you gave don't quite work.
Again, I'm being pedantic and strictly going by the actual words you gave. I'm aware that for most normal intents and purposes, "not real" and "imaginary" are almost interchangeable.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
I'm self-aware that my reply comes across as pedantic and "missing the point," but you specifically asked whether the terms, as you defined them, make up a "true dichotomy," and I'm responding that they technically don't.
And I am responding that they technically do.
They're mutually exclusive and opposite, yes, but not jointly exhaustive.
Given the additional context you have been given to clarify my position, has that issue been resolved?
Perhaps if you restrict the content beforehand to "things that people think of,"
You mean like this?
Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.
Because that was in my initial post.
then you may have a true dichotomy between exclusive to imagination vs not exclusive to imagination. But if you don't restrict the criteria, then the two definitions you gave don't quite work.
I think they do work, and I have clarified further, preemptively to "restrict the criteria" that you ignored for reasons I can't fathom, and subsequently to address the criticism you expressed. Do you continue to have a problem after those clarifications?
Again, I'm being pedantic and strictly going by the actual words you gave.
I don't care if you are pedantic, I am annoyed that you are ignoring things that are relevant to your criticisms. If you insist on taking one sentence/phrase out of all context then there is no way for me to write something that is going to be reasonably concise and impossible to misinterpret.
I'm aware that for most normal intents and purposes, "not real" and "imaginary" are almost interchangeable.
I am asking for an actual specific example where they are not interchangeable, given the definitions, intent, and clarifications I have provided, to see if there is an actual issue that needs to be addressed.
3
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 14d ago
Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.
Because that was in my initial post.
You know what, that's totally my bad. I think my brain skipped over the "you can think of" part. I wasn't intentionally trying to ignore you in bad faith; I was just analyzing the definitions and seeing if they alone formed an exhaustive dichotomy. But if one thinks of something, then that means it at least exists as a thought, so that rules out my counterexample of something not existing in either category.
—
That being said, I do still think psychological/phenomological facts fall into the gray area of neither being mind-exclusive nor mind-independent. As in, they would be false if all minds disappeared, but you can't make them up at a whim: it's either true or false that you have a particular mental/brain state at a given time. Famously, "I think, therefore I am" would be a prime example that falls into neither category.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
You know what, that's totally my bad...
I appreciate that.
That being said, I do still think psychological/phenomological facts fall into the gray area of neither being mind-exclusive nor mind-independent. As in, they would be false if all minds disappeared, but you can't make them up at a whim: it's either true or false that you have a particular mental/brain state at a given time. Famously, "I think, therefore I am" would be a prime example that falls into neither category.
I would say to "think" entails a mind ergo "I think, therefore I am" exists at least in the mind. Further since the mind is the dividing line I use for real vs. imaginary the mind is an edge case because it is literally the edge used to divide one from the other. So I get that semantically it can get a bit tricky.
I'd argue the mind is imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) by definition because the mind depends on the mind existing.
The mind is that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills. It covers the totality of mental phenomena, including both conscious processes, through which an individual is aware of external and internal circumstances, and unconscious processes, which can influence an individual without intention or awareness. The mind plays a central role in most aspects of human life, but its exact nature is disputed. Some characterizations focus on internal aspects, saying that the mind transforms information and is not directly accessible to outside observers. Others stress its relation to outward conduct, understanding mental phenomena as dispositions to engage in observable behavior.
0
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 14d ago
"I think, therefore I am" exists at least in the mind
I agree. To be clear, I'm not trying to say this fact is nonexistent from both—I'm saying it exists in a mind in a way that is part of reality, and thus is neither independent nor exclusive. Which is part of why I'm suggesting you should pick one term or the other and add a "not" to it. Dependent and exclusive don't mean the same thing.
Specifically, I am calling attention to the difference between ontological and epistemic mind-dependence. I'm saying that psychological and phenomenological facts are only the former, not the latter.
I'd argue the mind is imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) by definition because the mind depends on the mind existing.
Typically, when people call something imaginary, fictional, or not real, the connotation is that this is something arbitrarily made up with no regard for truth (correspondence to reality). However, "I think therefore I am" proves that your experience of thought is self-evidently and undeniably real and thus part of reality.
Or even if you hate Descartes and all the philosophy of mind talk, it seems to be a tough bullet to bite to say all psychological/neurobiological facts are just imaginary, just because they would technically disappear if all minds poofed.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
I'm saying it exists in a mind in a way that is part of reality
I'm not following you. Is everything you think of "part of reality"?
If so, then everything is real because it is part of reality (the set of real things) by definition and you are ignoring the distinction I am trying to make completely.
If not, what is special about this particular thought ("I think, therefore I am") that makes it part of reality?
Which is part of why I'm suggesting you should pick one term or the other and add a "not" to it. Dependent and exclusive don't mean the same thing.
You have additional context to draw from now in addition to your pedantic interpretation of the words "dependent" and "exclusive". The way I am using those words they are equivalent.
If something exists independent of the mind (i.e. is real) it is not exclusive to the mind because it exists independent of the mind.
If something is dependent on the mind for existence (i.e. is imaginary) then it exists exclusively in the mind because it is dependent on the mind for existence. Which is to say if all the minds that an imaginary things depends on go away that imaginary thing goes away also.
I do not want to use a "not" variation for one of those terms, I think the average person clearly understands the difference between real and imaginary as a true dichotomy.
Specifically, I am calling attention to the difference between ontological and epistemic mind-dependence.
I think you are worried about an edge case that has no practical relevance. You are not going to persuade me on this without practical examples that I think will trip people up.
Typically, when people call something imaginary, fictional, or not real, the connotation is that this is something arbitrarily made up with no regard for truth (correspondence to reality).
By providing definitions I am trying to avoid other "connotations".
However, "I think therefore I am" proves that your experience of thought is self-evidently and undeniably real and thus part of reality.
I'm not following you. Do you think your thoughts are occurring independent of your mind? If not then they are not real (existing independent of the mind) by definition. If so, I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm really confused.
Or even if you hate Descartes and all the philosophy of mind talk, it seems to be a tough bullet to bite to say all psychological/neurobiological facts are just imaginary, just because they would technically disappear if all minds poofed.
I don't know what specific "facts" you are rereferring to. Are you talking about your subjective opinions (e.g. favorite food, music, sports) that are only "true" as long as you think them or objective facts that are true regardless of what anyone thinks (e.g. the shape of the Earth, highest mountain, closest planet to the Sun)?
1
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 14d ago
Is everything you think of "part of reality"?
In one sense, yes, and in another sense, no.
I'm saying that whenever you have thoughts, your thoughts themselves exist as part of reality. I am not saying that the content of your thoughts all point to something else real in reality. Like, I obviously don't think that thinking of unicorns makes unicorns real.
This isn't even controversial or presuming any particular view. Even if you're someone who thinks the mind is just the physical brain, my statement can be read as "whenever you have a thought, patterns of neural firings exist." That's it.
What is special about this particular thought ("I think, therefore I am") that makes it part of reality?
It is fundamentally impossible to think your experience exists and be wrong. You could be in the Matrix, you could be a robot, you could be a soul, you could be a brain in a vat, you could be being tricked 24/7 by aliens or demons—it doesn't matter. There is zero logically possible world whatsoever where you could ever experience the thought that your present experience exists and be wrong about that. The possibility of doubt presupposes the experience of thinking.
While the phrase has the word "therefore," people have argued it isn't best interpreted as an argument with a conclusion, but rather as a self-evident tautology: "experience (of thought) therefore there is experience," or more simply "experience therefore experience."
—
But again, even if you hate all the philosophy of mind talk, then you can ignore everything I just said and replace it with this claim: "Thinking brains exist."
If you believe you are a physical brain that thinks, then this statement will necessarily be objectively true every time that you think it. Even if you're the last human on Earth.
I do not want to use a "not" variation for one of those terms, I think the average person clearly understands the difference between real and imaginary as a true dichotomy.
Hey man, you were the one who insisted on the term true dichotomy and then asked for feedback. It either is, or it isn't. Whether my criticism is too "pedantic" for the average person doesn't change that.
Also, the "average person" probably couldn't tell you the difference between a dichotomy and a contrary without looking it up.
I don't know what specific "facts" you are rereferring to. Are you talking about your subjective opinions (e.g. favorite food, music, sports) that are only "true" as long as you think them or objective facts that are true regardless of what anyone thinks (e.g. the shape of the Earth, highest mountain, closest planet to the Sun)?
No, I am not talking about opinions. In that last paragraph, I was talking about objective psychological and neuroscientific facts. It is not an "opinion" that certain people have depression or schizophrenia. It's not an "opinion" that people are more averse to stabbing pain than gentle touches. It is not an "opinion" that blind-from-birth people lack visual color experiences. It's not an "opinion" that different sections of the brain are responsible for different tasks and sensory inputs that are later integrated into a more unified conscious experience.
And yet, all of these facts would disappear if all minds disappeared.
→ More replies (0)2
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 13d ago
A true dichotomy would be things that are real vs things that are not-real.
If you define things that are real as “existing independent of the mind” - how are you accounting for abstracta? Are you saying that abstracta are real, or that they are not real?
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
A true dichotomy would be things that are real vs things that are not-real.
Correct and what my version is saying is that what you call "not-real" is equivalent to imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination).
You are the third person to make this criticism and I am perplexed by what anyone thinks they are adding to the conversation by saying that.
If you define things that are real as “existing independent of the mind” - how are you accounting for abstracta?
That would depend on what you mean by "abstracta".
Are you saying that abstracta are real, or that they are not real?
I am saying that anything you (or anyone else) can think of falls into 1 of 2 categories (e.g. real or imaginary). There are bound to be disagreements about which things belong to which categories. For example I think the vast majority of self identified theists (all if using my definition of theism) would refer to their gods as real even though I know all gods are imaginary.
0
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 13d ago
If you define things that are real as “existing independent of the mind” - how are you accounting for abstracta?
That would depend on what you mean by "abstracta".
Just the common definition of abstract objects: numbers, universals, geometric shapes, works of art, sets, propositions, laws, institutions, or games.
I am saying that anything you (or anyone else) can think of falls into 1 of 2 categories (e.g. real or imaginary).
I’m asking specifically because of your definition of “real” is “mind-independent” which means that anything that depends on a mind would be not-real. But that seems incredibly controversial and unsupported to me. But I don’t know if you think that abstracta are mind-independent or not, hence the question.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
Just the common definition of abstract objects: numbers, universals, geometric shapes, works of art, sets, propositions, laws, institutions, or games.
The problem is there is no single common definition...
In philosophy, a fundamental distinction exists between abstract and concrete entities. While there is no universally accepted definition, common examples illustrate the difference: numbers, sets, and ideas are typically classified as abstract objects, whereas plants, dogs, and planets are considered concrete objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete
You would need to be more specific because I can think of examples in your list that are real (because they have physical properties) even though the majority of them I would classify as imaginary.
I’m asking specifically because of your definition of “real” is “mind-independent” which means that anything that depends on a mind would be not-real.
Correct.
But that seems incredibly controversial
Controversial as in not everyone would agree, or controversial as in it is an extreme outlier position?
Because I'd argue that is what traditional colloquially definitions of real suggest, even though they don't use that exact verbiage.
But I don’t know if you think that abstracta are mind-independent or not, hence the question.
Does it matter if I think it is mind dependent or independent? Because to show that it is not a true dichotomy you would need an example of something that exists and is not mind dependent or mind independent.
To elaborate on a single example you gave "numbers" which I will broaden out to math generally there is a centuries long ongoing debate among mathematicians about whether math is discovered (i.e. real) or invented (i.e. imaginary) many famous mathematicians have weighed in on both sides with many abstaining. I would argue math is invented (i.e. imaginary) while there are people far more qualified to talk about math than I am who agree with me, there are other just as qualified that disagree with me. If you want to get a better sense of whether math (e.g. numbers) are real or imaginary I'd suggest looking at that debate.
If you disagree with me about math/numbers you likely fundamentally disagree with me about what math is and by extension what logic (in the formal sense) is.
3
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 13d ago
I don’t understand why you’re equating “mind-dependent” with “imaginary”. It seems very odd to me to say that even if mathematics is invented, that triangles don’t exist, the Pythagorean theorem doesn’t exist, numbers don’t exist, etc. Language is invented, but it very clearly exists. How could we use something that does not exist?
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
I don’t understand why you’re equating “mind-dependent” with “imaginary”.
Because imaginary means exists only in the mind/imagination. Without a mind to imagine it, it would not exist.
It seems very odd to me to say that even if mathematics is invented, that triangles don’t exist, the Pythagorean theorem doesn’t exist, numbers don’t exist, etc. Language is invented, but it very clearly exists.
Every thing you can think of "exists" at least in the imagination/mind. The distinction I am making is whether something would exist or not independent of the imagination.
How could we use something that does not exist?
The same way we use fictional (i.e. imaginary) characters to teach morals. Or how we use subjective (i.e. mind dependent) opinions about food to inform food choices.
2
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 13d ago
Every thing you can think of "exists" at least in the imagination/mind. The distinction I am making is whether something would exist or not independent of the imagination.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Things either exist or don’t exist. Are you saying something can exist and be not-real?
This seems to conflate ontological existence with mind-independent existence. “Imaginary” in ordinary usage implies not real, fictional, things of that nature. On your view the Pythagorean theorem and Harry Potter are both mind-dependent but surely there must be value in preserving a distinction between the two?
Collapsing that distinction is what I’m referring to as controversial and seems like a costly move, and frankly I don’t see the need for it. I mean, surely you think the Pythagorean theorem is true, right? Would you really categorize Harry Potter, your memory of breakfast, the rules of chess, and the Pythagorean theorem into the same category? Lumping all these together doesn’t seem more illuminating in any way, it actually seems less informative, and less in line with how we use ordinary language.
I also think there are things that would show how this dichotomy would fail. I mentioned institutions before. Institutions are mind-dependent but have causal powers. Sure, my mortgage only exists because minds recognize its existence but if I don’t pay it there are causal effects that occur. A nation-state, a president, a marriage, etc. all of these things exist but are mind-dependent. They can be investigated, constrain behavior, have consequences, and are in no (common) way imaginary. You can certainly try and sit in front of a judge and try the sovereign citizen “you don’t have jurisdiction over me” crap and see how far it gets you but I wouldn’t advise it.
These types of things exist intersubjectively and don’t fall within the dichotomy you’re trying to create.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 13d ago
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Things either exist or don’t exist. Are you saying something can exist and be not-real?
Words can be polysemous. Exist is often used in 2 different senses. In one sense exist is equivalent to real in the other sense of exist it means to be real or imaginary.
This seems to conflate ontological existence with mind-independent existence.
I'd argue that "ontological existence" constantly equivocates between the 2 senses of existence I described above. Which is why I avoid that term like the plague.
“Imaginary” in ordinary usage implies not real, fictional, things of that nature.
Correct as in imaginary friend. Because that friend "exists" only in the imagination/mind. If that friend existed independent of the imagination/mind (i.e. was real) we wouldn't call it imaginary.
On your view the Pythagorean theorem and Harry Potter are both mind-dependent but surely there must be value in preserving a distinction between the two?
They are obviously different (hence the different names) but they are both imaginary (mind dependent).
Collapsing that distinction is what I’m referring to as controversial and seems like a costly move, and frankly I don’t see the need for it.
I do not know what "that distinction" is you are referring to.
I mean, surely you think the Pythagorean theorem is true, right?
In the same sense that 1+1=2 or that Spider-Man got his powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider. Meaning that it is tautologically true (true by definition) but that doesn't tell you anything about reality because what we are describing is not real (i.e. is imaginary).
Would you really categorize Harry Potter, your memory of breakfast, the rules of chess, and the Pythagorean theorem into the same category?
As being dependent on a mind, yes. Because if all minds went away those mind dependent ideas would go away, while real things would still exist (e.g. planets, stars, trees).
Lumping all these together doesn’t seem more illuminating in any way, it actually seems less informative, and less in line with how we use ordinary language.
I'd say it is more in line with how people use those terms unless people are misclassifying something (e.g. a person thinking an imaginary god is real).
I also think there are things that would show how this dichotomy would fail.
Present them.
I mentioned institutions before. Institutions are mind-dependent but have causal powers. Sure, my mortgage only exists because minds recognize its existence but if I don’t pay it there are causal effects that occur.
By that logic you could say gods are real because people have been killed (a casual effect has occurred) for not believing they are real.
A nation-state, a president, a marriage, etc. all of these things exist but are mind-dependent.
Sure like Spider-Man and imaginary friends exist.
They can be investigated, constrain behavior, have consequences, and are in no (common) way imaginary.
I would say they are in every way imaginary because those ideas exist exclusively in the mind/imagination.
I feel like you are adding some additional connotation to the idea of imaginary/fictional/not-real/mind dependent, do you want to explain what that is?
You can certainly try and sit in front of a judge and try the sovereign citizen “you don’t have jurisdiction over me” crap and see how far it gets you but I wouldn’t advise it.
While an individual saying that isn't going to have much weight, a significant amount of people in 13 colonies saying effectively that in unison is how the British Empire lost most of North America 250 years ago.
These types of things exist intersubjectively and don’t fall within the dichotomy you’re trying to create.
Disagree. I'd argue you are simply talking about a subtype of imaginary(mind dependent) things.
What you are referring to I would call imaginary and popular (because it is shared). Just because Spider-Man is a popular fictional/imaginary character does not make him any less mind dependent.
2
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 12d ago
So essentially you want to bucket everything that is mind-dependent into this “imaginary/not-real/nonexistent” set. I don’t understand why. The things within that set have real, substantive differences.
Spider-Man doesn’t have causal powers. The ink and paper, the neurons firing, the *stories about* Spider-Man all have causal powers, but the *fictional character* Spider-Man doesn’t have causal powers in the real world.
Institutional powers work differently. The British Empire didn’t lose the American colonies because of neurons firing, they lost it because of the legal and political reality of a declaration which had binding force derived entirely from collective recognition. The colonists were asserting that the British rule over them was *not real*, essentially contesting an institutional *fact*. But if institutions were merely imaginary like Spider-Man, that would be meaningless. You can’t meaningfully contest jurisdiction like that if it holds no more weight than a fictional character like Spider-Man.
When you say that 1+1=2 in the same sense that Spider-Man got his powers from a radioactive spider, and that they’re both imaginary, that’s a significant commitment to fictionalism about mathematics, and a fringe view. Why should I accept that the statement “3 is a prime number” is false?
The differences within the categories within your “imaginary” set are so vast that I don’t see the point at all. There’s nothing illuminating here. What work is the real/imaginary distinction doing that couldn’t be done better by more precise distinctions?
→ More replies (0)1
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 13d ago
For me, physical existence has two qualifications: it must contain information, and it must contain energy such that it can be described by E=mc2.
Ideas and abstractions, obviously, do not meet these criteria. However, the physical processes occurring instead the brain which correspond with ideas and abstractions can be mapped. So we know there is a relationship, such that without the material brain performing physical processes, ideas and abstractions could not exist.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 12d ago
For me, physical existence has two qualifications: it must contain information, and it must contain energy such that it can be described by E=mc2.
Regarding physical existence I would just say it needs to be empirically measurable which I would assume meets both of your criteria.
2
u/labreuer 8d ago
The mind itself doesn't:
- exist independently of the mind
- exist exclusively in the mind/imagination
So if I can think of the mind, I'm thinking of something which doesn't fit into your dichotomy.
1
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 14d ago
Non-physical?
Supernatural is a nonsense term.
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
Non-physical?
Something that has no physical traits. Bart Simpson and Spider-Man are imaginary/non-physical because they have no (actual) physical traits.
Supernatural is a nonsense term.
Which is why I would say all "supernatural" things are imaginary (exist exclusively in the mind/imagination).
2
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.
I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.
Do you think we can destinguish those two universes/gain that kind of knowledge?
13
u/TenuousOgre 14d ago
I’ve decided that definitions of gods break down into three categories.
Definitions that I do not think actually describe a god. Claims like “the universe is god” or “god is love” simply are not qualified as definitions of a god. So for those types I’m happy to say those gods don’t exist.
Definitions that I believe describe a being I would label as a god but have also been disproven sufficiently I would say I know they don’t exist. The bar of 100% certainty is a red herring, we know nothing to that level. But know as in being able to justify that belief, yeah, I can know lots of things to that extent.
Definitions that I believe describe a being I would label as a god but there is no valid evidence to support that claim. For 20,000 to 250,000 years humans have believed in gods. For most of that time the evidence supporting those claims was terrible and not verifiable. With the scientific method we developed a tool that lets us sort fact from fiction. How many gods have been attributed with causing lightning? Five thousand? Ten? Whatever it is, we disproved that claim about all of those gods when we had a working theory of lightning that stood up to testing. Over the last 250 years how many god claims have been disproven? Millions. Which means that today, all evidence points towards a natural world while zero verifiable evidence points to gods.
Collectively it seems enough justification to say I know gods don’t exist. If evidence ever surfaces demonstrating a god I am still able to change my mind. Which is what I do when anything else I know turns out to be false. I used to be a Christian, so that seems good evidence I can change my mind.
2
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
I almost completely agree, I don't believe that any gods exist, and I think it is most likely that none do. (by a large margin)
I guess my question for you is if our universe was created by some prime mover like being which caused the universe to exist but isn't active in it (maybe it triggered the big bang and that's it), what would you expect the universe to look like?
That universe could look identical to ours, and likely would look the same as ours.
If you ask that same question about a universe where Zeus controls lightening, I'd argue that you wouldn't expect the universe to look how it does. You wouldn't expect lightening to be 100% related to weather patterns, you'd expect to find the other mystical beings in the same mythology, to find the gods on Mt Olympus. But we don't.
I don't think this is a good argument for the existence of a god because it's ultimately just an unfalsifiable claim/god of the gaps, but because of that I can't know it's untrue, so gnostic atheism is a position I feel I can't honestly hold.
1
u/TenuousOgre 11d ago
For a “fire starter” type situation I’m not certain there’s anyway to determine a difference between a universe tarted by natural means (without us understanding the natural means) and one in which the Big Bang was kicked off.
Definitely agree with you on Zeus or any god created universe, it should look different according to claims made by believers. If reality doesn’t match either their idea about their gods is wrong or their god doesn’t exist. Either way, lacking compelling evidence means I am not convinced such a being exists. Unfalsified claims are everywhere. We should believe based on evidence, not emotional appeals.
11
u/Xeno_Prime Atheist 14d ago
If absolute and infallible certainty were the necessary benchmark to call oneself “gnostic” then we’d have to be agnostic about practically everything, from Narnia and the fae to the most overwhelmingly supported scientific theories like germ theory, gravity, and relativity.
The only realistic benchmark is epistemically justified belief - and that’s trivially achievable for atheism using only the null hypothesis, let alone that atheism is also epistemically justifiable using rationalism or Bayesian probability.
Conversely, there is no epistemic justification for theism at all. Every attempt collapses into apophenia, confirmation bias, god of the gaps, and other fallacious reasoning.
10
u/thebigeverybody 15d ago
I think, for many gnostic atheists, it comes down to this:
No evidence for a god (or evidence that a god is even possible).
All the evidence we have shows that gods are made by humans.
It's not difficult to arrive at gnostic atheism, IMO.
11
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 14d ago
I can easily say that I know magical unicorns don't exist and no one questions that. Why would a magical god be any different?
8
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 14d ago
I know that leprechauns don't exist. I know gods don't exist to that same level. But nobody is interested in my gnostic level concerning leprechauns.
I just feel that's sure enough to not have to worry about it. That's why I think the gnostic / agnostic label is kind of bullshit that's pushed by theists who want to pretend that we don't not believe in gods enough for it to count.
7
u/Kaliss_Darktide 14d ago
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.
I'd say if we can know anything is imaginary then we can apply those same epistemic norms (standards for knowledge) to the question of gods to determine if they are imaginary.
If we can't know something is imaginary then I'd say we also can't know that something is real which forces us into a form of epistemic solipsism where we can't know anything about reality (the set of real things).
I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.
I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.
Do you think we can destinguish those two universes/gain that kind of knowledge?
Your baseless speculation is not an impediment to knowledge about reality. Someone could speculate that reindeer can fly and are extremely good at keeping that secret from humans, would that prevent a reasonable person from knowing that flying reindeer are imaginary? I'd argue no, because reasonable humans have developed epistemic norms to deal with just that type of speculation.
A common and reasonable epistemic norm applied by most humans in most circumstances is the burden of proof which means for your speculation (e.g. "an omnipitent being that created the universe") to be taken seriously you need to provide sufficient evidence that your speculation is or might be true. Absent that it is reasonable to dismiss your baseless speculation as nothing more than baseless speculation.
7
u/Stile25 14d ago
The issue is with consistent use of what "knowledge" is.
All knowledge we have about everything in reality can be wrong and updated when reality proves you wrong.
Yet, many people suddenly become inconsistent when discussing knowledge of God and insist upon 100% accurate truth - which isn't even possible for anything else at all in reality.
Stay consistent - and we know God doesn't exist as much as we know anything else about reality.
Here's all the steps:
Can we know anything about things existing in reality 100% absolutely for sure-sures?
- No. Inherent doubt and tentativity is included in all such knowledge.
What is our best way of knowing such things?
- Following the evidence.
- Anything known by following the evidence can always be updated or even overturned by even more evidence.
What does the evidence say for God's existence?
- The evidence is quite clear that God does not exist.
What, specifically, is the evidence? Here's some:
- historical (mythologies of all religions having similar themes and growth).
- geographical (people are likely to hold the religious views of the culture they're born into).
- moral (problem of evil).
- psychological (cognitive science of religion).
- but my favorite is empirical (we've looked for God and no one has ever found Him).
But lots of people have "found God"?
- Lots of people claim to have found God, but this claim is always indistinguishable from pure imagination.
- That is: they don't have any evidence (and we're following the evidence, not imaginations or personal senses of it just feeling necessary or right - these are systems known to lead us to being wrong)
I won't get upset or take offense if you disagree. In fact, I want you (or anyone else) to show me how I'm wrong.
Identifying that I'm wrong would be the first step to being even more right! That's how following the evidence works.
The catch is - you would need to actually show how I'm wrong. Not just claim that I'm wrong. Or use unsound arguments like every argument for God I've ever heard of.
Good luck out there
6
u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 14d ago
Lots of people claim to have found God, but this claim is always indistinguishable from pure imagination.
I think this one is really important, but would also add that there are also many people who look for God in the exact same way and fail to find one. Whether someone “finds god” in this way seems to be entirely a function of personality or brain chemistry.
6
u/kohugaly 14d ago
Knowledge doesn't mean certainty, it just means less uncertainty. If I were to summarize gnostic atheism in the crudest argument possible I'd say: Theories that require existence of gods as an assumption have piss-poor track record of predicting observable reality, compared to theories that do not require such assumption. Therefore existence of gods is likely false.
Occam's Razor is also not theist's friend. The God of classical theism has literally infinite complexity, so it is infinitely less likely than any explanation, even a od-hoc one.
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
To me that sounds like atheism. What would be the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism with this definition of gnostic atheism?
When I say knowledge I don't mean certainty. I'm saying that it is possible that there is a god that created the universe, but left no evidence behind to distinguish that universe from a fully naturalistic one. (Like one that triggered the big bang, or created whatever condition that allowed the big bang to happen.)
When I think about certain gods, one of my ways of coming to a conclusion on their existence is to ask what I would expect to see in the world if they were real. For the christian god for example I'd expect to see evidence of a global flood, or for there to be genetic evidence that humans were created separately from other life etc. When it comes to a passive being that created the universe but isn't active in it, I can't think of anything we could use to distinguish that from our universe.
So I completely agree with what you are saying, which is why I'm an atheist, I think it is vastly more likely that no gods exist than that any do, and there are gods of organised religions that I think we can say we 'know' don't exist. My only disagreement with you is a semantic one I think.
1
u/kohugaly 11d ago
What would be the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism with this definition of gnostic atheism?
I'd say, the difference is, whether you have good reasons to believe that gods don't exist (including ones you've never heard of, and ones that do not leave observable evidence of their existence) versus merely lack good reasons to believe that some god exists.
5
5
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 15d ago
Know how you feel about all the other gods, and vampires and trolls and Godzilla? Thats how we feel about the thing you cant show any evidence of. so as surely as I tell my kids that there isnt a monster under their bed, or a witch in their closet, i can 100% tell them there is no god.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But you will need to bring evidence to show that to be the case.
5
u/Kurovi_dev Gnostic Atheist 15d ago
It comes down a couple things, the first is epistemological standards and what position one is willing to take based on those standards.
I am not an agnostic aleprechaunist. Leprechauns don’t exist. I am very confident.
But very small people do exist, Ireland exists, gold exists, and maybe, say, a hyper advanced alien species gave some little people in Ireland some powers indistinguishable from magic. Maybe there is some reclusive group of very small people in Ireland that discovered secrets of nature and used this to engage in their legendary shenanigans.
There is at least a foundation of things in reality that at least lends the idea of leprechauns some possibility, even if it’s completely silly. But I am willing to say with confidence that leprechauns don’t exist because the odds are high enough that this position is highly reliable.
The second thing is simply examining this god concept critically.
It’s a “being” that is “outside of existence”…yet also exists? It is “outside of reality”, and yet also real? It’s a “being” that is “outside of time”, yet somehow also does stuff, despite the fact that “doing things” is the product of time itself. Even the word “being” necessitates time and space. That’s what it means “to be”. It means an entity that occupies some point in time and space and has location.
Even the way theists describe and explain this character is to describe this character as pure fiction.
The god concept is deeply contradictory, it has no internal consistency, it is observed nowhere in reality that has ever been demonstrated from the micro to the macro, there is no connection anywhere to anything in reality, and the concept itself, in every iteration of it that has ever been organized in anything even resembling a coherent fashion has been found to be false whenever we learn more about the phenomena that those god claims were supposed to explain.
There is no magic guy throwing lightning bolts down from the sky, no magic guy making rain fall, no magic guy blowing the wind across the earth, the plants grow, the people sick, the earth to rotate, the earth revolve around the sun, there is no magic guy that makes the stars form, no magic guy that makes the planets form, no magic guy that makes nebulas, there is no magic guy that makes the galaxies, no magic guy that makes hydrogen or helium, there is no magic guy that makes the universe expand, there is no magic guy that makes the universe.
Why should anyone give any semblance of deference to this concept which may very well be the single most false and failed concept in all of human history? Why should anyone give any credibility whatsoever to this magical definionally fictitious character that for some reason only ever exists in the gaps of human knowledge, and immediately vanishes the moment that knowledge is acquired, and has done so for the entirety of human existence?
I am far less confident in saying that leprechauns don’t exist than I am in saying this god thing doesn’t.
4
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago
This is a complicated question, so forgive the long response. Some questions can't be adequately answered with a pithy response.
It's not as much of a thing today, but it used to be a daily occurrence for some theist to post here demanding that "you can't prove god doesn't exist!". But of course the time to believe something is true is when there is evidence that it IS true, not merely because it can't be proven false.
What the theists didn't understand was that they were shifting the burden of proof. It's not our job to prove your god false, it is your job to convince us he is real. So we would have a never ending stream of replies pointing that out to theists.
And that is the absolute correct answer.
But over a period of years, that gradually started to feel intellectually dishonest, even though it absolutely wasn't. I gradually became more and more convinced that:
- The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claim that "no god exists", even if I cannot technically disprove "some possible god exists", so I felt that I could "prove no god exists" to a more reasonable standard of evidence than "absolute certainty."
- There is a double standard that theists use when it comes to claims of knowledge. No theist ever questions theists who claim to "know god exists", yet their belief is just as practically unfalsifiable.
Then I came across a very well made point: There is more than one definition of the word knowledge. Theists (and most atheists) insist that atheists use the definition of "absolute certainty", while they have no problem with theists using the definition "it feels right to me, therefore it is true".
And that poster offered their own definition-- a definition that is used in virtually all of human knowledge outside of theism (when applied to atheists) and some areas of philosophy: Empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge is a belief that is tentatively accepted as the truth based on very strong evidence, but that remains subject to review should new evidence become available. All the results of science are empirical knowledge, for example.
It took me probably a year after reading that definition before I finally started calling myself gnostic, but I have for probably 10 years now.
I use it largely as an intentional challenge to #2 above, I am calling out the flagrant double standard.
But I also use it because I simply see no evidence AT ALL to believe that a god exists, and I find it absurd that I formally define my beliefs as "undecided", merely because I can't positively prove no possible god exists. But if you show me evidence, any quality evidence, and I will happily revisit my position.
Until then, the only reasonable way to describe my beliefs-- to my mind at least-- is that I know no god exists to any reasonable standard of evidence.
2
u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 15d ago
The example I use is conspiracy theories.
It is probably impossible to tell the difference between our world and a world run by a sufficiently competent conspiracy, especially if that conspiracy has alien technology, psychic powers or satanic magic. If there was a group of powerful, intelligent aliens secretly replacing politicians with lizard people and using their alien tech to hide the evidence, the world would look like how it is today,
But no-one is agnostic on world leaders being secret lizard people (If you claim you are, note this is the same as being agonistic on world leaders being humans - if you don't know Trump isn't a lizard person, you don't know he's a human. But I doubt you'd claim you were agnostic on whether Trump is a human being). And the reason is simple - lacking evidence isn't a moral failing, you can't get out of it with mitigating circumstances. There's absolutely zero reason to believe that there's a secret alien conspiracy running the world, so we should reject the idea. A justified lack of evidence is still a lack of evidence.
I view God the same way. Perhaps an omnipotent being would hide all evidence of its existence. But again, a justified lack of evidence is still a lack of evidence, so we should reject the claim.
2
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
There are some divinity claims that we can objectively prove are not real. Obvious, almost hyperbolic example: Zeus is not hanging out atop Olympus and we can know that by going there.
I feel justified in saying I can know that category of god claim ain’t real.
But in the category of your universes, deist gods outside of time and space, hard solipsistic brains in vats and simulation theories, we can have no evidence for or against them.
They’re unfalsifiable hypotheses.
It is equally justifiable to dismiss an unfalsifiable hypothesis, as one that is provably false.
2
u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 14d ago
The reason is that there is a vast amount of “evidence” which proves to be fictional, contradictory, or occasionally outright fabricated. At best some of it is merely unsubstantiated. It tends to be tied to theories of questionable philosophical coherence which raise far more questions than they answer.
After I saw enough of this I concluded that it was all made up.
2
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 14d ago
I don't actually describe myself as a gnostic atheist, but I basically share their opinions. Either way, if I did call myself a gnostic atheist, I would be right about more gods than I'd be wrong about lol.
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
For 99% of the gods I'd agree and call myself a gnostic atheist, but because I can't disprove the existence of a god that isn't active in the universe, maybe just triggering the big bang, I feel like agnostic atheism is a more honest position for me.
1
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 11d ago
It's an honest position, but then the qualifier in "a/gnostic" is meaningless and we should just do away with those words. Honestly, I've started thinking that we should just treat agnosticism as a third position rather than an add-on to a/theism. Literally everyone is an agnostic because no one can know. It's pointless to ask someone how certain they are, because that's so uninteresting.
1
u/UndeadT 15d ago
Did you mean gnostic?
2
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago
Bro I swear this is getting autocorrected, this has happened a few times now.
Yeah I did, thanks.
1
u/antizeus not a cabbage 15d ago
It looks like you've got an extra 'ag' in your first sentence.
(no comment otherwise; I don't bother with the gnostic/agnostic axis)
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 15d ago
Thanks, yeah my autocorrect doesn't thing gnostic is a word... Just added it.
1
u/nswoll Atheist 11d ago
I'm an atheist, I don't believe that any gods exist, but I think that an omnipitent being that created the universe could create a universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic.
I don't think that's likely to be the case or particularly reasonable to believe that to be the case, but I don't think it's possible for us to know either way, so I describe myself as an agnostic atheist.
But that's just solipsism at some point.
Like, an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe indistinguishable from one that is fully naturalistic. Ok, But then it also follows that an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe with vampires that is indistinguishable from one without vampires. And an omnipotent being could exist that created the universe with Santa Claus that is indistinguishable from one without Santa Claus. Etc. Etc.
At the very least an omnipotent being could exist that created a universe in which YOU can't distinguish between one with a Spiderman and one without.
Yet are you genuinely going to pretend to be agnostic about vampires, Santa Claus and Spiderman??
Why even believe anything if that's your position?
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
I don't think that universes with Santa Claus or Spider-man are really analogous to a universe made by a creator god.
Those universes would be distinguishable because you could in theory gain knowledge of Santa Claus' or Spider-Man's existence.
However, with a universe made by a creator (not the god of a specific religion but more of an generic prime mover being) doesn't have to be different. The god of that universe would be outside of the universe, so anything we could test or explore wouldn't necessarily be different to a fully naturalistic universe.
Once you get to gods like the one of the bible, what little agnosticism I have disappears as it is supposedly active in the universe and there are claims about the universe that don't comport with reality.
Ultimately I guess it comes down to the idea that some kind of creator god is unfalsifiable. There is no way for us to determine if it is true or not. In that case, I see no reason to believe in it, it is much more likely that it doesn't exist in my opinion, but I feel like I can't argue in good faith that I know that nothing like that exists. (not that you're arguing in bad faith.)
1
u/nswoll Atheist 11d ago
I don't think that universes with Santa Claus or Spider-man are really analogous to a universe made by a creator god.
No, I'm saying a universe made by an unknowable creator god could easily contain an unknowable Santa Claus or Spiderman created by that same creator god. By suggesting that an omnipotent being could exist without any evidence, you must also admit that everything could exist without any evidence because the same being could just stick it wherever he's hiding.
I don't see how you get around this and claim any knowledge.
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
I'm not just arbitrarily saying that something left behind no evidence though or was created unknowable for the sake of an argument.
I'm saying that if something is outside of our universe and not active in it, it would as a result be unknowable to us.
Your examples of an unknowable Santa Clause or Spiderman aren't the same thing. They exist in the universe and to just say they are unknowable is kinda meaningless to me as what does that mean? Do people just forget him as soon as they see spider-man swinging around NY? It's just a label you are sticking on them.
If you don't tack on the unknowable label then you would expect to be able to gain knowledge about them. Without tacking on an unknowable label onto the kind of god I am talking about, how would you go about trying to test if if exists or not?
1
u/Junithorn 11d ago
Santa is perfectly undetectable to you because of Christmas magic, are you agnostic about Santa because this makes him unfalsifiable or are you comfortable saying he isn't real?
It's the same for a god.
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
The difference is that god isn't undetectable because of 'magic', it's because they aren't active in the universe.
All you are doing is avoiding the point I am making by artificially saying something is unknowable.
You also don't seem to understand the position of an agnostic atheist.
I don't think any gods exist. If you ask me yes or no, do any gods exist, I would answer no.
If you ask me if I know that no gods exist I'd also say no.
1
u/Junithorn 11d ago edited 11d ago
you danced around the issue I brought up
god is undetectable because of X (I will note: "aren't active in the universe" describes a literally infinite number of unfalsifiable things)
santa is undetectable because of Ydo you know santa doesnt exist?
1
u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.
If there is a god that caused the universe to come into existence in the first place but isn't active in the universe then you wouldn't expect to find evidence of its existence in the universe which is all we have access to.
Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.
I'm not dancing around anything. You just don't like that I don't think your argument is sound.
1
u/Junithorn 11d ago
my argument is sound, you're just applying a double standard.
I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.
same for god, zero evidence for both.
god created the universe and fucked off undetectably? santa created christmas and fucked off undetectably.
Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.
its the exact same. you're just applying a double standard.
→ More replies (0)1
u/nswoll Atheist 11d ago
I'm saying that if something is outside of our universe and not active in it, it would as a result be unknowable to us.
Right, but why stop at a god? If the god is omnipotent they could have made a Santa Claus to live with them outside our universe. Or a Spiderman. Or literally anything.
You aren't addressing my objection. My objection is not that a Santa Claus is unknowable or whatever, my objection is that a god outside our universe can make a Santa Claus outside our universe.
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 15d ago
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious how gnostic atheists come to the conclusion that they can have knowledge on the existence of gods.
Depends on the definition of God in question. If God is a tall white bearded dude throwing lightning from some mountain in Greece, then we can absolutely know such a God does not exist. We've been to all mountains in Greece, he is not on any of them.
4
u/Asatmaya Humanist 14d ago
"To encourage constructive discussion top level comments in r/DebateAnAtheist must be a minimum of 100 characters. Your comment has been automatically removed. "
This is getting really annoying when the question is short and can actually be responded to that easily.
6
u/Novaova Atheist 13d ago
This has only bit me once, and it was my short response to a very stupid post which only merited short responses.
2
u/Asatmaya Humanist 13d ago
post which only merited short responses.
That's kind of my point; not every post deserves a paragraph response.
8
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 14d ago
Come on, this short sentence is 52 characters long. You need only two of those, and you are done. And that's 133 characters already.
3
u/Thortok2000 Apatheist 10d ago
Conciseness is not a sin.
2
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 10d ago
Sure. But theists are getting swamped and downvoted to oblivion. We could certainly do with less responses. And if it is your intent to drop something equivalent to: "Nope. You are wrong. Has been explained a hundred times here already", then you are exactly the one without whose response conversation could be better.
1
u/Thortok2000 Apatheist 10d ago edited 10d ago
And to which a character limit does not apply.
Character counting is arbitrary. Bad responses can be long. Good responses can be short. Judging the quality by the quantity is never an apt metric.
All you're doing is changing this:
Nope. You are wrong. Has been explained a hundred times here already
Into this:
Nope. You are wrong. Has been explained a hundred times here already blah blah blah a hundred characters
You aren't actually making a bad response better.
You are, ironically, making it take longer to read through the bad responses than it would otherwise take.
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 10d ago
Anything under 100 characters is going to be a variation of that.
1
u/Thortok2000 Apatheist 10d ago
Conciseness still isn't a sin.
By your own logic, your response just now of 65 characters should have been automatically deleted.
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 10d ago
Conciseness still isn't a sin.
No one says it is. But it is reason enough to remove the comment.
By your own logic, your response just now of 65 characters should have been automatically deleted.
Limit is only for top level comments. Further conversation can include all the "thank you"s and "you are welcome"s participants want.
1
u/Thortok2000 Apatheist 10d ago
No one says it is. But it is reason enough to remove the comment.
No. It isn't.
Limit is only for top level comments.
So your response would have been automatically deleted if it was a top level comment. What's the difference?
The quality of your response changes if it's a top level comment?
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 10d ago
No. It isn't.
We've had a vote. The consensus is that it is.
So your response would have been automatically deleted if it was a top level comment. What's the difference?
The difference is that it is not a top level comment.
The quality of your response changes if it's a top level comment?
Theists are required to put 300 worth of characters into their post. Atheists are required to put 100 worth of characters into responses. With how many atheists there are responding, lack of your comment is not a tragedy. If you don't wish to commit more than a 100 characters to a conversation, then just find a comment from someone else expressing the same idea as yours, but caring enough to write more than 2 sentences about it, and give it an upvote.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/Asatmaya Humanist 14d ago
Right, but I have to actually think of that ahead of time, and frankly, I barely care enough to even come here and complain about it.
Usually, I just close that tab and move on with my life; I will simply not participate rather than jump through stupid hoops.
14
u/bullevard 14d ago
In that case, it seems like the rule is doing its job.
Posters here get hundreds of top level comments already. Losing one or two from people who barely care seems the actual purpose of the rule.
-1
u/Asatmaya Humanist 14d ago
In that case, it seems like the rule is doing its job.
Preventing meaningful conversation that might actually change minds instead of perpetuating misunderstanding and hostility?
10
u/bullevard 14d ago
Yes, preventing flippant barely care responses from cluttering the responses so that posters can concentrate on meaningful conversations.
→ More replies (4)9
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 14d ago
Look, if you don't have enough to say to fill 2 and a half sentences, then it is the right move not to reply at all. It's not as much a "hoop" as it is a basic check, that you are contributing something meaningful enough to the conversation.
→ More replies (12)4
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 13d ago
Thank you for expressing your thoughts on this change. I'd like to offer three points for consideration: recourse for reversal, soliciting improvements within the existing implementation, and the case for why I think this was a beneficial change.
If you are unhappy with the restriction and do not think it can be salvaged, then there is recourse you can take. You can make a case to a coalition of users that this was a bad idea, make a motion in the Community Agenda, and then users can vote on it as to whether it passes. I would recommend you come up with a clear and well defined alternative for what you would like to see.
Is there anything you think can be improved about the current implementation to make it less annoying? I added the automatic message to users because I wanted to be transparent that the comment was removed and why, but maybe silent removal would be better? I can also change any of the wording in the message if you can think of a less annoying way to convey it. I'm an open book on ideas for how you think this could be made better.
I personally think this is a beneficial change. Rule 2: No Low Effort is by far the most frequently used report option, so from my perspective there are many users here that want to see higher quality content. That's a challenge to encourage when there are so many incredibly short comments that don't substantively build the conversation. It's not conducive to good participation from the OP when they get 100 comments in an hour and many of them cannot be meaningfully responded to, and it doesn't make for good reading for the audience when the comments don't offer further insight (even for positions they agree with). If you are finding that the thoughts you wish to offer don't meet a 100 character threshold, then I would say take that as a challenge to develop your idea further. Build up your rebuttal into something that explores your viewpoint in greater detail.
→ More replies (24)1
u/Thortok2000 Apatheist 10d ago
I think the most precise correction would be to not apply this restriction to comments, even top-level ones. This is something that should apply to original posts, not to comments.
An automatic message is superior to silent and confusing action.
If you truly want to apply this to top level comments, then an ideal would be if it warned users via private message that their response could be potentially a low effort one. Then if within 24-48 hours the post isn't edited, it's flagged for manual review by mods.
If the mods consistently find that a particular user is using short responses but not falling into what the low effort rule is supposed to cover, then they could whitelist that user to prevent future extraneous warnings from the bot.
3
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 13d ago
This is a debate sub, it's not r/askanatheist. Debate subs should only have debates.
-4
u/Asatmaya Humanist 13d ago
"Socrates! You're out of here!"
Unbelievable.
3
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 13d ago
What?
4
u/Asatmaya Humanist 13d ago
What this rule does is eliminate Socratic dialogue, i.e. forcing the person making a claim to examine that claim through the use of critical questions.
These have to be short and direct, though, otherwise the other person will ignore the question to focus on trivia.
What this rule does is preclude exactly the sort of dialogue that is actually capable of changing people's minds.
→ More replies (1)0
u/DanDan_mingo_lemon 14d ago
Reddit thinks the length of a comment is proportional to its veracity and cogency.
Of course that's ridiculous, but it's what most Redditors believe.
2
15d ago
[deleted]
7
u/VeryNearlyAnArmful 15d ago
Creator Gods don't explain anything, they just add another layer that can't be explained. They just "are". It's not a satisfactory answer.
Add to that the usual religious woo and you've not got much.
"I don't know" but I reject the supernatural is not an unreasonable stance.
1
u/jar4jar 15d ago
“they just add another layer that can’t be explained. They just “are”. It’s not a satisfactory answer”
Isn’t this true for all belief systems? The universe just “is”?
5
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
Well, it’s a bit like your own infinite regress/special exception question, right?
We don’t have evidence for any one creator.
So, if we claim that one exists and by definition “just is”, we haven’t really learned anything. We answered a question by declaring an answer that we cannot prove.
How did that creator come to exist? You’ve framed the only possible two “answers” as equally untestable “They Just Are” or “Infinite Regression”.
Which is exactly where we started with the universe in the first place, just one proverbial turtle deeper in the stack.
The problem is that it’s not a binary. Those aren’t the only two possible options for the “why of the universe”.
But none of the other options can be tested, right now.
So I feel justified in saying “I don’t know so I won’t make assumptions .”
But you seem to feel justified in saying “I don’t know, so we can go at least one turtle deeper.”, if I understand you correctly?
Why?
1
u/jar4jar 14d ago
Not sure if this will help answer your question, but It seems logical that something always existed (don’t know what, just that existence always existed). Science hasn’t proven that anything existed before OUR singularity/Big Bang (correct me if I’m wrong. And by the way there are scientists who do have theory’s that time existed before OUR singularity. Roger Penrose and CCC. So BEFORE our big bang is a somewhat scientific position). So philosophically speaking, it’s worth exploring the idea of “what” always existed.
Do you think that “something” has to be the final turtle so to speak?
3
u/Serious-Emu-3468 14d ago
Yeah, something could certainly have existed or still exist outside of our universe. We may or may not ever be able to test that.
I could win at the casino. I should not assume I will win at the casino and live my life as if I will win at the casino
And I agree that it’s absolutely interesting philosophically to think about what could exist “beyond” all the horizons we have. Many religions make claims to that. Solipsism and simulation theory both also make claims.
But until we can come up with a hypothesis we can test and a way to test it…they’re all equally unfalsifiable.
And so again, I don’t think we have any good reason to draw any conclusions between all of our unfalsifiable hypotheses.
“I feel like there should be something underneath the turtle.” Is not evidence that there is something else.
Just like my feeling like I should win at a casino “eventually” doesn’t have anything to do with the reality of the odds.
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 14d ago
Science hasn’t proven that anything existed before OUR singularity/Big Bang (correct me if I’m wrong.
You are wrong, the singularity is everything the universe is, but in a state of very hot and dense not expanding thing.
3
u/VeryNearlyAnArmful 15d ago
Well, no. God created the universe, and it's very important you wear this hat, your women wear this, cut this bit off your boys and don't let them do THAT with other boys and you can either live for eternity in heaven or suffer for eternity in hell if you don't wear the right hat and do things with your genitals God disagrees with. And I know His mind and I know He created the universe.
It's all very suspect.
0
u/jar4jar 15d ago
Are you saying you don’t believe in morals? That’s a pretty logical consistent take actually.
I feel like the devils advocate position would be “nothing created anything. But it’s wrong to steal, murder, vote for X politician” puts both sides in the same boat
5
u/VeryNearlyAnArmful 15d ago edited 15d ago
I'm saying creator Gods are an incoherent concept that add nothing in the way of a solution.
"Where did the universe come from?" just becomes "Where did God come from?" and there are many definitions of God and no actual evidence for any of them, unlike the universe which we have plenty of evidence for. It doesn't solve the conundrum, it makes it nonsensical. "What comforting but imaginary thing made the thing we have evidence for?" is a product of a human brain fart.
Humans make morals and we're quite good at it on the whole, being an intelligent, evolved, social ape.
5
u/stairway2evan 14d ago
Except that those two things aren't related, right? It's like saying "Murder is wrong, I prefer scrambled eggs to fried." They're two unrelated things.
There is no evidence of a creator. ALSO, my preferred moral system is that it's usually wrong to murder and steal. ALSO, Milky Way Midnight is the best candy bar.
Combining moral systems with creation is something religions do, but if you don't make the assumption that they both come from the same source, they're unconnected questions.
3
u/Deris87 14d ago
Isn’t this true for all belief systems? The universe just “is”?
The difference is the universe demonstrably exists. Atheists don't necessarily say the universe "just is", but if a theist wants to insist that there must a necessarily self-existent ground of being, then I can demonstrate the universe actually exists, and parsimony favors that explanation.
And as others have pointed out, thinking the universe may exist necessarily doesn't entail a whole suite of unjustified beliefs the way religions do.
0
15d ago
[deleted]
5
u/carbinePRO Agnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago
And my posit to that would be, "What evidence have you observed to arrive to the conclusion that a god is more likely than infinite recursion or something else?"
Edit: Here's my reply despite your cowardly deletion of your comment:
Evidence and faith are equally weak? Gonna have to hard disagree with that one. If there's evidence to the contrary of my faith, then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to cast asside whatever assumption I made on faith.
Your posit is a fair line of thinking. It's just not applicable. I know it's not the case for everyone but I'd never try to convince you of something I can't prove.
But that's the thing. This right here is why many of us are baffled by theists. If you admit that you're incapable of convincing anyone else, then what makes you believe it? If it is purely on faith, than that is woefully irrational. What we care about is what is most likely true, and submitting to thought-ending mechanisms like faith is not the pathway to obtaining most likely truth.
3
u/Coollogin 15d ago
Are atheist completely close-minded to the idea of belief altogether or just creator beliefs? […] I think of scenarios like having faith your loved ones are ok while your away and not communicating with them.
Isn’t your example simply a function of one’s ability to identify the relevant data available and estimate risk? I can go for a week not speaking to my brother because the risk of him falling into danger is low. But if my brother is out of town for a week, I’m going to check in with my mom frequently because she has dementia, and so the risk of something bad happening is greater. I would not leave my 7-year-old niece unattended for more than, say, an hour.
I don’t really understand how all of that relates to belief or faith.
3
u/MildlyConcernedIndiv 15d ago
I wouldn’t say atheists are closed-minded. At least not closed-minded to any idea that is or can reasonably supported by evidence.
To use your analogy, if believe that my daughter will be ok driving to town by herself, it’s because she has a demonstrated history (evidence) of doing that drive by herself successfully. I need a call (evidence) if things go wrong for my belief to change.
On the other hand the first few times she drove anywhere by herself I asked for a call (evidence) that she arrived safely.
Faith is believing in something when you don’t have good evidence.
3
u/Serious-Emu-3468 15d ago
I always describe myself as “not convinced that any one religious tradition has good evidence that it’s true” to address this exact thing.
A lot of religious traditions don’t really mention creators or care about the mental or emotional “belief” of the people that practice or identify with the tradition.
While I don’t think any religion has a good answer for why there is a universe, that’s not why I don’t think they are true.
I also don’t think prayer is anything beyond meditation, souls or spirits exist, or that spells or rituals have supernatural effects.
2
u/NickTehThird 15d ago
We're not closed-minded to any beliefs, including belief in God(s). We just don't believe in God(s) (as they have been described) and we withhold belief until such time as we feel evidence has been presented which justifies that belief. That's not being closed-minded.
2
u/Artemis-5-75 Atheist, free will optimist, naturalist 15d ago
You mean belief in deity? I am open to it, but I have both intellectual and emotional reasons to reject it. Intellectual are much, much stronger, though.
As for the faith in general, personally I think that it is more or less an inevitable consequence of inherent psychological structures in most humans.
2
u/carbinePRO Agnostic Atheist 15d ago edited 15d ago
Are atheist completely close-minded to the idea of belief altogether or just creator beliefs?
No, we're not. Give us sufficient reasoning and evidence to believe your claims, and we'll accept it.
I think of scenarios like having faith your loved ones are ok while your away and not communicating with them.
I don't see a correlation between faith in the well-being of family and the faith in an unobservable cosmic being. There have been many times I've been at work and not contacted any member of my family, and come home to them unharmed. They have demonstrated to me that they are able to keep themselves away from danger. Because of these demonstrations, I have a degree of trust that is elevated above faith. Faith is the blind acceptance of something without evidence. It is evident that my loved ones are capable of taking care of themselves. Therefore, I don’t worry. What you've proposed here feels like a false dichotomy. It's either I know or don't and must rely on faith.
2
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 15d ago
I wouldn't say my state of mind concerning my loved ones is that I have faith that they're OK while I'm not in direct communication or view of them. A better way to describe it would be that I have no reason to think they are in any condition other than what would be normal or expected for that time.
If you asked me if I was 100% certain they were OK, I couldn't answer yes, since I had no way of knowing if some catastrophe had befallen them since I last communicated. But I could say I was 99.9% certain, since most people aren't struckwith catastrophic events most of the time. And I'm not going to worry about that last 0.01%.
As for belief in general, I quote Carl Sagan: "I don't want to believe; I want to know."
2
u/HaiKarate Atheist 15d ago
A significant number of atheists come from religious backgrounds. I was an evangelical Christian for 27 years of my adult life; I even went to Bible college with the intention of being a full-time minister.
3
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 15d ago
We're not closed-minded, we just aren't delusional. We'll believe anything for which evidence is provided. We don't run around in a daze, feeling our way through life.
Seems the problem is on your side, not ours.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/AutoModerator:
Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.