God? Where's the logic in that?

[FriedFrog]

I thought I may as well post this on here, it's an article I wrote about agnosticism for English Language AS level. Comment on it if you want, or just have a read. Bear in mind I was meant to be writing a 'persuasive article', so some of the things I say in there may be exagerations of my opinion (I'm a pessimistic agnostic).

God? Where’s the logic in that?
Argues FriedFrog

It’s a question we can’t escape from in our day to day lives. Everything we look at can be related back to it, and it is a question that currently has the US split dangerously down the middle. The question is that of God, and God’s relevance to the world we live in.
But what is this ‘God’ that so many of us worship? God is seen by those who believe as the perfect being; omnipotent, omniscient and the originator and ruler of the universe. A god is a divine being, something supernatural and something worshipped, idolised or followed without any proof of its existence.
So, put your hand up if you believe in God. Put your hand up if you don’t believe in God. Put your hand up if you agree with me and refuse to take part in such a pointless debate.
Let’s get philosophical for a minute:

“Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims – particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities – are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life.”

So really, we can simplify agnosticism as being the belief that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, and the belief or non-belief of God is therefore pointless. The fact that God cannot be proved or disproved, I’m sure you’ll agree, is a fact (a cold hard one, at that). Even those who have a belief (or denial) of God or gods should agree with me here, because nobody can back up claims of either argument: either that God exists or doesn’t.
Of course, those on either end of this ‘religious spectrum’ (those who believe and those who deny) are fully entitled to their beliefs, but neither choice is built on logic and reasoning.
Theists (believers) will argue that faith is something which does not require proof, and that it is something a person will ‘discover’ and have certainty over, even though they have no verifiable evidence for which to back up what they believe. The fact that there is actually no evidence surely says something about the credibility of the whole idea of religion and God.
The same can be said for atheists (non-believers). Their belief is that there cannot possibly be a God, because of the lack of evidence available. In their opinion, nothing that humans have come into contact with and analysed scientifically can prove the existence of God.
This is as flawed a belief as that which theists hold because, although there is no evidence which supports the existence of God, there is none which specifically points to the lack of a God.
If we were to form such a belief on uncertain evidence like this, it is 50/50 that we turn out to be wrong. It is therefore better to remain agnostic than to make such an important decision as that of religion.
In order to set our minds so certainly on theism or atheism, the standards of evidence have to be very high for us to know we are making the right decision, and because neither side can provide this high standard of evidence, it makes logical sense to be agnostic.
Take this quote from mathematician, physicist and philosopher Blaise Pascal regarding the incomprehensibility of God:

“If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.”

This puts forward the argument that the human mind cannot possibly comprehend God if he does exist, because he is infinite, omnipresent and omniscient. The human mind can define infinity, but cannot comprehend it and to say we ‘know’ God and what he is would be performing the impossible. If we were to describe God as ‘good’ or ‘forgiving’ it would only be in our human sense of the word, so would therefore not accurately describe him. Even calling God ‘him’ is a false idea, since we have no idea if God has a human sex, let alone if he exists. Our existence is, as we know at this moment in time, flawed and finite, so we have no concept except the human perspective of God, which is bound to be flawed and finite as well. This does not rule out the possibility of God, it just begs the question of why people claim to ‘know the word’ of God when, ultimately, whatever they say will be flawed and contradictory.
And so, assuming that there is no known proof of God (which there isn’t, otherwise I wouldn’t be writing this, would I?), it is safe only to make conclusions with the understanding that these will be drawn on an assumed basis (a theory with the limitations of proof). It is possible to compile evidence to make a case for God, but without proof, it is still just a theory. If no proof exists either way, you cannot rationally argue the point, let alone make a decision and, in the end, the search for and belief of, or denial of, God or Gods is irrelevant to life until we as humans have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the universe to come to such a conclusion.

[LSD]

Their belief is that there cannot possibly be a God, because of the lack of evidence available. In their opinion, nothing that humans have come into contact with and analysed scientifically can prove the existence of God.

Actually, that's not the argument at all.

Atheism does not emerge in place of evidence, it emerges due to a lack of evidence. Atheism, you see, rests on the fundamental logical axiom that when a proposition is unproven, it is assumed to be false.

The famous example of this particular axiom is the Giant invisible Spaggetti Monster that, like "God", cannot be proven or disproven. As there is no logical way to prove a negative, we can never fully state with certainty that the Giant invisible Spaggetti Monster is not real.

I imagine, however, that you are not "agnositc" with regards to Giant invisible Spaggetti Monsters. Indeed, I would bet significant sums of money on the proposition that you have lead and will continue to lead a life that has absolutely no reverence for Giant invisible Spaggetti Monsters or their potential apotheostic consequences.

Well, the same is true for "God".

The fact that no evidence exists in favour of "God" existing is reason itself to disbelieve in "Him"; lack of evidence is simply not a decision-neutral position. Just as we don't believe that all of human civilization is not existing inside of The Matrix© (again, we can't prove that it isn't), we don't believe that it exists according to a Divine Plan© either.


So really, we can simplify agnosticism as being the belief that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, and the belief or non-belief of God is therefore pointless.

But then isn't it equally irrational to "not believe"?

If the counterpart of a postulate must be considered with equal rigour, then why do you allow "nonbelief" to be presented with absolutely no evidence?

That is, "non belief" is a position. It is the position of not believing. It is a judgment, and if it is a logical one, it is based on reasons and reasoning. Does your "absolute" paradigm not also require evidence?

To be consistent here, you would have to have no position on the question of "God", not a slightly less assertive one. If the lack of any evidence truly means to you that the issue cannot be considered, then you cannot assert non-belief as a personal opinion.

It's the critical flaw of your assignation of "equal value" to all postulates and their counterpart. If, as you suggest, true and false are merely "flip sides" and equally requiring of confirmation or disproving, then the same applies to belief and non-belief. Neither can be given preferential status and so the same standard must be held to non-belief as it is to belief.

Personally, I prefer not to get trapped in that quagmire of absolutes. Instead, I stick to the logical axiom that all concepts are born false. Before they are even conceived, they are deemed to be false. Once they are considered, if no evidence is presented, then they are returned to their prior state and not considered (because they are false) until evidence is presented.

That's how you deal with the unknown universe.


If we were to form such a belief on uncertain evidence like this, it is 50/50 that we turn out to be wrong. It is therefore better to remain agnostic than to make such an important decision as that of religion.

You are basically saying that if we lack sufficient evidence we are unable to sufficiently analyze a situation and hence we ...shouldn't. That means that we take no position on the question, but still behave as if it were false. That is, in situations in which either the truth or falsehood of the original concept would be at play, we act as though it were false.

I find that a distorted and convoluted way of going about logical investigations. If we are going to "disregard" a concept in regards to everything else, then we must be intellectually consistent in regards to itself.

That means that if the existence of "God" is "disregarded", then we do not consider it even on questions of "God". That is, "God" must be said to not exist because the possibility of his existence has been "disregarded".

In other words "disregarded" is "false", for all practical intents and purposes.

It's just a much less logical way of getting there.

After all, true and false are the two possibilities we're working with. A concept in question must be one of them. If it is the former, then "disregarding" it is incorrect, if it is the latter than it is not. "Disregarding" without any reason to believe one option over the other is fundamentally illogical. It makes the tacit assumption that the concept is false, because it is taking the natural consequence of falsehood -- "disregard", but it is not acknowledging it.

Accepting the fundamental logical axiom of the unknown false -- or the unknown unknowns as you put it, acknowledges the cognitive steps that are being taken. Without mincing words about "disregarding" and "inane concepts", we find that a concept is without support and so assumed to be false pending evidence.

In practice, it is exactly the same thing you're doing, except you do it in reference to every other concept but the one in question.


In order to set our minds so certainly on theism or atheism, the standards of evidence have to be very high for us to know we are making the right decision, and because neither side can provide this high standard of evidence, it makes logical sense to be agnostic.

You're trying to imply that there's some logical method of "not decididing" without passing judgment, but you're deluding yourself and are making very grosse logical error.

A determination on the "God question" impacts findings in a myriad of other areas and so "not deciding" is simply not an available option. Rather we must chose to consider or not consider the "God" factor and the only way that a concept can be logically not considered is if it is false.

Now, remember, we are talking about logic here, not fact. Logic is an internalistic tool which can be analyzed independently of the externalistic universe feeding it data. So, for our purposes here, it doesn't matter if the finding of "false" is actually correct, it just matters that some theoretical concept, let's call it X, was found to be in a logical state called false.

If X is false then it cannot be considered. That's basically all that false means. From a logical perspective, false does not mean that the concept "does not exist" or is internally inconsistent (although it could be), it means that it has no place within the framework being considered. Or, in other words, it can not be considered.

True, by contrast, means that the concept must be considered. That is all that, practically speaking, these words logically signify.

With that understood, and with the fundamental dichotomy of true-false implied, we are faced with the question of when can we logically "disregard"?

The answer, naturally, is only when it is false, because, clearly, "true" things cannot be disregarded. Furthermore those concepts for which we don't know their truth or lack thereof cannot be disregarded because we don't know.

This isn't a question of "fact". but a more fundamental question of basic logical axiomatic necessity: we cannot behave as though an idea is false unless we first find it to be false.

All of this, of course, brings us back to "God". And, on this issue, I am forced to tell you that, despite your best wishes, you have almost certainly made a decision on that issue. You may not be willing to admit it, but if you're living your life as if God does not exist then you are functionally an atheist.

Based on the general tenor of work, that's exactly what I'd say you are.

I suppose though that you could also be a so-called Theist, someone who believes in "God" in a very nondescript and metaphysical sense; and if so, I seriously hope that you reconsider. Theists don't pose a serious political challange at this point, but they do hold to a very irrational "belief system" and so pose an intellectual challange to human progress and development.

In any event, keep considering the big questions. The more people trying to approach matters of "God" and "faith" from rational logical perspectives, the better for all of us. :)

[FriedFrog]

The famous example of this particular axiom is the Giant invisible Spaggetti Monster that, like "God", cannot be proven or disproven. As there is no logical way to prove a negative, we can never fully state with certainty that the Giant invisible Spaggetti Monster is not real.

True. But the Giant Invisible Spagghetti Monster doesn't hold sway over a billion (or more?) people. Thats one of the reasons I choose to abstain from the argument... Im not quite radical enough to disagree with something that so many people believe to be true.


I imagine, however, that you are not "agnositc" with regards to Giant invisible Spaggetti Monsters. Indeed, I would bet significant sums of money on the proposition that you have lead and will continue to lead a life that has absolutely no reverence for Giant invisible Spaggetti Monsters or their potential apotheostic consequences.

Living life agnostically when it comes to God is to lead a life that has no reverence for 'him', it's just that I still hold out of a chance that something may exist beyond death. Like you say later on, I think there could be a possibility for God in a 'non descript' kind of way (alas :P).


But then isn't it equally irrational to "not believe"?

By this do you mean to remain agnostic? If so, then its not that I don't believe, its that I'm abstaining from the debate.

If you meant atheism when you say "not believe", well that is my argument. It IS equally irrational to concern yourself with coming to a decision as defiante as yes or no (rather paradoxically, it seems that to call myself agnostic would be to reach a decision, but its more of a 'step back from the debate' rather than a decision)


If the counterpart of a postulate must be considered with equal rigour, then why do you allow "nonbelief" to be presented with absolutely no evidence?

That is, "non belief" is a position. It is the position of not believing. It is a judgment, and if it is a logical one, it is based on reasons and reasoning. Does your "absolute" paradigm not also require evidence?

Sorry, you'll have to re-word that. Im not too hot with the big words :P


To be consistent here, you would have to have no position on the question of "God", not a slightly less assertive one. If the lack of any evidence truly means to you that the issue cannot be considered, then you cannot assert non-belief as a personal opinion.

It is my 'position' to have no position. If it doesnt come across in the article, it's something I should see to.


It's the critical flaw of your assignation of "equal value" to all postulates and their counterpart. If, as you suggest, true and false are merely "flip sides" and equally requiring of confirmation or disproving, then the same applies to belief and non-belief. Neither can be given preferential status and so the same standard must be held to non-belief as it is to belief.

Personally, I prefer not to get trapped in that quagmire of absolutes. Instead, I stick to the logical axiom that all concepts are born false. Before they are even conceived, they are deemed to be false. Once they are considered, if no evidence is presented, then they are returned to their prior state and not considered (because they are false) until evidence is presented.

That's how you deal with the unknown universe.

That's a good point. Gives me something to debate with myself before I debate it with anyone else :P



You are basically saying that if we lack sufficient evidence we are unable to sufficiently analyze a situation and hence we ...shouldn't.

Pretty much. I think the existence of God(s) is such an important issue that should not lead to conclusions of eitherend of the spectrum. The price is quite high.


That means that we take no position on the question, but still behave as if it were false. That is, in situations in which either the truth or falsehood of the original concept would be at play, we act as though it were false.

No, we just do not act. We refuse to come to a conclusion because, in this 'life' at the moment, we have no way of finding out if we are right or wrong.


That means that if the existence of "God" is "disregarded", then we do not consider it even on questions of "God". That is, "God" must be said to not exist because the possibility of his existence has been "disregarded".

Only is God disregarded in the present, in this 'physical life'. Death and the future is open to interpretation, ie, anything could happen. We just dont know.


In other words "disregarded" is "false", for all practical intents and purposes.


You could come to that conclusion, but I choose to disregard God and religion. I've made no decision on whether 'he' is true or false.


After all, true and false are the two possibilities we're working with. A concept in question must be one of them. If it is the former, then "disregarding" it is incorrect, if it is the latter than it is not. "Disregarding" without any reason to believe one option over the other is fundamentally illogical. It makes the tacit assumption that the concept is false, because it is taking the natural consequence of falsehood -- "disregard", but it is not acknowledging it.

Ok, fair point. But to disregard something does not mean to falsify it. It's to just 'leave it be' and never go back to it.


assumed to be false pending evidence.

Yes, but perhaps that evidence will come at a later date.


A determination on the "God question" impacts findings in a myriad of other areas and so "not deciding" is simply not an available option. Rather we must chose to consider or not consider the "God" factor and the only way that a concept can be logically not considered is if it is false.


But, I can leave a rock in a field one day say, because it is too heavy to carry any more, and never ever come back to it. The rock is still a rock, it's just that it doesn't concern me any more.



I don't know. Im still on that wonderful journey of discovery that is the teenage years. Maybe I'm on a path to atheism, maybe I'll find proof of a God somewhere out there (although I doubt it).

Thanks for the comment, anyway. And thanks for making me think more than college ever makes me think.

[LSD]

True. But the Giant Invisible Spagghetti Monster doesn't hold sway over a billion (or more?) people.

Logic does not care for popularity.

What's illogical for the Spagetti Monster must be illogical for the "God". A contention can only be considered if it has logical argumentation behind it. Unless a proposition is backed with empiric logical proof, it must be assumed to be false.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to render any conclusions.


Im not quite radical enough to disagree with something that so many people believe to be true.

That is what's called an argumentum ad popularum; a logical fallacy that equates supporters with support.

It wouldn't matter if every person on earth thought that "God" was real, there is still no evidence for his existance. I would remind you that it was only a few millenia ago that every person on earth still believed their planet to be flat.


Living life agnostically when it comes to God is to lead a life that has no reverence for 'him'

No, that's living life atheistically.

Living "agnostically", in the strictest terms, would require living without an opnion one way or the other, even when the issues is relevent. That would require a unique ability to come to determinations with absolutly no consideration!

If there is a "God", it has a signifcant impact on the question of the nature of the universe; if that "God" wants things, it has a significant impact on the question of how we live our lives. Either way, the issue cannot be avoided and we must come to some conclusion, even if it is only a "personal opinion".

The danger of Agnosticism as a philosophy is that, while masked, its epistemological consequences are actually quite severe.

If the "God question" can be bisected and one's "opinion" can be made distinct from logical analysis, then we make logic almost austerely detatched and enter into the realm of bizzarre solipsistic post-modernism.

The question of whether or not there is a "God" is not a "personal" matter, it's a physics one. And it's about time we accepted that.


Only is God disregarded in the present, in this 'physical life'.

Except that "in the present, this physical life" is all we've got. It's certainly all that this conversation is in regards to.

And if "God" is indeed "disregarded" in the present, then the concept of "God" is de facto false.

Again, in the end, that's all that false means.


Ok, fair point. But to disregard something does not mean to falsify it. It's to just 'leave it be' and never go back to it.

One does not "leave be" in logic. A contention cannot be TBA, it's either true or false.

When we have no indication that a thing is true, then it must be considered false. Once evidence emerges, we can reconsider; a logical finding is not permament, it's entirely memetic -- as is all human knowledge.

Indeed, as I once proposed in a similar discussion, the corollary of as far as we know, right now could rightfully be added to all statements of human knowledge, as, for the foreseeable future, human knowledge is entirely a matter of plausibilites.

We cannot, for instance, give a single shred of evidence against the contention that our entire lives are not a meticulously crafted lie engineered to delude us and "keep us from the truth". Regardless, though, we must assume that this is not so. We must make the axiomatic assumption that materialism demands and accept only that which is empircally and logically verifiable.

Until there is proof in support of "His" existance, we must relegate "God" to the false pile, along with everything else for which there is no evidence.


Maybe I'm on a path to atheism

Probably.

The nice thing about atheism is that, unlike religion, it does not need to be "preached". It is the inescapable conclusion of any rational enquiry into the subject.

If you have an open mind and a basic grasp of logic, you cannot help but wind up there eventually

Good luck! :)

[Dyst]

The nice thing about atheism is that, unlike religion, it does not need to be "preached".

But weirdly enough you seem to enjoy "preaching" it in this forum.



The question of whether or not there is a "God" is not a "personal" matter, it's a physics one. And it's about time we accepted that.

It may be possible to discover the truth about God using science. Maybe we already have discovered something about it, but don't know it yet.

But it is important not to draw conclusions without having facts to base it on.



Living life agnostically when it comes to God is to lead a life that has no reverence for 'him'


No, that's living life atheistically.

You are incorrect. Even if being an agnostic meant "having no opinion about God" it would certainly not include having reverence for 'him'.


If you have an open mind and a basic grasp of logic, you cannot help but wind up there eventually


Depends on on what basis you consider yourself an agnostic. If it is because you simply think "God probably doesn't exist, since it seems so illogical. But I don't know for sure" then I almost agree.

But if it is for example on the basis that religion is dying (organized religious activity decreasing) in modern capitalist countries and therefore it would be of no considerable problem in any communist society that will evolve from those (actions against religious activity would not be needed as it will most likely be none existant.)

Or that science is making more and more progress on fields of physics and mathematics, and might actually stumble upon evidence for or against the existance of God, why would you "decide" on anything in a case so lacking of evidence, yet?

Then my advise is that you don't listen to the people who claim they know something. For none are more hopelessly mislead and foolish than those who claim they know for sure.

LSD made a good point, about the theory of God being one of "physics" instead of a personal one. So why should we consider the theory of God, a scientific one, any different from any other scientific theories? Why can't we simply avoid the (again, scientifical) subject until there is evidence?

[LSD]

But weirdly enough you seem to enjoy "preaching" it in this forum.

I don't preach, I present rational argumentation.

You, on the other hand, seem to enjoy posting meaningless jibberish about how "God is the number One" and "all is number".

I think it's fairly clear which of us is the preacher! :lol:


But it is important not to draw conclusions without having facts to base it on.

No, it's important to draw conclusions based on the facts we have.

We will never have "all the facts", such a feat is unattainable. Rather, we will always have to relly on plausibilities and probilities to make our determinations.

Materialism is not an absolutely game; it has no need for "complete" answers, just logically sound ones.

Negatives cannot be proven and so we do not need to look for evdidence against it. Rather, like Santa Clause or the Spagetti Monster, logic demands that we regard it as false and disregard the concept.


LSD made a good point, about the theory of God being one of "physics" instead of a personal one. So why should we consider the theory of God, a scientific one, any different from any other scientific theories? Why can't we simply avoid the (again, scientifical) subject until there is evidence?

Except the "theory" of "God" is not a "theory" at all, it's akin to "creationism", another pseudo-science popular with the religious nutjob crowd.

No serious scientist takes "creationism" seriously, they don't wait for evidence disproving it; rather they assume it to be false until evidence is presented.

Again, that's how sicence works. Until proof is demonstrated, all propositions are false. That's the only way that a materialist paradigm can function, and amaterialism simply has no place in an enlightended world view.

We are far too advanced for superstition and "faith" to have a role in human intellectual life.

[anomaly]

But it is important not to draw conclusions without having facts to base it on.
There are no facts that prove or even imply that god exists. That's why we don't believe in it.

[Eleutherios]

I take it as a rule of thumb to reject all unfalsifiable theories, especially those that have no good evidence going for them. There simply is no way to construct an experiment that could prove definitively that God does not exist, since for every cause and effect you can attribute whatever happens to the hand of God. Even if it looks like God isn't there, maybe God is just using his infinite powers to make it look like he's not there. We have to take this claim as seriously as we take the claims of psychics who say their powers don't work around the negative energy of skeptics, or faith healers who accuse all their dead victims of not keeping enough faith. There is no way to be 100% sure their claims are false, but they are so ridiculously implausible that we can assume they are for all practical purposes.

You say you don't want to completely reject an idea that so many people believe in. Well, for any given god, the majority of the world already disbelieves in it, and has disbelieved in it for all of history. Each religion, each sect within each religion, and each individual within each sect has their own conception of God/the gods. We should consider the existence of Jehovah and Allah according to the same standard that we consider the existence of Thor and Zeus. And when we do, we notice that of all the varied gods out there, there is one property that they all share in common: they are completely invisible and completely unfalsifiable.

If I told you that I was on Mars last weekend, you would be completely justified in rejecting that statement as false until I presented some evidence to back it up. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Isn't the idea of an all-powerful all-loving all-knowing creator/dictator of the universe who tolerates mass suffering and hides from everybody far more extraordinary than my Mars visit?