Is god imaginary?
April 22, 2008 11:56 PM Subscribe
God is imaginary; 50 'Proofs' that attempt to dispute the fact that there is a god. Apparently, you can prove a negative.
Putting this in a sort of context, should atheists have churches? Should they even be called atheists?
On the other side of the fence, don't forget St Thomas Aquinas, and other more facetious 'proofs'. Of course, people have made arguments against the so called 'five-ways' of St Thomas.
Putting this in a sort of context, should atheists have churches? Should they even be called atheists?
On the other side of the fence, don't forget St Thomas Aquinas, and other more facetious 'proofs'. Of course, people have made arguments against the so called 'five-ways' of St Thomas.
This post was deleted for the following reason: thanks for the wendell tag, that really made this all go a lot easier. -- jessamyn
It will be interesting to see how the discussion pans out.
posted by WalterMitty at 12:03 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by WalterMitty at 12:03 AM on April 23, 2008
It was either that, or infidels.org. Que sera sera.
posted by oxford blue at 12:05 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by oxford blue at 12:05 AM on April 23, 2008
I read the first two links; both are complete crap. And I say that as an atheist (albeit an implicit one).
posted by spaceman_spiff at 12:06 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by spaceman_spiff at 12:06 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Dumb. No matter how many places you point and say, "Gee, there's no God here", the believers can always find another spot for him to be hiding.
People don't like the idea that things happen for absolutely no discernible reason at all. The motive-detection circuitry in the brain really wants a motive for everything. That's why every human culture has supernatural beings; random shit happens, and that part of our brains manufactures an explanation for why, creating a motive where none actually exists. ("Lightning struck him because he was sinful, and God was angry!") It's a misfiring of one of our most fundamental brain features.
Just like our pattern-detection circuitry is so good that we see patterns even when they don't exist, we also see motives where there are none.
I imagine people will continue to insist on the invisible motives flying about, in one form or another, until there aren't people anymore.
posted by Malor at 12:08 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
People don't like the idea that things happen for absolutely no discernible reason at all. The motive-detection circuitry in the brain really wants a motive for everything. That's why every human culture has supernatural beings; random shit happens, and that part of our brains manufactures an explanation for why, creating a motive where none actually exists. ("Lightning struck him because he was sinful, and God was angry!") It's a misfiring of one of our most fundamental brain features.
Just like our pattern-detection circuitry is so good that we see patterns even when they don't exist, we also see motives where there are none.
I imagine people will continue to insist on the invisible motives flying about, in one form or another, until there aren't people anymore.
posted by Malor at 12:08 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's always great fun to take a 10,000 year old question that touches on philosophy, epistemology, and cultural mores among other things, a multi-faced science that has occupied the lives and work of myriad brilliant and wise and dedicated men and women in every age and culture and attempt to settle it once and for all in an semi-anon internet forum where people have personal axes to grind and precious little in the way of original thinking.
But, being an optimist when drunk, I have high hopes!
posted by dawson at 12:09 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
But, being an optimist when drunk, I have high hopes!
posted by dawson at 12:09 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
What's that old MeFi saying? Something to do with wendell?
posted by cosmonik at 12:09 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by cosmonik at 12:09 AM on April 23, 2008
Metafilter is imaginary. A few Proofs:
1. Statistically analyze the 'best' of the 'web.'
2. Look at all historical community weblogs.
3. Notice that you ignore the guidelines.
4. Examine cortex's miracles.
Wait...
posted by farishta at 12:11 AM on April 23, 2008
1. Statistically analyze the 'best' of the 'web.'
2. Look at all historical community weblogs.
3. Notice that you ignore the guidelines.
4. Examine cortex's miracles.
Wait...
posted by farishta at 12:11 AM on April 23, 2008
Don't look for fish in the treetops.
A peasant must stand on the side of a hill with his mouth open for a long time before a roast duck flies in.
posted by turgid dahlia at 12:12 AM on April 23, 2008
A peasant must stand on the side of a hill with his mouth open for a long time before a roast duck flies in.
posted by turgid dahlia at 12:12 AM on April 23, 2008
I'm as fond of the icy purity of a rational mechanistic universe as the next nerd, but this is pretty sophomoric stuff. "Ask Jesus to appear"? WOW HE DIDN'T HOLY SHIT DISBAND THE CHURCH.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:14 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 12:14 AM on April 23, 2008
can anyone tell me if the Tom Cruise rant video is still up and where?
Oh, my bad, wrong thread. I hope this does not, in fact, end Wendell, I like the man and want him around a lot longer.
posted by dawson at 12:17 AM on April 23, 2008
Oh, my bad, wrong thread. I hope this does not, in fact, end Wendell, I like the man and want him around a lot longer.
posted by dawson at 12:17 AM on April 23, 2008
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
About sums it up.
posted by mullingitover at 12:27 AM on April 23, 2008 [5 favorites]
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
About sums it up.
posted by mullingitover at 12:27 AM on April 23, 2008 [5 favorites]
I think that this is more interesting and illuminating than any "proof".
Than Penn Jillette, he crazy.
posted by poe at 12:44 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Than Penn Jillette, he crazy.
posted by poe at 12:44 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
To prove the existence or non-existence of God, you first need a sound definition of what "God" exactly is. Different people imagine God to be different things. Some think of him as a white-bearded wizard living in the sky, some have abstract concepts, such as omnipotency, and still others see God in the wonders of nature.
Without being clear about what exactly we are trying to "prove", all these proofs of existence or non-existence are absolutely silly.
posted by sour cream at 12:50 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Without being clear about what exactly we are trying to "prove", all these proofs of existence or non-existence are absolutely silly.
posted by sour cream at 12:50 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
What sour cream said.
This only proves that one type of god doesn't exist, the god of the Abrahamic religions. It doesn't prove in any way that a higher power of some sort does not exist. The arguments assume from the get-go what the attributes and motivations of a god are, and that the argument-maker can accurately know them, which is instant fail. We don't know, we won't ever know.
We know that Jehovah doesn't exist and that the extant human religions that posit supernatural deities are fraudulent or simply plain wrong. That's all. That still leaves a lot of other areas to explore.
I accept the arguments of atheists when they say religious people are ignorant, except I go 1 step further, I accept that the atheists are ignorant, too.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:59 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
This only proves that one type of god doesn't exist, the god of the Abrahamic religions. It doesn't prove in any way that a higher power of some sort does not exist. The arguments assume from the get-go what the attributes and motivations of a god are, and that the argument-maker can accurately know them, which is instant fail. We don't know, we won't ever know.
We know that Jehovah doesn't exist and that the extant human religions that posit supernatural deities are fraudulent or simply plain wrong. That's all. That still leaves a lot of other areas to explore.
I accept the arguments of atheists when they say religious people are ignorant, except I go 1 step further, I accept that the atheists are ignorant, too.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:59 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
On that point sour cream, in academia rarely are sound definitions created and agreed upon, yet discourse still happens. It is unreasonable to say we cannot argue one way or the other for want of some impossible perfect definition.
I'd suggest there is a common, perhaps amorphous to a degree, cultural/literal/ecclesiastical/etc created/modified/designed memetic definition of what god is, and what god is not. Without such a definition, even as loose as it is, one could not argue for or against, or even believe in, or not believe in.
As an example, the law is difficult to define, with many different people having many different opinions, yet the field of jurisprudence still exists. A lack of perfectly accurate definition must not be allowed to stymy inquiry, for it is often in the inquiry itself that our conceptual definition map is improved.
posted by oxford blue at 1:05 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'd suggest there is a common, perhaps amorphous to a degree, cultural/literal/ecclesiastical/etc created/modified/designed memetic definition of what god is, and what god is not. Without such a definition, even as loose as it is, one could not argue for or against, or even believe in, or not believe in.
As an example, the law is difficult to define, with many different people having many different opinions, yet the field of jurisprudence still exists. A lack of perfectly accurate definition must not be allowed to stymy inquiry, for it is often in the inquiry itself that our conceptual definition map is improved.
posted by oxford blue at 1:05 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
If we accept that everyone is ignorant, perhaps we must accept that because of this no one is ignorant. (It's been rattling around in my head lately if all As are B than no As are B, because B, by nature exists as a comparative (I am B, but you are not B, therefore because of the uniqueness B exists). Maybe A = humans B = happy. I'm sure this is fallacious as it comes, but I can't shake it....)
posted by oxford blue at 1:09 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by oxford blue at 1:09 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
These 50 proofs sound like they were written by a crazy person.
One obvious question that any rational person would ask is this: If an all-powerful god is answering the housewife's prayer, why does she need to wash the shirt? Why not hang the stained, wrinkled shirt in the closet and pray for God to clean and press it there? An all-powerful God could just as easily remove the stain in the closet as he can in the washing machine.
Yeah! Take that, God!
posted by roll truck roll at 1:16 AM on April 23, 2008
One obvious question that any rational person would ask is this: If an all-powerful god is answering the housewife's prayer, why does she need to wash the shirt? Why not hang the stained, wrinkled shirt in the closet and pray for God to clean and press it there? An all-powerful God could just as easily remove the stain in the closet as he can in the washing machine.
Yeah! Take that, God!
posted by roll truck roll at 1:16 AM on April 23, 2008
Eh. Straw man about religion. What else is new? *yawns, scratches balls, goes back to briefing*
posted by jock@law at 1:23 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by jock@law at 1:23 AM on April 23, 2008
1. Mike Bailey appeared on Sydney's ABC Weather report in the past.
2. We know that it is okay for Mike Bailey to appear on the weather report.
3. It would probably be easy for Mike Bailey to again appear on the weather report, if he so wished.*
4. We know that if he did appear on the weather report, we would all know tomorrow's weather.
5. Yet Mike Bailey does not appear on the weather report.
Therefore, Mike Bailey does not exist.
*Probably not true
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 1:36 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
2. We know that it is okay for Mike Bailey to appear on the weather report.
3. It would probably be easy for Mike Bailey to again appear on the weather report, if he so wished.*
4. We know that if he did appear on the weather report, we would all know tomorrow's weather.
5. Yet Mike Bailey does not appear on the weather report.
Therefore, Mike Bailey does not exist.
*Probably not true
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 1:36 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
What's that old MeFi saying? Something to do with wendell?
WWWD? What Would Wendell Do?
As little as possible.
For the record, I have never claimed to be God or God-like but my human status remains... unresolved.
posted by wendell at 1:37 AM on April 23, 2008
WWWD? What Would Wendell Do?
As little as possible.
For the record, I have never claimed to be God or God-like but my human status remains... unresolved.
posted by wendell at 1:37 AM on April 23, 2008
Oh for christ's sake.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:49 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:49 AM on April 23, 2008
Putting this in a sort of context, should atheists have churches? Should they even be called atheists?
I was in my neighborhood Borders the other day, and was tickled to see that "Atheism and Agnosticism" is now a subsection within "Religion," right before "General Eastern." Does this piss off atheists, to see it implied that atheism itself is a religion?
posted by jbickers at 2:52 AM on April 23, 2008
I was in my neighborhood Borders the other day, and was tickled to see that "Atheism and Agnosticism" is now a subsection within "Religion," right before "General Eastern." Does this piss off atheists, to see it implied that atheism itself is a religion?
posted by jbickers at 2:52 AM on April 23, 2008
« Older Purgatory Iron Works | A drive down memory lane Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by blacklite at 12:03 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]