*** Logical reason of atheism ***

Dear All,

I’m new in this valuable site, despite the fact that I don’t agree with most of whats posted here, but I’m really a big fan of many writers here and their methodolgoy of discussing issues.

Since few months and I’m discussing with atheists, agnostics and skeptics about " God existence" subject. This forced me to reconsider many points regarding Faith and God existence but at the end of the day my faith and belief that God does exist has been strengthened.

I decided to read in philosophy just to gain more knowledge about this issue especially that every time I hear from atheists and agnostics that they build their views on LOGIC and SCIENTIFIC solid basis. I, hence, revised many philosophical books and I’ve found that:
The philosophers who have established " The science of Logics" and who adopted this way of philosophy are Believers! and not atheists.

So, I’d like to direct my direct question:
What’s the LOGIC that you, atheists and agnostics, are basing your views on?

PS: If my english is not that clear, then this due to the fact I’m learning english recently.

Regards

GA, your English is very impressive, although I must admit I was a bit disappointed to click on “Ligical Atheism” and not get some sparkling satire…

Anyway, as an atheist myself I have no logical foundation (in the formal sense) for my beliefs, but i’ll try to explain why i hold them.

All empirical evidence can be called into doubt, either by questioning the accuracy of our senses, explaining it as human error or similar; therefore an indubitable answer to the question of God’s existence could only come from a priori arguments. However, no such argument has yet been found. No ontological argument currently holds water, but equally it has yet to be shown that God implies a logical contradiction.

This means, unfortunately, that we have to call on our observations of the universe to come to any conclusion. Unless you are a die-hard cynic, you’d have to admit that the Christian idea of God is more likely than, say, a giant green blob that created the Earth and floats above Western Europe, because no-one has seen the blob while a few people have claimed to see (experience) God. This makes God slightly more likely than the blob.

As a result, we each have to weigh up the evidence for different views. I personally feel that the Big Bang is much more likely than an omniscient, omnibenevolent, undetectable being with a beard who refuses to prove his own existence and condemns to eternal torture all those who don’t believe in him. But you may feel that the idea of the universe being created by a sentient being is much more likely than such complexity arising purely by chance.

Atheism is a belief, just like any religion. It doesn’t need a logical basis, although it would be useful. If you feel it does - what logic is your religion based on? And also, the fact that the creators of atheism were religious shows nothing. People believed the world was flat until they thought it was round, but this doesn’t make them hypocrites unworthy of consideration.

Thank you Othafa for sharing this post, however, I’m notthat type of person who satirize others ideas, comments, or beliefs. I, hence, base my replies and critiques on subjectivity and respect.

Actually Othafa, you’ve summed up perfectly all the ideas that are roaming in any atheist’s mind. However, could you please just comment on the above quote:

I’ll be very grateful if you explain me, HOW " God implies a logical contradiction" ?

Let me just inform you that I’m not christian. Also, I’m discussing about the existence of CREATOR, here, and I base his existence on the fact “refutation of matter eternity” which means that this cosmo has been has a beginning and should have an end oneday and it doesn’t come from nothingness by chance!
The recent theories have provided or at least paved the coclusions towards the creation of cosmo and erased the doubt of its creation.

Regards

if i remember correctly the original logic came from a place where people prayed to zeus and his family

as an agnost i think nothing is ever really certain
and if it is, i don’t know

i’m flawed, thus my experience of the world must be flawed as well

GA, you misread…

i.e. It has not been shown. If it had been shown, there would be irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God and this whole problem would be trivial. But it hasn’t. So it isn’t.

Personally I’m undecided on this. If the law of conservation of matter applied before the existence of the universe (and there’s no reason why it should) then it’s impossible for something to come from nothing at all, by design or otherwise. But if there was a creator, who or what created him? He can’t be eternal, because you yourself have just ruled that out…

Then again, is there any reason why something can’t come from nothing by chance? Is there any reason why cause and effect should apply before the creation of this physical world?

If you can show that the universe has a beginning, and also show that there must be a reason for this beginning, then yes, you have indeed proved the existence of a creator. But by creator, I mean “something that caused the beginning of the universe”; there’s nothing to suggest it is anything more than, say, a chemical reaction. There’s nothing to suggest it was a sentient being and certainly no evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

No ontological argument currently holds water, but equally it has yet to be shown that God implies a logical contradiction.

Feurbach makes a good attempt in the second part of his Essensse of Christianity; but from the times of the greeks and also before, I am sure, the Problem of Suffering has been the closest to imply a contradiction, even if it is not acceptable by all as logical.

The Problem, ahem, with the Problem of Evil is that it's not really a logical argument, it's a very clever induction. It certainly [i]seems[/i] as though an all-Powerful, all-good Being would not allow suffering. I mean, why would He? Ahh, but there's the problem. That we can ask "Why would He?" reveals that the Problem of Evil is not about logic. For if it were a matter of pure contradiction, there would be no wiggle room. Look:

A) Bill is married.
B) Bill is a unmarried.

There’s no wiggle room there. There’s no search for ‘why’ or how a married person would be unmarried. The only thing to fall back on is that perhaps either the term “married” or “unmarried” were not used in the usual way.

Now, with

C) God is all powerful, and All Good.
D) There is Evil.

You don’t have that case at all. Anyone who’s read on the subject will immediately think of the Free Will Defense, or perhaps another theodicy. In other words, reasons why C and D would both be true, despite their improbability. Improbability is the magic word. The Problem of Evil arguer relies on C and D both being true to seem extremely improbable. So improbable, in fact, that many people mistake it for a contradiction. However, as a matter of probability, it is an inductive argument, and therefore incapable of showing anything as certain as a contradiction. That’s my take on it.

This seems, unfortunately, to be true. The Problem of Suffering still counts as empirical evidence against God, making His existence less likely but not completely ruling it out.

Another example is the “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” problem. It initially seems to be a contradiction, but God’s strength and his rock-making abilities are both infinite, so it seems God can create a rock that he can only just lift, ad infinitum.

Another way of looking at it is that by asking the question, we are hypothetically assuming God’s omnipotent existence, at which point an unliftable rock becomes a logical impossibility. Then omnipotence can be cleverly redefined as “able to bring about any possible reality”; this means that the answer to the question can be no without denying God’s omnipotence.

I for one just wish someone would come up with a logically sound argument, just to put an end to all the fighting

Uccisore- It certainly seems as though an all-Powerful, all-good Being would not allow suffering. I mean, why would He?
O- Not “why?” but “how?”. If you accept that God is ALL-Powerful and ALL-Good, how can suffering exist?

U- Ahh, but there’s the problem. That we can ask “Why would He?” reveals that the Problem of Evil is not about logic. For if it were a matter of pure contradiction, there would be no wiggle room.
O- The problem is logically expressed as:
A) God is all-good.
B) God is all-powerful.
C) Suffering (or evil) exist.

We take “C” to be self-evident. We need only to look at a report from Africa when another child dies in the hands of his mother who is made to suffer, perhaps worse than her child by having to witness his death, and think that all he and she needed was rain. That is the accepted truth in the triad–suffering exists.
That taken as true invalidates at least one of the previous two. Maybe He wanted to save the child but did not possess the power to act= A is true B is false; or He is able to bring the rain and end the suffering, but chose not to do it= A is false, B is true.
And that is it: That is the entire contradiction. When the religious mind agrees with you on the existence of C, he is made to wrestle with the veracity of A and B, which he also takes as true.
C is true empirically. A and B theoretically.

Now, with

C) God is all powerful, and All Good.
D) There is Evil.

You don’t have that case at all. Anyone who’s read on the subject will immediately think of the Free Will Defense, or perhaps another theodicy. In other words, reasons why C and D would both be true, despite their improbability. Improbability is the magic word. The Problem of Evil arguer relies on C and D both being true to seem extremely improbable. So improbable, in fact, that many people mistake it for a contradiction.
O- The “all” makes it a contradiction, not an improbability. If you take “all” from C then I will agree with you.

Othafa- This seems, unfortunately, to be true. The Problem of Suffering still counts as empirical evidence against God, making His existence less likely but not completely ruling it out.
O- No. In fact it cannot rule it out to the logician, but the religious mind cannot accept a God that is not All Good or All Powerful.

Othafa- Another example is the “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” problem. It initially seems to be a contradiction, but God’s strength and his rock-making abilities are both infinite, so it seems God can create a rock that he can only just lift, ad infinitum.
O- The question is not for how long, but how that attrbute contradicts itself. God should be able to create a rock so heavy that even He could not lift, if He is all-powerful; but then when He can’t lift His own creation He is less that aa-powerful. The Freewill defense is similarly contradictory with God’s omniscence. In both sophistry and subterfuge is needed, which theologians are well versed in, to become the mind of God and say He self-limited his own power for the sake of man. What we find is that the true divine in theology is man.

Another way of looking at it is that by asking the question, we are hypothetically assuming God’s omnipotent existence, at which point an unliftable rock becomes a logical impossibility. Then omnipotence can be cleverly redefined as “able to bring about any possible reality”; this means that the answer to the question can be no without denying God’s omnipotence.
O- So God cannot create a rock so heavy that Her himself could not lift it? Well then, that “any” above needs revision, and that is the ususal defense: “any possible reality that does not contradict, that does not invalidate God’s existence”. Of course, my objection is that we seem to be talking more and more about a concept of the mind, our minds, that of an external object outside of ourselves. We are talking about the formal validity of an argument rather than the validity of either the premises or the conclusions reached with them. We have (as a race of believers)foisted attributes from our imagination into this idea of God as object.

I for one just wish someone would come up with a logically sound argument, just to put an end to all the fighting
O- It will never happen. You can convince a drug-addict that drugs are bad for him…that does not mean that he is quitting.

The rock-lifing problem is not a logical contradiction. You are trying to define God’s powers in terms of what God can do, which is ultimately fruitless. You’ll get tangled up in semantics while the believer looks on with a smirk. That is, until he gets bored and goes off to pray.

Mathematically, normal rules do not apply when dealing with infinity. If you like, there is a one-to-one bijection between every kilogram of weight in the rock and every kilogram God can lift, because both are countably infinite (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bijection.html)

God cannot bring it about that 1+1=3 (He can convince us mere mortals that this is true, but that’s beside the point) and yet we do not count this as disproof of his omnipotence. So let us define X to be the set of all actions that God cannot do. By God’s omnipotence, X is an empty set. To create an unliftable rock, God must create a member of the set X, which is logically impossible by definition, just like 1+1=3

Or, in simpler terms, God can lift an infinite rock. To create one which He can’t lift, God must create a rock bigger than infinite, which is impossible by the very definition of infinite. Again, God cannot bring about a logical impossibility, yet He is still omnipotent.

If you’re thinking of countering with “yes, but i define omnipotence to include causing logical contradictions” then you have pulled the rug from under your own feet: in such a world, not being able to do something does not deny omnipotence. Confusing, isn’t it?

Omar

Omar, the question doesn’t matter- If we were dealing with a true logical contradiction, there would be no question to ask- or if there was, it would be purely rhetorical. “But how can a circle have four corners?” In a the case of a true contradiction like that, one can’t even begin to ponder an answer. But in the case of “How can evil exist if God is good?” one can look for an answer, and many people believe they have an answer. If the answers proposed aren’t immediately and obviously absurd (not merely incorrect), then I think it’s clear what we’re dealing with isn’t a contradiction.

As you’ve formulated it here, there is no argument at all. Maybe if one stretches the definition of ‘all-good’ just so, and relies on the reader to make a similar stretch, you could get away with it. But really, you need this premise to make it work:

D) A good being would do everything in it’s power to prevent evil in all cases.

Only then will C, as you say, invalidate either A or B. All the controversy of the Problem of Evil revolves around D, because it is neither self-evident, nor is there any simple argument based on self-evident propositions that has been made for it, to my knowledge. I suspect that no self-evident argument will ever arise, since the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are so difficult to define- not everyone would even agree that they are exclusive to each other. All theodicies (explanations for why God and evil both exist) seek to show why D is false. I think the Free Will defense does an adequate job showing that D could be false, which renders A-D inconclusive. Another powerful argument concerns what many humans take to be greater goods, things like charity, mercy, forgiveness, and sacrifice, which cannot take place without prior suffering.

Uccisore- Omar, the question doesn’t matter- If we were dealing with a true logical contradiction, there would be no question to ask- or if there was, it would be purely rhetorical. “But how can a circle have four corners?” In a the case of a true contradiction like that, one can’t even begin to ponder an answer. But in the case of “How can evil exist if God is good?” one can look for an answer, and many people believe they have an answer. If the answers proposed aren’t immediately and obviously absurd (not merely incorrect), then I think it’s clear what we’re dealing with isn’t a contradiction.
O- You have different ways in which you can be contradicted, not just the logical way. A contradiction can be a statement or phrase that asserts both the truth and falsity of something; or a stement or phrase whose parts contradict each other (a round square)- that is a contradiction in terms, or by definition, but the problem of evil is dependent on life itself for it’s validity. It is not made up by definitions which stand in paper by themselves. I cannot draw you “Good or Evil”. If you do not see a problem, then the problem is not yet felt by you. The problem is empirical, and defined as a contradiction by me because it is a “situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another”.

Quote:
A) God is all-good.
B) God is all-powerful.
C) Suffering (or evil) exist.

As you’ve formulated it here, there is no argument at all.
O- Yes there is. It is inconsistent with our idea of Good, and Omnipotence that there should be situations which are identified by most as Evil. If God is all-good, and all-powerful, there should be no evil. If God is all-X there is no possibility for non-X. For there to be no inconsistency, no argument, as you so say, the Form would read.

A) God is all-good
B) God is all-powerful
C) Suffering (or evil) does not exist.

The validity of A and B allow for the existence of C. The existence of C prove the truthfulness of A and B.
Let’s travel to the OT. There, in 2 Kings we see religious logic, or the logic which I am talking about. When a King lost lands and/or was ursurped it was written that “He did evil in the eyes of the Lord”. When they recovered land or conquered new land then “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord”. Success, the meeting of expectations was the realm of Good and thus of God. The believer seeks to please God, that A may be true, for He should be Good with who He is well and pleased, and since B is universaly accepted as if by definition, We expect, out of consistency that C will be true for us. A is the input we can control and C is the logical output and basically the whole point of the religion. The problem of evil exists in broken expectations; when men who DO what God asked etc, did not get a fair return, were jinxed, short changed, their expectations let down by the resulting C.

Maybe if one stretches the definition of ‘all-good’ just so, and relies on the reader to make a similar stretch, you could get away with it. But really, you need this premise to make it work:

D) A good being would do everything in it’s power to prevent evil in all cases.
O- To the religious mind, I need not add what is inherent in belief, otherwise, why believe? Or better yet, why pray? As we use the word “Good” it would seem to me that one needs not further explain the formula. Good is something which is useful and beneficial. I need not expel in all-cases, for not all cases will benefit me, but instead define it as powerful enough to prevent evil to me and all things and people that that “me”, that metaphysical “me” contains.

Only then will C, as you say, invalidate either A or B. All the controversy of the Problem of Evil revolves around D, because it is neither self-evident, nor is there any simple argument based on self-evident propositions that has been made for it, to my knowledge.
O_ I point only to the use of our words, to the definitions of Good.

I suspect that no self-evident argument will ever arise, since the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are so difficult to define- not everyone would even agree that they are exclusive to each other.
O- Sophistry. A term is an exclusion. For us to discuss either we must be able to exclude the other. What is “good” about the Tsunami? What is “good” about “evil” and what is Evil about good?

All theodicies (explanations for why God and evil both exist) seek to show why D is false. I think the Free Will defense does an adequate job showing that D could be false, which renders A-D inconclusive. Another powerful argument concerns what many humans take to be greater goods, things like charity, mercy, forgiveness, and sacrifice, which cannot take place without prior suffering.
O- Do you rejoice when you cut a finger in that someone will get the opportunity to put a band-aid on it? Bam! Ouch! AHHH! What a blessing this is!!!

Othafa- The rock-lifing problem is not a logical contradiction. You are trying to define God’s powers in terms of what God can do, which is ultimately fruitless.
O- God, man, God. We are not talking about the Mover but of the Father, o.k? Thus, His power is appreciated always and only in relation to what He can do for Me. Personally I find the proble of this rock inferior to Epicurus indictement. It is a paradox, nothing more. Can the liar report on his own character? Can God try to outdo himself?

God cannot bring it about that 1+1=3 (He can convince us mere mortals that this is true, but that’s beside the point) and yet we do not count this as disproof of his omnipotence. So let us define X to be the set of all actions that God cannot do. By God’s omnipotence, X is an empty set. To create an unliftable rock, God must create a member of the set X, which is logically impossible by definition, just like 1+1=3
O- God’s omniscient, yet that would deny freewill. God is inmortal, so dying should be impossible, yet for our sake God creates that which is against his nature-- His own mortality. A miracle is nothing more than 1+1=3. A virgin that is also pregnant? Who would have thunk it?!!

If you’re thinking of countering with “yes, but i define omnipotence to include causing logical contradictions” then you have pulled the rug from under your own feet: in such a world, not being able to do something does not deny omnipotence. Confusing, isn’t it?
O- No, not at all. God is All in all. Omnipotence is here defined as having the choice of violating the rules of logic at will, simply to your leisure, locally, at one time, without denying the entire universe. Thus, all men die except for this exception or that brought about by the power of God, His omnipotence.

Well, certainly I can’t argue with this sort of thing. I suppose at any moment the proper feelings could overtake me, and I could come to agree with you. In the meantime, the best I can do is point out that The Problem of Evil is not a successful deductive argument. I agree it has a great deal of inductive appeal- that’s why it’s been around for so long. If the proper atheist stance is that the Problem of Evil should make you feel like there isn’t a God, and not that it actually demonstrates that there isn’t (or probably isn’t), then I’d settle for that.

Why not?

No. For one thing, you would have a big project ahead of you to prove that good and evil have as explicit a relationship as x and non-x. Even granting that, though, If God is all-X, all that means it that there is no possibility for God to be non-X (unless you’re a pantheist). If you consider the Creation distinct from the Creator, there is no explicit connection between God being good and the world being Evil, without a proposition like D.

If you feel the formula ought not be analyzed, then it isn’t really a formula. As I said, the Problem of Evil has a great deal of intuitive appeal. It’s just not a successful deductive argument. It doesn’t prove anything in the logical sense.

I’m sorry, but your beginning to wax almost poetic here. I don’t think we disagree about anything to be honest- I don’t think the Problem of Evil is deductively sound, and you seem to be using it for something other than a deductive argument, so I guess we’re on the same page.

Melodrama aside, it’s still a fact that charity is a good, and that it cannot come about without some level of suffering in the world. Most good things are that way- they come about from a striving, or a defeating of the elements or risks.

I can’t argue with this. Nor can anyone else. How do you disprove God, or anything else, by logical argument, when God can bend the laws of logic?

And yet, omar, you are arguing for these contradictions. How can you argue anything about God if he transcends logic? You can prove that it is impossible for God to exist and that his qualities are contradictory; but according to you, this proves nothing, because God can exist in a contradictory state whenever he likes. Would you care to clarify your position a little?

And while I’m at it…

…I’d like to second this.

They all have their problems.

Believers must prove the existence of God.
Atheists must disprove the existence of God.
Agnostics must prove that it is impossible to prove/disprove the existence of God.

Choose your poison.

Just for fun, a few arguments about evil and stuff…
If God is love, then he necessarily can’t violate laws of logic, as they are the guarantee of the respect of the loved ones (indeed, if 1+1 =1 or 1+1=3, you have annihilated or created someone, but we are not just photons : we are subjects of love, i.e. this must not happen because there is no respect of the loved one in such a behaviour, so the loving God does not consider us as quanta : good news).
What is matter ? Matter is something that can’t think, let’s say, but that has to be able to maintain a shape. Then, matter must be an inert something, considering love, but must follow rationnal laws in order to make possible the existence of beings : matter must follow mathematical laws.
Interesting mathematical system, in the sense that they allow someting as complex as a body to exist, is probably going to have some strongly non-linear component.
Problem : modern mathematics (cf chaos, catastrophe theory, etc.) shows that such complicated system necessarily creates catastrophes. Thus God of love has two choices : to create a univers of matter where catastrophes exist, or to create nothing. Then the question becomes : is it better that something exists or nothing ? But what seems plausible, it’s that catastrophes are inescapable in a material universe (as defined, matter is something that obey mathematical laws, and nothing else).
Christianism (yes, I am one of them, sorry guys !) proposes a solution : God can’t make pain and catastrophe disappear without making us all disappear, but he can come and suffer with us (of course, there are other considerations that allow a local violation of physical laws, but that’s another story).
What do you think of these bullshits ?

Marc

Omar- It is not made up by definitions which stand in paper by themselves. I cannot draw you “Good or Evil”. If you do not see a problem, then the problem is not yet felt by you.

Uccisore- If the proper atheist stance is that the Problem of Evil should make you feel like there isn’t a God, and not that it actually demonstrates that there isn’t (or probably isn’t), then I’d settle for that.
O- Yes and No. The problem of Evil leads to feelings that there is not a God, for It goes against the accepted ideas of the Deity. Now to the believers it hardly ever remains a belief that maybe the Deity is against them, or evil and therefore Evil exist; such a Being is unthinkable to the faithful. In practicality then God does not exist.
God, in my view, is a subjective idea, not an objective one. If the problem of E. makes you feel like there is no God, then, for you, there is no God. And because God is a personal idea, not a public object, like an elephant, the feeling dictates Being. Any perceived objectivity in the Idea of God comes from the object deified: Scripture.

Quote:
If God is all-good, and all-powerful, there should be no evil.

Why not?
O- If God is the Whole sum, the only power, all-powerful, then there is no-thing else, no other power, no lesser power, for then God’s power would not be the whole but only the greater part of power, but He is All, all-powerful. Add to this that He is also, in similar way, Whole-Good, the Only Good, every Good, All Good! Wherefrom comes limit, want and pain? Not “why?” but “how?”.

Quote:
If God is all-X there is no possibility for non-X.

No. For one thing, you would have a big project ahead of you to prove that good and evil have as explicit a relationship as x and non-x.
O- It is as easy as defining Good as the absense of Evil and Evil as an absense of Good, which is by the way that many theologians have in the past.

Quote:
Do you rejoice when you cut a finger in that someone will get the opportunity to put a band-aid on it? Bam! Ouch! AHHH! What a blessing this is!!!

Melodrama aside, it’s still a fact that charity is a good, and that it cannot come about without some level of suffering in the world. Most good things are that way- they come about from a striving, or a defeating of the elements or risks.
O- If a girl born without a nose inspires your charity towards her, that is Good but it does not mean that your actions of charity and your feelings of pity come to equal or offset her feelings of pain and suffering. As creatures we seek meaning for what comes first as meaningless. In Little House on the Praire, a young boy accidentally sets fire to a house filled with blind children and a blind mom within cannot see her child to safety. It was an accident but the feeling of pain is real and personal and in the episode the baby’s grandfather is in peril of loosing his faith in God. In the end, the father of the baby decides to erect a new house and name it after the baby. That is finding meaning, that is the first step to healing, that is…faith.
Seeking the silver lining, is to find meaning for the meaningless, the necessity in the needless, for only that which is needless is Evil. As it is, the POE is subjective, created and resolved withing the mind of a person. Faith eliminates that problem, overcomes it. Reason and logic create it.

Now to Othafa.

omar wrote:
No, not at all. God is All in all. Omnipotence is here defined as having the choice of violating the rules of logic at will, simply to your leisure, locally, at one time, without denying the entire universe.

I can’t argue with this. Nor can anyone else. How do you disprove God, or anything else, by logical argument, when God can bend the laws of logic?
O- That is why you do not prove nor disprove God by logical arguments. We can reflect on the idea of God but God as external reality outside of us, or God as God in Himself is beyond grasp.

And yet, omar, you are arguing for these contradictions. How can you argue anything about God if he transcends logic?
O- Well, Estragon what shall we do now but wait for Godot?

You can prove that it is impossible for God to exist and that his qualities are contradictory; but according to you, this proves nothing, because God can exist in a contradictory state whenever he likes. Would you care to clarify your position a little?
O- I want you to read the above post to Uccisore. If you Reason God by his attributes, the idea of Him becomes contradictory or inconsistent with experience of what is the case. However, for a man of faith, these inconsistencies are not, because faith is imagination, not reason, though often disguised as reason, and thus miracles that defy logic and experience become tenable. I cannot through reason, science or logic demonstrate how water can become wine, but I can imagine it, even if in contradiction with reason, science and logic.

I think I almost understand what you’re saying, but to be honest I’m a bit confused. For clarification - in your opinion, can your God affect me if I am unaware of the concept of God? How about if I don’t have faith in Him? Because if I have no faith, He becomes inconsistent with my reality.

And also, is God falsifiable? Is there anything at all which you would accept as evidence for the non-existence of God?

Othafa, I see you have many good questions. I shall try to answer most of them.

1. For clarification - in your opinion, can your God affect me if I am unaware of the concept of God?
   O- If you never hear of God, Allah, Zeus etc, you would probably be as affected by them as you are now by Olorun or Obatala. So, no. The affectation is internal. The times when miracles are experienced we can look at collective ignorance of natural events, the power of the mind, hallucination and imagination. The key ingredient is what you are to gain from it. What are the consequences? People could question the reality of Jesus resurrection, but did not want to because of the consequences- life would be a little less sufferable. The argument goes: “But if not X how can we Y”. Belief in X secures your desired Y.
   But the effects of religion are always present. We are pattern seeking machines–I hate to mislead you, so please take as a base metaphor, not a statement for materialism. Because of this we develop conspiracies, and tales of aliens, Ghosts etc. Gods are natural developments of the human mind.

2. How about if I don’t have faith in Him?
   O- A vampire can tell you that “You must have faith for that thing (a cross) to work on me”. You have no faith, I assume, in Allah. Can It affect you? Can It affect a Christian? No–But It affects those that have faith. But again, by “affect” I do not mean supernaturally, but psychologically.

3. Because if I have no faith, He becomes inconsistent with my reality.
   O- I agree. But what is this faith? Faith does work to make reality consistent with my desire. Reality is reconcilled with desire through Imagination.

4. And also, is God falsifiable?
   O- Not as long as you have faith, or are talking to someone with faith. Remember that truth is simply agreement. Truth is whatever we agree upon. Once we accept a certain set of rules as true (we in fact create a God of sorts) we then apply this rule to measure reality. If two atheist are discussing the question then God is falsifiable. If it is two christian, then the Lord is the only reason reality makes sense, therefore He is real, He is truth and unfalsifiable. If it is an atheist and a theist, then toss a coin and call it a day.

5. Is there anything at all which you would accept as evidence for the non-existence of God?
   O- There are many things, like The Problem of Evil chief among them, but you could say that this affetcs me because I have no faith, or that my faith rests on something other than God–perhaps Reason-- or that my faith is so alive that like Vladimir I wait and wait for Godot to prove my reason wrong.

I’ll accept religion in that form. If, forwhatever reason, you have faith, a whole sackload of philosophical problems become trivial and life is peachy. Without faith, everything becomes a bit more tricky.

(Random bit of Neitzche there, which I think sums up the appeal of religion perfectly)

I was going to write that I was envious of you believers, on the basis that you can build your philosophy on a handy belief instead of upon reasoning, but I then realised that atheism wasn’t all that different. My outlook is logical, because if I follow a chain of logic then I feel as if I have reached some sort of Truth, some accurate description of whatever objective reality is out there. But there’s no reason why logic should be more reliable than any other faith. There is only faith in logic.

So we reach an insurmountable stalemate, because both sides have incompatible measures of worth. Christians may argue between Protestantism and Catholicism, and scientists may argue about the variations of string theory, but they’ll never be able to compare with each other because there is no common ground. Even empirical observation counts for nothing; if i saw an angel, I would pass it off as a trick of the light or some other logical phenomenon, and similarly the Problem of Evil and other apparent contradictions are no trouble to those with faith in God.

It follows that the only way to bring someone round to your view is to alter what they have faith in. This is possible - personally I doubt i’ll ever be Christian, but if God Himself appeared to me then I might well be converted. To what extent, then, are we justified in arguing with those who hold different beliefs? Should we leave them be in their own personal beliefs, and only expound our views to those looking for a new philosophy? Or should we fight to make them see things as we do? Am I allowed to get mad at the Jehovah’s Witnesses who keep calling at my door?