** Indescribably divine makes for an ineffable nothing **

Dealing with those mystically inclined, the *I-feel-god-in-my-heart* crowd, and in general all irrationalist believers requires a different approach from dealing with rationalists.

Their usual spiel: I know that my god exists -- but he/she/it cannot be described, or is beyond human understanding.

The philosopher Wittgenstein, in one seemingly cryptic utterance said, "A nothing would be as good as a something about which nothing could be said."

Spelled out: you claim that something exists, but no property (like, being blue) could ever be ascribed to it. This is the famous Western "via negativa" - negative path to god - also the "neti, neti" not-this, not-this of Hindu mystics. God is not blue, is not evil, is not good . . . .

Logically, however, a claim that something exists does not ascribe a property to it -- or, as you ought to have learned in logic class -- existence is not a predicate. (Non-existence is not a predicate either.)

Nobody can talk about Nothing. Who's doing the talking here? (Nobody?) And what's being talked about? (Nothing?) And what did Nobody say about Nothing? Zen Buddhism figured all this out long ago -- hence, koans if you're lucky or a hard slap in the face when you're persistently obtuse.

‘A god exists’ seems to be saying something, but it is meaningless. You might as well be saying bar-bar or saying nothing at all. The Viennese novelist, Robert Musil wrote "The Man without Qualities." The man who can't be there. A nobody. Nothing.

If a god "is a something about which nothing can be said," then this putative something is equivalent to "a nothing." So-called mystics in India, China, Japan, and even Europe apprehended that any *god* without qualities was nothing. And, they said so. And, they were right.

bipolar2
© 2008

Epicurus destroyed the omni-god 300 years BCE -- that is, long before the world became burdened by the homicial cults of xianity or islam.

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 where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him ‘god’?

Too bad Paul didn't get a decent training in philosophy. He should have listened rather than preached in Athens.

Xianity has spent so much time trying to shore up its failed pantocrator that there's even a name for this branch of theological special pleading, theodicy.

bipolar2
© 2008

To set the context, my immediate circle of friends and family are all Christians.

When pressed (and boy does that happen!) I would honestly say that I don't think of myself as an "atheist", because when you don't believe something exists you do not define yourself in those terms.

Basically, as an atheist, that's the last word I would use to describe myself.

It's my very subjective sense of the English language that 'atheism' is mostly used to denote the belief that God does not exist, except when an atheist wants to avoid having to try to prove a negative proposition.

Oh the twists and turns the theist mind will take in order to avoid having to prove their god, because they know that they can't meet their burden of proof.

You can call your belief whatever you want if you can get enough people to use the word.

Or my non-belief in what you are positively asserting.

It seemed to make the argument: "I can't see it, therefore it's not there", or "I don't agree that there is a God, therefore I believe that there is no God".

I suggest you read the OP again then. No one is claiming that things we can't "see" don't exist. That would be an absurd position to hold, and it's merely a strawman if you are proposing that anyone here has made that argument.

Claiming that it's reasonable to think that the belief in God will eventually vanish as more and more scientific truth is discovered is VERY close to claiming that God doesn't actually exist.)

No, it's making a simple observation that as we learn more about the natural world, the more we realize that no god is necessary, that there is no evidence for this god, etc. There may always be a way for one who believes in god to salt away their god and keep their god from the light of reason, but that god will diminish into ever smaller spheres of influence to the point that we may as well not even consider such a god.

If the need for intellectual humility applies to us, still more should it apply to them. If we have little enough reason to think that we know the most profound truths of the cosmos, still less do we have reason to think that those who were so much less advanced than us knew them.

My argument was a simple argument from induction: every other cause we have discovered has been natural; it is reasonable to assume that the ultimate cause, whatever form it takes, however we might recognize it, will prove to be natural as well.

With all due respect, you mention ultimate causes with remarkable ease, as if they are just around the corner, if only scientists looked. I would argue that there is no such thing as ultimate causes, as any set of explanation that we can conceive of can be subjected to the simple but devastating question of "Why?"

Greek philosophers, some of whom were atheistic about the Greek Gods, felt compelled to suggest a Demiurge to end the eternal causal chain. Are you comfortable with the idea of an eternal causal chain? If not, how do you deal with the question: "Why is this the ultimate cause?"

Sincerely,
Aferim

But again, I would point out that it does indeed make a testable claim of evidence: its concordance with reality. You said "What makes it scientific is that it makes appeal to evidence or the lack thereof." - I can think of no greater testimony than that of a concept which contradicts reality.

In other words, to use my example from above, if square circles are impossible, rationally and scientifically, then so is god, rationally and scientifically. I doubt you would claim that we cannot prove that square circles are impossible scientifically (or would you?), so this shouldn't apply to the omnimax god either?

Jim got to my answer before I did. If one defines god as the Christian god, well, then your assertions are correct, and indeed rational. However, as the deity in question changes, so, often, must the objections.

Insofar as the difference between rational and scientific, allow to give you a scientific argument why I disbelieve in god: Every creative agency we've ever observed has radiated energy, and typically speaking the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the mass and/or intricacy of the created object. Nuclear power plants radiate more energy than gasoline engines. Based on this general principle, any deity powerful enough to create the entire Universe ought to be radiating stunning amounts of energy. Yet this unique source of energy is nowhere observed.

This argument is both rational and scientific; rational because the acceptance of its terms leads logically to the conclusion given. What makes it scientific is that it makes appeal to evidence or the lack thereof. Saying that "god cannot exist because of the contradictions inherent to his definition" is certainly rational, but not susceptible to evidence, as it makes no testable claims about reality per se.

Of course if the theist wants to define his god differently he can, but then he's better called a deist, pantheist or something else. A theist generally means a person who believes in a personal all-powerful creator being.