Why Would God Do Such A Thing?
Currently Listening To: Gunther - Ding Dong Song.
Current Topic of Interest: Jack Thompson Would Go Crazy.
You had to know where I got the sexually suggestive song from, right? At any rate, I haven't had time to write because i've become a manager at the Beanery, which resulted in a 45 hour work week. I swear to God, how do people do it. You want to crash the moment you get home.
Work isn't what this discussion is about though. This is mostly about Him. I sat down and thought about what I am and quickly conclude that I'm about 81% asshole and 19% normal when I'm around friends. I really need to change that to what I am when present with family: while my motivation is because I think it's the healthy thing to do, some people would turn to God for inspiration and I just cannot. I wonder sometimes, do I believe in God?
Strong atheism tends to be based off the deity in question containing logical contradictions. Like some people, I admit that there may be ghosts, magic, and unicorns, but since there is no credible evidence for their existance and the burden of proof is on the positive I assume they do not exist. This is generally a softer form of atheism. However, what about square circles? Do I take the position that a shape that both does and does not have corners might exist, but dismiss it for a lack of evidence? No. Rather, I actively state that square circles do not and cannot exist, because it's definition contradicts itself. This is the strong atheist position as someone once explained it.
Religion wouldn't have a problem if they did not define their Gods in a paradoxical manner. The christian God is often defined as omnipotent; capable of doing anything. However, true omnipotence is just as paradoxical as the square circle because it can conflict with itself and lose either way. An example: can an omnipotent being create a rock it coudl not lift? The answer is yes, then there is something it cannot do (lift). If the answer is no, then there is something it cannot do (create the rock). Either way, it is not omnipotent. Therefore, an omnipotent being is by definition not omnipotent and a contradiction in terms. In this respect - I believe I am atheist. Using logic and reasoning, god cannot exist and therefore I am a strong atheist.
One might say that it is impossible to prove a negative, that you can't prove the nonexistence of something, similar to how one cannot prove an untruth. In reality, it is quite possible. For example,
If I cannot see a bike on the porch, there is not a bike on the porch.
I cannot see a bike on the porch.
Therefore, there is not a bike on the porch.
This proves a negative, doesn't it? We take these sort of things for granted and the real problem lies in getting a religious individual to accept the premises. While most people may not have a problem accepting them, a true believer in "bike on the porch" might refuse to accept the first on grounds that the bike may be invisible, or the second on the grounds that they think I am lying about what I see. Even if they attempt the first, upon looking out the window they will change their standards. This arrives at an interesting predicament: our conclusions are only as valid as our premises, and premises cannot be proven with certainty except by introducing more unproven premises. A theist can "win" every time by refusing to accept a premise.
And that is the beauty of a paradox. You don't have to get them to accept any extraneous premises, because they lie within the believer's own claims. In other words their belief disproves itself.
Although, one would be right in assuming that there is a sort of unstated premise that this relies upon, one that everything relies upon, really. That unstated premise is simply that A=A a, that something is the same as itself, that a pen is a pen; the ultimate tautology. It is the basis of all logic, all language, all thought, and everything else is just premises and sextrapolation. That's what the impossibility of paradoxes stems from, the statement "a connect be equal to a" extrapolating from "a equals a".
This is exactly what they are challenging when stating something like "God isn't bound by logic and can create paradoxes," whether they realize it or not. Ignore the fact that this causes the collapse of all reasoning, meaning and thought, argument from consequence is a fallacy after all. The problem with that objection is that it is completely meaningless by its own standard. The statement "something is not always the same as itself" only works if you presume that it implies "something is not always the same as itself." If you accept that statement, that's not a presumption you can make. Furthermore, accepting it makes it very easy to disprove. Six sample disproofs are:
1. doda9dfsa7fdsafj
2. Because yellow birds fly faster.
3. With Jenga in the summer cats, he hung around the house and got in the way of law and order.
4. This statement is false.
5. How much would coudl a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
6. T'was lammy, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Arguments based on logic need no logic to disprove. Without a=a, everything above means everything and nothing, proves everything and nothing, and disproves everything and nothing. Of course, disproving it doesn't nevessarily disprove it, but let's give up talking under the presumption that words mean nothing.
While I do make assumptions without basis like a religious person, the difference is their assumption is "God exists" while mine is "A=A." You can't really call it irrational or illogical because it is nothing but the unwillingness to abandon logic or rationality. While it may be a flaw to consider that all things are themselves, this is a flaw shared by absolutely every statement in existence, including those that argue against atheism.
However, while I believe that I may be an atheist in regards to omnipotent beings, I like to optomistically think of myself as agnostic, but the definition itself is a misconstrewed one that hasn't been accurately defined. Many people think poorly of it because they think of it as strong atheism or the rejection of god and by extension devil worshipping, but for me, it simply implies the idea that if their is a god, He never intervenes in a way that will prove His existence, and thus is unkown. Generally, I am unsure of whether or not god exists.
What hurts is that if God does exist and can be explained by Christian beliefs as one who can interfere in this world - sending a desciple or even the son of god, Jesus - why does it feel the world is being steered towards an incredibly wrong direction? Why do figure heads that are meant to be good appear to do so much harm.
Mother Theresa for instance. She would denounce pain medication for others because she believed that pain was good for the soul. She surrounded herself with misery, not so she could help, but as a lesson in faith for others. Despite the fact that she enjoyed world-wide celebrity status and massive monetary contributions, instead of contributing this money to her places for the sick, she built a Church. She wasn't some great and charitable person, she was a zealot who exploited people who were doomed to begin with, under the guise of helping them for God.
Then due to her condemnation of any birth control, the population problems in India were severely excacerbated. She was incredibly unsympathetic to rape victims, treated those with STD's as sinners and not as victims or patients. She was blinded by her faith to such an extent that she was ignorant of the real world consequences of her influence over people.
Who could follow something like that? And she was a figurehead for Christianity.
Alas, there is too much to worry about presently to really think about death, the afterlife or God Himself - because I need to get up at 5 AM and it is currently 11:43 pm.
I leave you now.
-Ghene
Oh, you touch my tra la la.
Current Topic of Interest: Jack Thompson Would Go Crazy.
You had to know where I got the sexually suggestive song from, right? At any rate, I haven't had time to write because i've become a manager at the Beanery, which resulted in a 45 hour work week. I swear to God, how do people do it. You want to crash the moment you get home.
Work isn't what this discussion is about though. This is mostly about Him. I sat down and thought about what I am and quickly conclude that I'm about 81% asshole and 19% normal when I'm around friends. I really need to change that to what I am when present with family: while my motivation is because I think it's the healthy thing to do, some people would turn to God for inspiration and I just cannot. I wonder sometimes, do I believe in God?
Strong atheism tends to be based off the deity in question containing logical contradictions. Like some people, I admit that there may be ghosts, magic, and unicorns, but since there is no credible evidence for their existance and the burden of proof is on the positive I assume they do not exist. This is generally a softer form of atheism. However, what about square circles? Do I take the position that a shape that both does and does not have corners might exist, but dismiss it for a lack of evidence? No. Rather, I actively state that square circles do not and cannot exist, because it's definition contradicts itself. This is the strong atheist position as someone once explained it.
Religion wouldn't have a problem if they did not define their Gods in a paradoxical manner. The christian God is often defined as omnipotent; capable of doing anything. However, true omnipotence is just as paradoxical as the square circle because it can conflict with itself and lose either way. An example: can an omnipotent being create a rock it coudl not lift? The answer is yes, then there is something it cannot do (lift). If the answer is no, then there is something it cannot do (create the rock). Either way, it is not omnipotent. Therefore, an omnipotent being is by definition not omnipotent and a contradiction in terms. In this respect - I believe I am atheist. Using logic and reasoning, god cannot exist and therefore I am a strong atheist.
One might say that it is impossible to prove a negative, that you can't prove the nonexistence of something, similar to how one cannot prove an untruth. In reality, it is quite possible. For example,
If I cannot see a bike on the porch, there is not a bike on the porch.
I cannot see a bike on the porch.
Therefore, there is not a bike on the porch.
This proves a negative, doesn't it? We take these sort of things for granted and the real problem lies in getting a religious individual to accept the premises. While most people may not have a problem accepting them, a true believer in "bike on the porch" might refuse to accept the first on grounds that the bike may be invisible, or the second on the grounds that they think I am lying about what I see. Even if they attempt the first, upon looking out the window they will change their standards. This arrives at an interesting predicament: our conclusions are only as valid as our premises, and premises cannot be proven with certainty except by introducing more unproven premises. A theist can "win" every time by refusing to accept a premise.
And that is the beauty of a paradox. You don't have to get them to accept any extraneous premises, because they lie within the believer's own claims. In other words their belief disproves itself.
Although, one would be right in assuming that there is a sort of unstated premise that this relies upon, one that everything relies upon, really. That unstated premise is simply that A=A a, that something is the same as itself, that a pen is a pen; the ultimate tautology. It is the basis of all logic, all language, all thought, and everything else is just premises and sextrapolation. That's what the impossibility of paradoxes stems from, the statement "a connect be equal to a" extrapolating from "a equals a".
This is exactly what they are challenging when stating something like "God isn't bound by logic and can create paradoxes," whether they realize it or not. Ignore the fact that this causes the collapse of all reasoning, meaning and thought, argument from consequence is a fallacy after all. The problem with that objection is that it is completely meaningless by its own standard. The statement "something is not always the same as itself" only works if you presume that it implies "something is not always the same as itself." If you accept that statement, that's not a presumption you can make. Furthermore, accepting it makes it very easy to disprove. Six sample disproofs are:
1. doda9dfsa7fdsafj
2. Because yellow birds fly faster.
3. With Jenga in the summer cats, he hung around the house and got in the way of law and order.
4. This statement is false.
5. How much would coudl a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
6. T'was lammy, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Arguments based on logic need no logic to disprove. Without a=a, everything above means everything and nothing, proves everything and nothing, and disproves everything and nothing. Of course, disproving it doesn't nevessarily disprove it, but let's give up talking under the presumption that words mean nothing.
While I do make assumptions without basis like a religious person, the difference is their assumption is "God exists" while mine is "A=A." You can't really call it irrational or illogical because it is nothing but the unwillingness to abandon logic or rationality. While it may be a flaw to consider that all things are themselves, this is a flaw shared by absolutely every statement in existence, including those that argue against atheism.
However, while I believe that I may be an atheist in regards to omnipotent beings, I like to optomistically think of myself as agnostic, but the definition itself is a misconstrewed one that hasn't been accurately defined. Many people think poorly of it because they think of it as strong atheism or the rejection of god and by extension devil worshipping, but for me, it simply implies the idea that if their is a god, He never intervenes in a way that will prove His existence, and thus is unkown. Generally, I am unsure of whether or not god exists.
What hurts is that if God does exist and can be explained by Christian beliefs as one who can interfere in this world - sending a desciple or even the son of god, Jesus - why does it feel the world is being steered towards an incredibly wrong direction? Why do figure heads that are meant to be good appear to do so much harm.
Mother Theresa for instance. She would denounce pain medication for others because she believed that pain was good for the soul. She surrounded herself with misery, not so she could help, but as a lesson in faith for others. Despite the fact that she enjoyed world-wide celebrity status and massive monetary contributions, instead of contributing this money to her places for the sick, she built a Church. She wasn't some great and charitable person, she was a zealot who exploited people who were doomed to begin with, under the guise of helping them for God.
Then due to her condemnation of any birth control, the population problems in India were severely excacerbated. She was incredibly unsympathetic to rape victims, treated those with STD's as sinners and not as victims or patients. She was blinded by her faith to such an extent that she was ignorant of the real world consequences of her influence over people.
Who could follow something like that? And she was a figurehead for Christianity.
Alas, there is too much to worry about presently to really think about death, the afterlife or God Himself - because I need to get up at 5 AM and it is currently 11:43 pm.
I leave you now.
-Ghene
Oh, you touch my tra la la.
| Permalink | 