Faith in a Box

The point he makes about defining a divine entity is an excellent one. I’ve debated with a few theists where I immediately asked them to define “God.” Every time, they struggled to form a complete answer that was generic enough for me not to be able to find fault with it. In the end, when I pressed them for specifics regarding their faith, they fell back on “it defies words,” “you just know,” or some equally non-answer answer.

Each time people defend arguments against their faith claiming “Religion is a private matter”. Read this satire to find out the stupidity of this logic – http://www.fakingnews.com/2009/09/student-expelled-from-school-for-wearing-pink-underwear-moves-hc/

Well done.

I particularly like the quote “evidence of superior intelligence and power does not constitute evidence of specific gods”.

And also “it’s not whether we believe in gods but how we treat each other that says the most about our character”.

Yes! I’ve been wanting to shout out one of his arguments for ages: even if something happens that appears miraculous, whatever the agent is (if one exists) cannot be determined by human observers. Even if the agent directly (verbally) or indirectly (e.g. through symbols) claimed a cause consistent with or related to religion X, there’s absolutely no way to know it’s not a deliberately deceptive wizard, demon, time-traveler, or alien. The very fact that something has abilities beyond our comprehension means that it’s probably capable of reliably deceiving our best instruments.

Deception by a natural agent (however advanced) is always a more likely explanation than an agent that transcends nature. It’s like the old “dog ate my homework” ploy, except the dog is spelled backwards.

He’s slightly difficult to follow, as he doesn’t pause enough between paragraphs.

Great video…but that accent doesn’t sound quite pure British to me. Maybe a bit of antipodean in there?

Excellent video. It would be amusing, though, to take that same video and replace the audio with the same words but spoken with a “thick American drawl”. We might have to slow down the slide transitions, though. If I had a little more free time, I’d do it myself.

I think it’s funny how all the antagonists depicted are white, pretty people. Everything is politically correct, in the illustrations at least.

An excellent video.

I will step into this tide. I understand his arguments fully, but it appears to me that it creates just as big a problem for atheists as theists. If we posit the existence of God X in the realm which is inaccessible to us, then it seems that we could propose endless possibilities of what could and could not exist in that realm. The things that he lists that could not exist in the realm (e.g. an omniscient being capable of choice) don’t follow since the realm is inaccessible. We would need some more information about the realm before we could propose anything. It worked for the cube because we know something about the cube because it exists in our realm, an accessible realm; however, any such propositions about an inaccessible realm bring up the inescapable question—why is that impossible in that realm? If the realm is inaccessible, then it’s possible that God X could not logically exist and equally possible that God X could logically exist. If I am missing something, please explain how this does not pose the same problem for both sides?

i’m going to attempt to respond to that.
i think i understand what you’re saying.

the things that were listed as things that couldn’t exist were logically impossible.
Most people (if not all) have a specific idea when they say ‘omniscient’. Most (if not all) have a specific idea when they say ‘choice’. If someone made the statement ‘this omniscient being is capable of choice’ we take it to mean ‘this individual that knows all that has happened, that is happening, and that will happen and that knows its actions of the past, present, and future is capable of making a decision about its action that may go against its previous and current knowledge of what it would and will do.’

I think this goes with the idea of a squared circle or a married bachelor. We have a specific idea of what a circle is and what a square is. We have a specific idea of what being married is and what a bachelor is.
The cube exists (as an idea) because we have a settled-on definition of the cube. If my definition of a cube was ‘[standard cube] but with an inside that’s larger than the outside’ and was different from your definition, we would have to settle that before talking about cubes.
(in the example given, it’s assumed that we’re talking about a cube with an inside that isn’t larger than the outside)

He talks a little about this in the section on [vague and specific definitions] and on [things beyond our understanding].

I guess if you were to say ‘green ripicorns can’t possibly exist’ then i suppose that’s just as valid as someone saying ‘green ripicorns do exist’. In that case, there may be a ‘problem for both sides’.

He addressed this in [vague/specific] and in [things beyond our understanding].

I love the lunchtime scene that starts at 3:47. The maker of the video has no problem with private belief, but once you start bullying others into accepting your belief, the burden of proof is on you. Nice.

Then, of course, there’s the oncological argument: I survived cancer, therefore God exists.

Great video. It poses the problem with brilliant eloquence, which unfortunately means that most of the Christians I would like to persuade will be completely unable to understand it.

Well put, hoverfrog. Or (?) alternatively I summarize it as “The infeasible didn’t just become feasible because it’s believed to be in the box. It’s still just as infeasible.”

I love those videos. They do fantastic work!

@animation student

I think I understand what you are saying and after watching the video again I see exactly what you mean. He does have a list of “logical impossibilities.” So we could add a square circle to that list. However, I still don’t think this advances the case against theism without also advancing the case against atheism.

According to the video, a theist must provide evidence that God X exists in that realm. At this point, the only thing in favor of the atheist is if such a person proposes a “logical impossibility.” But the problem still remains, how do we know for sure that a square circle cannot exist in that realm. It is inaccessible to us, so we cannot state with any assurance that things are such in that realm to prevent the possibility of a square circle. The problem as I see it is that he tries to reveal a logical flaw in the argument for theism, but includes philosophical arguments in his “logical argument.” This somewhat muddies the argument because an “inaccessible realm” could possibly have a cube where the inside is larger than the outside. What if time and space interact differently in that realm such that a larger area could exist inside the cube than outside the cube? This is where I see the problem. My point is that this argument could easily lead to an argument something like this:

Atheist: God X could not possibly exist because it is logically impossible that a space-less being can inhabit space, much less all of space at once. It would be like a square circle.
Theist: You are wrong because you are imposing our finite experience upon an infinite God X. God X is other than we are. It is possible that God X can be a space-less being and still inhabit space in a realm outside of ours.
Atheist: Yes, but you have no evidence to show that this other realm exists or that such a thing is possible.
Theist: Can you prove that this realm does not exist or that a space-less being cannot inhabit space in this other realm?
Atheist: I have no reason to believe that such a place exists—there is simply no evidence that would lead me to believe it is so.
Theist: I have no reason to believe that such a place does not exist—there is simply no evidence that would lead me to believe that it is not so.

This leads to a tireless debate. The only hope at this point is if the Theist defines God X in such a way as to self-destruct. There is no logical impossibility of a “loving God who allows eternal agony.” There is a philosophical problem with that, but logically this is a possibility. An omniscient being capable of choice is likewise a philosophical problem, not a logical problem. The being can know what choice it is always going to make; the only logical problem occurs if the being chooses something different than what it knew it would choose. There is no logical problem with a perfect being that needs to be worshiped, that’s a philosophical problem. The only one close to a logical problem is a non-spatial omnipresent being. But I think this could be explained as a perception problem as a commenter of the video stated on YouTube,

I think I have found a convoluted example where a square can appear to be a circle. But it really doesn’t say anything about the intrinsic properties of the object, so much as flawed perspectives.

To a flatlander, pushing a square orthogonally through their plane would look the same as pushing a same-sized circle through in the same way. So to the flatlander, the square and the circle would look the same.

So I still think this argument cuts the same branch from underneath the atheist as he is trying to cut the branch from under the theist.

Mr. Hyde Says:
So are you saying that atheism is logically ludicrous because it also makes a claim (although it be a negative)? It sounds like your argument supports an agnostic position more than atheism.

Mr. Hyde,

You are applying a too narrow definition of atheism. Atheism simply means not having theistic belief (Not believing in god). You would have to provide another adjective (like “strong”) to refer to someone who claims to have absolute knowledge that there is no God. I would agree with you that claiming such absolute knowledge about a supposed inaccessible realm is unsupportable.

Many atheists who read this blog (who are also agnostic) find it frustrating when people refer to anyone calling themselves an atheist as someone who claims absolute knowledge that there is no God. We view that as a straw man atheist.

This has been a wonderful exchange. But I think this discussion has somewhat demonstrated my point. This argument isn’t 100% fool-proof.

@bernerbits

It is called shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion.

There is an assertion in an atheist claim and I don’t mean that one has absolute knowledge. But the assertion could be summarized like this, “I do not believe God X exists.” That is an assertion just as much as the theist who claims God X does exist. Therefore, the theist has every right to ask, “What brings you to that conclusion or what reasons do you have for not believing God X exists?” Is this not fair?

Likewise, I understand that this video is Qualia’s reasons for holding his view. I just don’t think they are good reasons.

@Aj

I’m not sure what you mean by time and space interacting differently. A three dimensional cube cannot be larger inside than outside regardless of time…
There are escapes for that, perhaps this god doesn’t know, who can’t do anything. An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god who allows eternal agony however is a logical impossibility unless this somehow stops a greater agony.

Please explain how that is a logical impossibility (point-by-point so I make sure I understand your view)?
As far as the cube, it is theoretically possible that the cube could contain a black hole. This would mean that the inside of the cube would be larger than the outside of the cube.

Regarding my previous example, and to answer your question directly, the claimed dragon-owner does NOT have every right to ask, “What brings you to that conclusion or what reasons do you have for not believing there is a dragon in my basement?”. No, this is not fair. You don’t need any reasons. You’re not the one making the claim.

@Aj
I apologize, I should have been more specific in regards to what I was asking you to clarify. I wanted you to clarify your statement, “An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god who allows eternal agony however is a logical impossibility unless this somehow stops a greater agony.” This is that to which I was referring asking you to clarify point-by-point. My apologies for not making that clear in my original comment.

Mr. Hyde,

I think Epicurus said it best: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

This is basic theodicy. If a good person is moved to relieve the suffering of a stranger within their power and knowledge. Then an all-good God must then relieve all suffering with all-power because they are all-knowing of the suffering.