Against Weak Atheism and Agnosticism

[chriscase]

I stumbled across this idea in a marginally related thread.

Suppose we define theism, weak atheism / agnosticism and strong atheism in simple terms:

1) Theism: An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator-God exists.
2) Weak Atheism / Agnosticism: It's possible that an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator-God exists.
3) Strong Atheism: It's not possible that an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator-God exists.

I know there are many other qualifiers, ways of admitting or not admitting the possibility, etc. But I think that these definitions are reasonable, restricted to the simple question of the existence of God.

Here is the argument. If we admit the possibility of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator-God, we must also admit the paradoxes that arise from the possible existence of such an entity. Examples are the so-called "Problem of Evil" and the ability of an omnipotent entity to negate itself.

In the absence of an omnipotent entity, such contradictions would spell disaster for any rational proposition. Thus the possibility of a creator-God leads either to the refutation of the proposition (via contradiction) or the necessity for an omnipotent entity that can overcome the contradictions ipso facto.

Anyone seen this argument before? Thoughts?

[Chaigidel]

your definition of theism is erroneous entirely

and to call agnosticism weak atheism is just stupid-- since you can be an agnostic theist.

[Tankbuster]

Chaig is correct, in both respects.

Theism is the belief that a god exists who has an interest in our affairs (whether that be caring, watching, or interfering).

[Gaidin]

Theism is the belief that a god exists who has an interest in our affairs (whether that be caring, watching, or interfering).

Theism is just the belief that a god exists. Deism is a subset of Theism.

[Last Roman]

and to call agnosticism weak atheism is just stupid-- since you can be an agnostic theist.

please do explain...theism is belief in an active deity, agnosticism is if you think it's impossible to know if there is a deity.

You can't declare to maybe believe in a deity but then say you know there is one.

[Djûn]

please do explain...theism is belief in some deity, agnosticism is if you think it's impossible to know if there is a deity.

You can't declare to maybe believe in a deity but then say you know there is one.

Agnosticism is the beleif that it is impossible to find valid evidence for God. Theism is the belief in God. Belief need not require evidence.

[Last Roman]

Agnosticism is the beleif that it is impossible to find valid evidence for God. Theism is the belief in God. Belief need not require evidence.

ah, thanks for clearing that up.

[chriscase]

Admitting that the flying space gnomes may (somehow) exist does not require me to explain the paradoxes involved in them actually existing. Saying they may exist is simply acknowledging that we can't prove a negative. So acknowledging that they may exist doesn't require me to explain things about them. That is purely the problem of those who maintain they do exist.

This is a reasonable rebuttal if we consider the proposition of the existence of an omnipotent God to be empirically measurable. However, I would contend it is not empirically measurable, supportable or falsifiable, because it is an exclusively logical proposition and must be considered in a logical context. I bet if we constructed a system of measure that included an element whose measure was always larger than any other measure, that system would fail to satisfy the axiomatic characteristics of a well defined metric (likely the triangle inequality).

As a logical proposition, the existence of an omnipotent God can and must be evaluated based on what the proposition makes possible just as much as it might make other consequences necessary. Making the contradictory possible is just as damning as making it necessary. For instance, many fine theorems in Set Theory were developed during the Naive era, before Russel's Paradox was discovered. Virtually none of them actually used the collection of all sets (the paradoxical culprit), but as soon as the paradox was discovered, all other results were in jeopardy because they lived in the same logical system that allowed Russel's paradox.

[Lord de Lyonesse]

your definition of theism is erroneous entirely

and to call agnosticism weak atheism is just stupid-- since you can be an agnostic theist.

I agree

666th post woooah!

[Dayman]

Not only that, but agnosticism makes no claims about the existence of a deity, just that it is unknowable. Weak atheism is just scientific skepticism applied to the god question.

[chriscase]

your definition of theism is erroneous entirely

and to call agnosticism weak atheism is just stupid-- since you can be an agnostic theist.

As I said, it's a restricted definition concerning only whether the typical monotheistic God does, does not, or may possibly exist.

Agnostic theism (by my definition) would be contradictory, but of course the point of my post is that once one admits theism, contradictions are not particularly problematic. In fact, I could easily be an atheist if I were a theist, since an all-powerful God could easily cause His own non-existence.

I suspect in practice an "agnostic theist" is someone who practices ritual theism but adheres to an ideology of agnosticism in the intellectual domain. Probably contradictory again, but it's hardly rare for inconsistent personae to coexist within an individual.

Chaig is correct, in both respects.

Theism is the belief that a god exists who has an interest in our affairs (whether that be caring, watching, or interfering).

If you want to pursue permutations on whether God exists and is therefore morally ambiguous or even evil, it's tangential. Call it Abrahamic, Christian, monotheistic, whatever. They are all beside the basic point of the exercise. Even if we exclude the quality of omni-benevolence, other contradictions arise. But I think omni-benevolence is a rather common attribute assigned to God in at least some faiths, so excluding it seems petty.

Not only that, but agnosticism makes no claims about the existence of a deity, just that it is unknowable. Weak atheism is just scientific skepticism applied to the god question.

If the answer to the question is unknowable, then it's possible such a God exists. If we can't be scientifically certain whether such a God does or does not exist, then it's possible such a God does exist. Other differences aside, both positions avoid commitment to a definite affirmation or denial. It's something they have in common.

[Copperknickers II]

You cannot apply a rational argument to faith in a god, which is inherently irrational.

[Dayman]

You cannot apply a rational argument to faith in a god, which is inherently irrational.

How is god inherently irrational? That sounds awfully like special pleading to me.

If the answer to the question is unknowable, then it's possible such a God exists. If we can't be scientifically certain whether such a God does or does not exist, then it's possible such a God does exist. Other differences aside, both positions avoid commitment to a definite affirmation or denial. It's something they have in common.

Agnosticism avoids commitment, but weak atheism asserts a lack of belief in a deity. Not negative belief, and as a weak atheist myself, I consider the odds of god existing the same as the loch ness monster.

[Copperknickers II]

How is god inherently irrational? That sounds awfully like special pleading to me.

Not god, but Faith. No Christian will seriously argue that there is a scientific basis for a God, they state He is 0utside the realms of what can be proven or disproven or even hypothesize in science.

[GuineaPig]

I'd define weak atheism is not believing in a god, and strong atheism as belief there isn't a god.

[Dayman]

Not god, but Faith. No Christian will seriously argue that there is a scientific basis for a God, they state He is 0utside the realms of what can be proven or disproven or even hypothesize in science.

Actually, a lot of Christians seem to try to prove god or disprove science.

[Dr. Croccer]

Theism is simply the belief in a God, it does not have to be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc God, as long as it is a God.

[Helm]

I don't think it's impossible that biblical God of the bible exists, though the existance of something we would consider to be a god is certainly possible, not that we have found evidence for such a thing. I guess I'm a moderate atheist.

[Jubal_Barca]

Strong atheism - the belief that there is no god - is as unfounded as theism.

I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Flying Space Gnomes. I have seen no evidence for them, they are unnecessary for the world to function as I know it, therefore I simply take the asumption they do not exist.

[GuineaPig]

Strong atheism - the belief that there is no god - is as unfounded as theism.

I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Flying Space Gnomes. I have seen no evidence for them, they are unnecessary for the world to function as I know it, therefore I simply take the asumption they do not exist.

When people say this, I am genuinely puzzled. Believing that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it is equal to believing in something without evidence for it? It may just be your wording, however, because ultimately your statement is sort of correct: believing there is no god and believing there is a god are equally unprovable; however, I would say not believing in a god is more founded because there's no evidence to support it. Likewise, I'd say not believing in Bigfoot is more credible than believing in it, because there's no evidence to support Bigfoot's existence. However, both are unprovable.