There is no god. There, I said it.
The discussion surrounding the two flavors of atheism has been bogged down for a while. Far too often a watered-down argument (and a perception of weakness) is presented when a more assertive claim is perfectly defensible. And all of this is done in service of a narrative that is quite irrational.
First, definitions: Both the
positive and
negative atheist lack a belief in the existence of any god. Where they differ is that the positive atheist takes it a step further and asserts that there is no god. Neither position is a claim of absolute certainty.
If you accept negative atheism, you might as well go all the way to positive. It's easy to show that it is only a baby step away. But before that, let me address the conversation itself.
90% of the time when a negative atheist defends his position (while distancing himself from positive atheism), his claim will look something like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negative atheist
Well, I can't completely, 100%, absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no possible, conceivable, imaginable way that a god of some vague, nebulous definition might exist, so... I'm just gonna withhold judgment for now.
|
I'm exaggerating, but only a little.
There's another attack on positive atheism you have probably heard before, this time from theists:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theist
The only way you can know God doesn't exist is if you had knowledge of all existence, and then you would be like God.
|
Both of these are blatant examples of special pleading
WP . Where else do we use this standard when discussing existence? If someone claims that there are Reptilians infiltrating the White House, do we require that unwavering, absolute proof to the contrary be presented before we feel comfortable voicing strong disagreement? If someone claims that Bigfoot is in their backyard, do we withhold judgment until we acquire 100% knowledge of the universe? No, we don't. Why should we start here?
Given all of that, showing God does not exist is quite simple. I will do this by use of a simple analogy to illustrate a rational thought process.
Suppose I (a perfect stranger) were to say to you, "I am a dog owner." Do you believe me? You probably do. You wouldn't withhold judgment until some kind of evidence about this particular dog is presented.
Why do you believe me? This belief is not completely without evidence, but the evidence is contextual. You know that dogs exist. You know that it is quite common for people to own dogs. You know that dog owners typically talk about their dogs. My claim of dog ownership perfectly coincides with other, easily-verifiable facts. Sure, I
might be lying, but lying about this would be far more unusual than me simply telling the truth.
Take it a step further. What if I went on to describe my dog thus: "He's 20-feet tall, weighs about 2,000 pounds, and can leap over the Empire State Building."
This time, you take my claim as false. Why is that? Because of everything you know about dogs and physiology and the laws of physics. My claim is now
sharply in contrast with the facts. There's no need to sit on the fence and wait for me to produce photographs of my very large dog: You are perfectly justified in immediately saying I'm wrong.
Now, let's try something different.
What is the God claim all about? In general, it is the claim that there is a non-physical entity capable of many extremely powerful acts, such as creating things out of nothing, or reshaping the entire universe in an instant. But more to the point, this entity has a
mind.So what are the contextual facts about minds? Humans have them. Other animals have them. So far, so good. But where do we experience minds that are not tied to a brain or some kind of physical substrate? Where do we see minds that are capable of making/shaping things, not by triggering nerve impulses in hands, but just through sheer willpower alone? Nowhere. Again, a claim is presented that does not conform to the things we all know and understand.
The God claim is, on its face, completely contrary to the facts. Sure, it
could be true, but it
most likely isn't. As such, we are justified in the immediate rejection of the claim that there is a god. Such rejection should not be confused with close-mindedness. We should remain open to evidence, but until it is produced, we are arguing from a solid foundation when we say there is no god.
