Author
|
Topic: Agnosticism, atheism and the likelihood of god thingies & "Hermitic Disproof" (Read 1249 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.81
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Agnosticism, atheism and the likelihood of god thingies & "Hermitic Disproof"
« on: 2016-01-06 11:20:40 » |
 |
This was written for an atheistic agnostic, but might be more generally useful.
- Do you vest belief in god thingies? If the answer is no, you hold an atheistic stance towards god thingies. No more, no less. Because atheism speaks only to vesting belief in god thingies.
- Do you know any intersubjectively verifiable attributes that are possible in this Universe that, if possessed, would qualify a thing as a god thingie? If you do, as appropriate, a) please provide the evidence so that it may be inspected, b) claim that there is no such evidence, but that you know that there are god thingies even if you do not (or cannot) prove it, or c) state that there is insufficient evidence to allow you to respond b, and that you do not have the evidence to respond with a. If your answer is a, you may be the first rational theist I have met, and I might end up agreeing with you, if your answer is b, you are likely a theist, and if your answer is c, then you hold an agnostic stance towards god thingies, because agnosticism refers to the method of evaluating evidence, in this case of the attributes of gods supposedly qualifying them as gods.
- Finally, you might like to speculate on the likelihood of god thingies. A good place to begin might be:
Hermitic disproof of unattributed god thingies
While we know that billions of religiots (anyone who vests belief in any god thingies (God Thingies, noun plural. God thingies are anything claimed as possessing attributes qualifying them to be regarded as deities by anyone at any time, including by referring to any god thingies as deities without proving that such god thingies possesses such attributes, or indeed identifying what attributes would be sufficient and necessary to regard god thingies as deserving of being regarded as deities. In this Universe things may occur as objects (comprised of energy or matter) about which intersubjectively verifiable predictions may be made or as imaginary objects for which this is not the case. Until somebody explains what intersubjectively verifiable evidence there is for an attribute or attributes qualifying something possessing such an attribute or attributes as a deity, and then shows intersubjectively verifiable evidence that a particular god thingie or thingies exist and possesses those attributes, all god thingies will remain imaginary. God thingies are plural not only because mankind has introduced hundreds of thousands of such god thingies (billions if we include the various forms of ancestor worship) all of which are equally as valid only as imaginary objects, at least until the above conditions are met for one or more of them, but also because until the attributes of such a god thingies are fully qualified, it cannot be known whether or not such a god thingie is congruent with other god thingies.), including goddities (god thingies where their supporters though repeatedly challenged, still cannot provide any evidence that their god thingies possess any attributes that earn them the right to be regarded as deities and where they are prima facie ridiculous, in that they cannot assist their supporters in any way in this process, no matter the cost to their followers of their belief.), or forces, or "the supernatural", or who regard themselves as being affiliated to any deistic or theistic religious organization. "Religiot" originated because religiots cannot agree between themselves on the meaning of religion, and because there was, until now, no all inclusive word for all people who are not atheists.) have vested belief in billions of god thingies, All of them that I have investigated have turned out to be goddities. I don't know that all candidate god thingies are goddities, but I do know that until somebody proposes one or more intersubjectively verifiable attributes that would earn some thing the right to be regarded as a god thingie, that I don't need to think about the potential problem, because such thingies are purely imaginary thingie, and the onus is on the proposer to show that such thingies could exist, any more than "boojums" could potentially exist.
That is because, in order to prove the existence of one or more of god thingies, we would need to identify the attributes earning that god thingie the right to be regarded as a deity. Until then set theory, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity suffice to build usable models of the Universe which preclude the the need to address god thingies which are not models and make no significant predictions:
1) Real things are things about which predictions can be made which can be validated by means of intersubjective verification (definition).
2) Imaginary things are things that can be imagined (definition).
3) The Universe consists of all things which can be experienced, real and imaginary (definition).
4) All things that can be experienced in the Universe are real, imaginary or both (corollary of 3).
5) All imaginary things in the Universe may be placed in the set of imaginary things (tautology).
6) All real things can be imagined (corollary of 1).
7) All things in the Universe may be placed in the set of imaginary things (MP 6 + 5).
8) For each object in the set of imaginary things which is a real object, the object must possess at least one attribute identifying the object and therefore it can be predicted that the object possesses at least that attribute (MP 7 + 1).
9) Any object that does not have at least one attribute identifying the object is not a real thing (MT 8 + 1).
10) Anything that can detect any property of any thing can be detected (Quantum Mechanics observer effect).
11) Anything outside the Universe is incapable of determining anything about objects inside the Universe, because if it could determine anything, it could be experienced and would be inside the Universe (MT 3+ 10).
12) Nothing outside the Universe can determine anything inside the Universe (Contradiction of 11).
13) Nobody to date has been capable of providing intersubjectively verifiable evidence of attributes possible in this Universe which are necessary and sufficient to ensure that a god thingie qualifies to be regarded as a deity. (Conclusion from Internet survey on Disqus over the course of many years).
14) No attributes which are not possessed by existing real things have been identified as necessary to explain any intersubjectively verifiable observations. (physics, cosmology, biology, medicine etc.).
15) God thingies hypothesised by humans to date are almost certainly imaginary things, because there is no intersubjectively verifiable prediction that can be made about the attributes of god thingies (MP 8 + 13).
16) God thingies hypothesised by humans to date are almost certainly imaginary things, because there is no intersubjectively validatable necessity for any attribute which might be possessed by hypothesized god thingies which are not already possessed by real things (MP 8 + 14).
(v0.5 of the "Hermitic disproof of unattributed god thingies")
God Survey Questionnaire Currently in Use:
Please note that in the following, where evidence is sought, that this means that the evidence should be in a form which may be intersubjectively verified.
1) What attributes make your god thingies deserving of being regarded as gods and why?
2) What evidence do you have that possession of these attributes is necessary and sufficient to regard a thingie as a god thingie?
3) What evidence do you have that such attributes may exist in this Universe?
4) What evidence do you have that your god thingies possess such attributes?
5) What evidence do you have that other thingies do not possess these attributes?
6) What evidence do you have that your god thingies exist?
7) What evidence, however hypothetical, might lead you to change your mind over any of the above?
8) Can you provide a single falsifiable prediction made by the alleged existence of your god thingies that would be falsified if they did not exist?
9) Consider that anything that has a significant affect upon the Universe may be detected through its affect upon things in the Universe. If there is evidence that your god thingies have affected the Universe, where can that evidence be evaluated? If there is no evidence your god thingies have affected the Universe, then why should they be regarded as deities?
10) Why should anyone take your ideas about god thingies seriously if you don't know enough about them to be able to answer the simple questions above about them?
[v 0.41]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
