Truth-Values

I just recently came out to my family about being an atheist. So I thought it might be worth while to state my position clearly. For those of you that read by blog already, you are probably pretty familiar with most of these positions but this probably will be my most in-depth argument against god, as well as what it takes to establish truth-values. I think it will be worth your while.

When debating religion I often get frustrated because there is never a consistent argument that is fallowed through in depth (I believe this is the case that because religion cannot stand once there is an objective methodology for determining truth-values, which I plan to make the case for).  The argument always switches from the subjectivity of beliefs, to morality, to “life is only worth living with god”, to “you are just scared that god exists”. And even if a point is made consistently it is always riddled with ill defined statements that are essentially meaningless upon examination.

It seems to be assumed that as an atheist I am the equivalent of someone pre-Columbus who said “well the world doesn’t look round, so it must not be!”.  Or people might come to the conclusion that I heard through out my childhood, and the first argument that I had to refute before I became an atheist that “atheists just have faith that god doesn’t exist”. the general assumption is that I have simply closed my mind to the possibility of future knowledge. However this is not the case as I hope to demonstrate by explaining truth-values and how god interacts with a consistent methodology  for determining it.

So how do we determine truth-values? here is a basic outline of what we can consider the basic elements of knowledge.

1. Clear definition of position
   • Hypothesis
   • Null-Hypothesis
2. Logical consistency
3. Evidence
   • Counter Evidence

The first step is to define the position being put forward. We need to have some kind of idea about what we are talking about before we put forward any kind of truth-value. This is done with a hypothesis, and a null-hypothesis. If a statement is true then the opposite must also be true. If you say “dur foobar exists” what what exactly do you mean if you say “dur foobar does not exist”  there needs to be some kind of difference the hypothesis, and the null-hypothesis if what you are saying is going to mean anything at all.

If your position is not well defined, and there is no difference between your hypothesis and null-hypothesis then it doesn’t matter how much logical consistency or evidence that you have. It is completely irrelevant. You cannot give any truth-value to something that you haven’t even defined yet. In short, a statements must be defined, and definable.

The second step is logical consistency. If some one says that a square-circle exists, then we don’t have to search the whole universe until we can really conclude that a square-circle exists because it is a logical contradiction. The foundation of all knowledge is that A=A, or in other words things are what they are, and they are not what they are not. Something cannot be true and false at the same time. If you claim that they can be then you have forfeited all knowledge and no longer hold the privilege of calling my beliefs incorrect.

After we have a well defined position, and we make sure that there is a difference between the hypothesis, and the null-hypothesis, and our position is logically consistent now we can move on to the third step: Evidence.

I will not insult your intelligence by telling you what evidence is, but it is important to note then when you define something as evidence you are defining something else as counter evidence. If you set up a criteria for evidence, then there must be a difference between evidence and counter evidence (essentially the same thing as null-hypothesis). If I set up an “experiment” where I am try to determine if people like my lemonade by their facial expression, but I consider both positive facial expressions and negative facial expressions to be evidence that they like my lemonade, then I obviously haven’t proved anything at all, because I have set up a situation where everything is considered evidence and there is no difference between evidence and counter evidence.

Applying God to Truth-Values

If you assert that god exists, then it must be clearly defined exactly what you mean when you say “God”. If god is “unknowable” then you cannot claim that he exists or that there is evidence that he exists.

Is god material or immaterial? Is he all powerful, all knowing, all loving? Or just some of those characteristics? All this need to be stated clearly. I literally have no idea what people are talking about when they say “god exists” (and I would contend that they don’t either). What does “immaterial” even mean exactly? Is there any kind of difference between an immaterial being existing and not existing?  It seems that that null hypothesis and hypothesis are synonymous statements. What exactly is meant by “all-knowing” I have no idea what that statement means. If “all-knowing” is a statement beyond our comprehension, then that’s fine, but in which case you cannot claim that it exists because it cannot be defined in the first place, and without definition logical consistency and evidence are irrelevant.

Even if a person in the 15th century said “x-rays exists” this would be an incorrect statement.  Because he would be unable to define or comprehend what a x-ray was, he is just stating a random word. He might as well be saying that “dur foobar” exists. It is an entirely meaningless phase to say that “god exists” until it can be defined.

Lets assume that there is some possible way to define god and move on to logical consistency. We must now ask ourselves if our definition of god is logically consistent.  An all knowing and all powerful god is not. In other words can god do something that he knows he won’t do? If he can then he is not all knowing, if he can’t he not all powerful.  Saying that god is both omnipotent and omniscient is literally like saying that a square circle exists, or 2+2=5.

Is god immaterial? This is a logical contradiction. Existence is a state of matter (and a word derived from the properties of matter) So how is it that god can “exist”? Saying that anything “immaterial” exists is saying that existence and non-existence are the same thing. This comes back to definitions, what exactly does “immaterial” mean? You will have a hard time defining this because all knowledge, and language is derived from the material world.

Phases like “immaterial” and “beyond reality” end up being synonymous with non-existent, and not real.

How about a material god? I admit that this is the strongest case for god, but most do not find it satisfactory, mostly because it is in direct contradiction with the old testament god who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe (clearly a material god could not have created the universe). And also because this god seems to bring up more questions then it answers. One of the most important being: can we really call this thing god at all if is limited to laws of nature? Or is it simply a very powerful being? But countless other questions arise also. How do we know there is only one? How do we know its not sadistic? How do we know if it is not lying? Once we let go of the false world of perfection we can no longer just assume that god is good, or powerful, or any of these things. The possibilities are endless. Calling god material seems to be trying to make god fit the mold rather then consistently apply what god has been understood to be throughout history.

Now on to evidence. Lets assume that all of my statements previous are all false. God can be defined, and is logically consistent. If that is the case then I am no longer a “strong atheist” but rather a “weak atheist”. If some one tells me there is a teapot orbiting around the sun, I probably will not be able to disprove this, but considering the unlimited possibilities of things that could be orbiting the sun that I also cannot prove, it seems that it would be more appropriate to say “I do not believe that a teapot is revolving around the sun but i cannot be 100% sure” then the agnostic position of “I have no idea if there is a teapot revolving around the sun”. However if you would like to call me a teapot agnostic, I suppose I could live with that.

But considering that I think anyone will have a very difficult time defining an immaterial being and explaining how an immaterial being is not a logical contradiction, and how a material god isn’t at best a very questionable god, but more accurately probably not a god at all. I can stand strong on my atheist position without a lot of reference to “there is no evidence that god exists”. Rather I would like to examine what theists often call “evidence”

As we explained before, if you claim evidence you must also claim that something else would be counter-evidence. For example, if you say “I prayed to get better and I did” then you must accept that every time that some one prays and doesn’t get better as counter evidence. Because it is considered quite amazing anytime that someone does get healed for reasons unknown, and that people pray all the time when they are sick, then it is safe to say that there is more counter-evidence then there is evidence. Maybe its all up to god? Very well, in that case you cannot accept anything as evidence because god inherently unknowable. You can’t say you were healed by god any more then you simply got better any more then you can call static a portrait of the Mona Lisa. 

Need another example? Sure! Lets say that you site that at church you “feel that god exists” as evidence. Very well, in which case is it evidence when someone at funeral “feels like god doesn’t exist” that god does not exist? All of this needs to be considered.

We have been ignoring that we are looking at evidence for statements that cannot be defined in the first place, and are logically contradictory. As I have pointed out a few times, all this evidence is irrelevant if we don’t complete the first two steps of truth-value. We all want to start with evidence and come to conclusions with out any reference to definitions and logical consistency. If we simply assume that very unexplainable event validates our cultural prejudices we are simply committing an error, and a lack of curiosity. The conclusion of any honest person would be “something happened that we don’t understand” any other conclusion is arbitrary. That's the funny thing about unknowable things… they are unknowable.

Conclusion

Surely I cannot “prove” everything.  That’s not the point. The point is that I don’t have to take every arbitrary and absurd claim seriously. And not all statements have equal truth-value. 2+2= 4 and 2+2=5 are not on equal grounds.  Before you assume that the reason I don’t believe what you do is “Satan’s influence” its worth considering that you simply haven’t put forward a convincing argument. If you want positions to be taken seriously then you need to take the time to work them through the rigorously frame work of determining knowledge, and accept that there is no exceptions.

Am I arrogant for saying there there is no knowledge out side of logical consistency and evidence? I am only saying that I am not the exception to the rule, and you aren’t either.