semantics, philosophy, existence-of-godA question has been asked about what is god according to atheism. To truly understand what the non existence of god is according to atheism (and be able to discuss it) we need to know what “existing” means. Literally speaking, existing derives from existere, “to be standing between things”.
Some possible definitions (not intended to be exhaustive):
Some thing “X” exists for a group of people if the group of people shares a stable image that contains X. According to this definition, god exists since there are a large number of people sharing a stable image of god (even if there is a large number of images (answers here can witness that) and hence a large number of existing god).
Strengthening this; Some thing “X” exists if all human that can talk share a stable image that contains X. Obviously, according to this definition, god does not exist (even if the definition is poor and requires one to define “can talk”).
Opposite; Some thing ‘X’ exists if X can be measured by a significant change in a physical quantity. It is less obvious whether god exists with this definition but still the concept of god in people’s mind made them build church which is measurable.
Question: what is the definition used by atheists?
Please note that the question is not about reducing atheism to the non existence of god.
I can’t speak for all atheists (no one can), but I would say something exists if it, or an effect it brings about, can be objectively observed and/or measured, and attributed unequivocably to it. In answer to your example of church-building, it doesn’t mean god exists, it merely means that the idea of god exists.
It is not enough for humans (whether a small group or everyone) to merely agree that something exists. Millions of children ‘share a stable image’ of Santa Claus, but he doesn’t exist in a real physical sense.
Personally I cannot find a good enough definition, this has therefore led me towards ignosticism (which is a "form" of strong atheism).
There are only three forms of existence that I know of:
physical existence (i.e. God is measurable physically)
Example: A God that alters the Universe in any way, so it has physically measurable properties, like mass/energy, etc.
mathematical existence (i.e. God is demonstrable or postulated)
Example: A God that is expressible as a mathematically or logically provable theorem, or a number, see Pythagoreans
metaphysical existence (i.e. God exists as a concept or an abstraction, but is not materially or physically measurable. There is no possible criterion of affirming its existence besides faith.)
Example: A God that is "absolute perfection". See what the Catholics believe. Yes, it confused me, too.
Note that only the first two describe a - somewhat - objective reality. The third strictly refers to a subjective reality, in that everybody has a different concept of God and might or might not agree that God exists. In any case God would be as real as the "concept of beauty" which is tantamount to say that God is "something we can think of".
Now, none of these three forms of existence seems to apply to God.
The branch of philosophy devoted to the study of what existence means is called ontology.
In my not so humble opinion, a thing exists if it doesn’t go away when I stop believing in it.
thankyou to the one who posted the first response(9). I just had a sudden flash of inspiration while reading it: something can only be said to ‘exist’ if it has an effect. if it has no effect whatsoever, there could be no meaningful talk of its ‘existence’. this applies to any subject under consideration.
There no point in the atheist defining either “god” or “exist”. That is up to the theist. The skeptic can then decide whether or not to accept the proposition.
Otherwise, there are an infinite number of hypothetical “gods” and ways for them to “exist” which an atheist can disbelieve. And unless you let the theist write the definitions, you are likely arguing against a straw man.
It would simply indicate that the word ‘god’ (like ‘unicorn’) refers to an inexistent.
To be precise, we could perhaps formulate this as: real without being actual.
So ‘God’ refers not to a being but to an image or idea, a concept. But the question here is precisely what sort of concept it names, what virtual being it refers to; and most importantly the humiliation of reason required to posit the conception of a benevolent deity in the first place.
It is, as so often, a question of language. We use the term ‘exists’ in multiple ways, which are close enough to be confused, but not close enough to build a sharp definition.
L. Wittgenstein made an example with games. You have games like chess and bridge on the one side, and sport games like football and olympic games on the other side. You have children, playing the game of ‘mum and dad’ and so on.
If you focus on a subset it seems, as if a sharp definition is possible, but if you try to get everything below a common subset, it’s not possible. They are related here and there but don’t build an intersection, which is the core of ‘game’.
And so the word ‘existence’. For some things to exists we would ask for evidence in a physical sense, for measurements (is there some poison in the food?). But what about the fore-mentioned terms ‘love’, ‘nothing’, ‘the number 5’, ‘Brazil (the country)’ or ‘the value of 5 $’? Does Brazil exist? Can you prove it? If people stop to believe in Brazil - will it still exist? With no taxpayers, no army, no diplomatic exchange it will collapse. So it is a shared fantasy - but isn’t it more real than god?
I would say so, because it is more robust against doubt. If millions and millions of people would agree, that Brazil is just a convention, and that it doesn’t exist without people believing in it, people could still practice the cult of Brazil, raise it’s flag, sing the hymn, form a national football team.
In contrast religious people believe that god exists beyond their belief. Some believe they are thrown into hell if they don’t believe.
Back to the topic: The problem here is to expect, that there is a sharp definition of the word ‘exist’ which means the same in every case. If you can loosen that expectation the problem smoothly vanishes at the horizon, which doesn’t exist. :)
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.