I have to say a word on debates, since some people simply aren’t getting it. I am decided on the god question. I know that there are no gods. In other words, no gods exist. There’s simply no debate to be had. My reasoning is fleshed out in a number of posts and a book, so if you want to know why I boast such certainty, consult those posts or consult my book. If you aren’t convinced, it is likely that your illiteracy is a hindrance; that’s certainly likelier than my reasoning being wrong. As a former believer, this is a question I considered closely and at one point, a question I wanted answered differently. So there’s a lot that’s been said about my transition from desiring one answer and accepting the contrary, i.e., desiring for a god to exist and accepting that there aren’t any.
Illiteracy is a major issue and I see it time and again. The fact is that complex arguments aren’t easily understood. This generation wants answers in a microwave. A question like this has a slow-cooked answer. One has to, in other words, delve deeply into history, science, philosophy, and other fields, and that’s an endeavor few people will make time for; it’s also an endeavor few will devote themselves to. It takes a lot of reading, a lot of questioning, a lot of burrowing into one rabbit hole after another, consulting one expert after another. It’s simply not a simple solve. To adequately answer the question of whether there’s a god, you need to ask whether there’s space for the supernatural in our universe. That question approaches the nature of reality, our apprehension of reality, and whether the human mind is adequate enough to arrive at an answer.
It takes quite a bit of digging and it’s the sort of digging everyone simply isn’t inherently capable of. It’s clear to me that some people have too poor an IQ and RQ to even grasp the concepts in these fields fully. Put simply, science and philosophy tend to go over some people’s heads, and I’d be lying to say that I have confidence that anyone can understand the relevant subject matter fully enough to apprehend the consequences and entailments of what they come to know. Perhaps the big questions require a sizable intellect, and illiteracy and the lack of raw potential simply close some people off from being able to understand the answers.
I’ve delved deeply for close to seven years now. This isn’t some attempt at ego-stroking because I really couldn’t care less about knowing more than the next person; maturity does that. There are things of greater importance than having more knowledge than someone, knowing more facts than someone. Yet the fact is that I have delved deeper than most people care to, and this has been made painfully apparent in one debate after another, so excuse me if I have come to the conclusion that there are no worthy opponents.
Here’s the crux! It’s not simply about people’s inferior or lack of knowledge of the relevant topics, it’s that the most eager are simply on the wrong side. What they’re defending isn’t even tenable. It’s not as though we’re sitting down to have a debate about the Copenhagen interpretation versus the Everettian. We are literally debating evolution (science) and creationism (pseudo-science); we are debating the veracity of Catholic “miracles,” which are all demonstrable malarkey and manage to remain unexplained, in some cases, because experts aren’t allowed to study the purported miracle. They often can’t date the relic and consider its chemistry. Or we’re debating whether a given god exists. None of these positions are tenable; they simply don’t come close to being supported by evidence. It’s literally like trying to debate the “merits” of racism; there are no merits! You’re wrong! Want to persist in bullheaded belief? Have at it! But let’s not pretend that you can even defend such a patently ridiculous point of view.
I’ve matured enough to state it plainly: you’re wrong! And I’m not going to give undue broadcast to your nonsense point of view. It doesn’t deserve a stage with true, more robust views. The question of whether a child-murdering, rape-approving, human sacrificing, genocidal war god exists isn’t a philosophical question. Theists often try to conflate this ridiculous deity with philosophical concepts, but any honest consideration will see how divergent the concepts are. You can’t even begin to argue that such a deity is perfectly moral and just. You can’t even begin to argue that a clumsy deity is omniscient, that such a powerless deity is omnipotent.
An omniscient deity would think of a better way than human sacrifice to save humanity; such a deity would foresee every possible road of ruin and prevent them from taking shape. The so-called god of the philosophers simply isn’t the Judeo-Christian god, and is, at bottom, a fancy of human idealization. The concept is nothing more than humanity writ large, a purely human ideal in where a human person exceeds all of his limitations. Where humans are limited in knowledge, power, presence, control, lawful and moral judgment, time, and so on, the god of the philosophers is unlimited in every category, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, sovereign, just, omnibenevolent, timeless, and so on. The narrative of how anthropology subsumes theology has somehow been lost in Westernized philosophy of religion and has convinced legions of fools that they are somehow studying a higher concept that might exist within and beyond the universe. No! You are studying your basest vanity and conceit.
Religion is pure fiction; faith is nonsense that I’ll no longer entertain in dead-end debates with obstinate fools. There are a long list of such fools touting unearned certainty in one false view after another. It’s an absolute bore. Never mind the very public chagrin such people are made to suffer. And that’s the part I really don’t understand. The interlocutors that message me sometimes are like people with no fighting experience asking to fight with a trained MMA fighter in a world where there’s no such thing as luck. In other words, in the past, I might have indulged you and allowed you to step foot in the ring knowing full-well the embarrassment you’d suffer shortly after. Now it makes no sense. There’s nothing entertaining about a fight I know I’ll win, hence why my debates are philosophical in nature.
We can debate actual science and philosophy. Challenge my philosophy of mind! Call my portrait of naturalism incomplete. Try to make me abandon the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics. Try to convince me that there isn’t life on other planets. These are discussions I’m willing to have. But discussions on whether your pet theory god exists? I’ve moved well beyond that question. Never mind that it’s a question you can ask yourself and answer for yourself should you dare to dig.
Go dig! I can do the digging for you and throw you down the hole and the sheer depth of the drop will prove enough to scare you. Make your own hole and go at your own pace. Trust me, its better than me hoisting you in at breakneck speeds.