Of course. But did people go around in groups saying "Believe that Pluto exists, or we'll burn you at the stake"? The existence of Pluto was confirmed in the 1930's, and now it is a matter of scientific fact. But so what? What kind of impact does this fact have on your life? This knowledge makes no difference to our daily lives. However, this is not how the supposed "knowledge" that god exists is treated. Instead, people want this "knowledge" to be the most significant issue of the lives of others. Why is it so important to the theist that others believe this claim when they don't? In this sense, you can see immediately how fatal a proof of god's existence would be to religion. Think about it: If it could be proven that a god exists, it would simply be another item of reality open to scientific scrutiny, just like Pluto. There would be no need to "believe in" it. Scientists do not gather on Sundays to reinforce their "belief" that apples fall to the earth when dropped from a tree or that Pluto orbits the sun outside Neptune's orbit. One does not need "faith" when he can prove his verdicts by means of reason. Faith is only needed when one claims something to be true which he cannot establish by means of reason. Thus, faith is merely a cover-up, a passkey for those who confuse the arbitrary for knowledge, or, more likely, who want others to commit themselves to such a confusion.

Yes, Pluto existed before we had proof of its existence. This not only confirms the primacy of existence principle (since existence precedes conceptualization), it also points to the fact that proof is contextual in nature. We must discover the facts of reality before we can claim them as knowledge, and the process of that discovery takes place by means of reason, which is the faculty which identifies and integrates what our senses provide - namely evidence of things which exist. Proof is a process of logically relating that which is not perceptually self-evident to that which is perceptually self-evident. Whether the existence of Pluto is observed by inference from the orbital patterns of its celestial neighbors, or by extending the range of our senses by technological means, the same absolutes hold: existence exists and man can comprehend reality by means of reason. These facts are fundamentally rejected by religious philosophy.

What does being "superior" have to do with basic epistemological fundamentals and the reach of reason? The nature of something which actually exists does not preclude it from being discovered; rather, questions which are pertinent here are issues of access. For instance, there is nothing about Pluto as such which precludes us from being able to discover its existence or identify its nature means of reason. The problem is that Pluto is not accessible to unaided vision. But with technology - namely the invention of the telescope - we can bridge that gap, bringing the object within the range of our perception by extending that range. Nothing about the nature of Pluto itself precluded men from discovering its existence; rather it was its distance between it and us, making our relationship to the distant planet remote. Once we had the hardware necessary to bridge that visual gap, however, it was just a matter of time before its existence could be discovered. This is not the case with "god"; if theists proposed that some technological apparatus could be invented in order to make it perceptible to our senses (as the telescope did in the case of Pluto), the proof of this alleged being's existence would have been sealed long ago. Are theists proposing any technological inventions which can enable us to verify their claims that a god exists? No, of course they aren't. Rather, they hold that, no matter what, this being will always lie beyond our senses. In other words, their claim is literal nonsense, and what they propose instead of technology which extends the range of our senses is a series of gimmicks and evasions intended to conceal the fallacious nature of their confessional investments.

Not only in height; buildings also have greater weight, storage capacity, working spaces, stability, resistance to elemental forces, etc. See, that's the whole thing with questions like "if we can't be superior, how can we claim to prove or disprove?" It is entirely vague to say that something is "greater" or "superior" to man. In what way is it allegedly "superior" or "greater" to us, and what relevance does this matter have? Indeed, to make the claim that something is "superior" or "greater" than us is to assign an identity to something; but if one does this in the very attempt to validate the claim that it exists, the question of its existence has been wholly begged: it's existence is already assumed (since knowledge of its identity has been claimed). So, in response to such questions, I take the advice of Proverbs 26:5 - "Answer a fool according to his folly."

Then say just that!

If something is true and it is accessible to our senses, we can discover it. If it is true and not accessible to our senses, we should expect that technology, if not now then sometime in the future, should enable us to bridge the gap in order to discover it. Claiming "knowledge" of something which one claims to exist, but stipulates that it is neither accessible to the senses nor accessible by means of technology, is the claim to "knowledge" beyond reason, and thus a self-contradiction. Such "knowledge" can only be "acquired" by "faith," or some other mystical "means" - which always amounts to knowledge by no means, which is to say that one is claiming that something is true only because he wants it to be true.

In metaphysics, faith is the expectation that reality will conform to consciousness (e.g., "God created the universe by an act of will," Peter can walk on water if he *believes* he can; Jesus turns water into wine just by deciding that it should be wine, etc.). In epistemology, faith is the determination to insist that something is true because one wants it to be true (as exemplified by the behavior of believers; notice how believers will persist in their claim that god exists no matter how many counter-points are offered to obliterate their apologetic arguments).

The point is, if you assert that something exists, but you admit that you cannot produce evidence for it, one cannot accept such an assertion as knowledge. If I said that it's possible that cows can jump over the moon, would you accept that claim? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. If you don't, why not? If you believe that a god can create the universe (an idea which is conceptually self-refuting), then it seems you should accept the idea that cows can jump over the moon. In other words, if your assessment of what is possible in reality is based purely on what you can imagine, and accepted without reference to reality, then reason is not your guide; rather, your emotions are. Whatever this produces, it is not knowledge of reality.

The fact that I am not god is only confirming evidence of no gods. Garou's statement here is simply an attempt to smuggle in the idea that one must be omniscient in order to achieve certainty in knowledge. The notion of "omniscience" is not a valid concept; it does not integrate anything which actually exists in reality or which is possible to beings which can possess knowledge. This silly notion is based on nothing more than imagination, and fails to take into account the objective nature of rational knowledge. Knowledge is contextual in nature, and must be discovered and validated by means of reason. There is no reason why one should accept the notion that there exists a magical storehouse containing everything which can be known. It is a completely arbitrary idea which finds its basis in the desire to escape the facts of reality which are considered inconveniently constraining. Why not simply deal with reality as it is, rather than complicate matters by imagining a realm which contradicts reality?

Ironically, statements like Garou's above, which insinuate that one must be omniscient in order to be able to know that something does not exist, works against the theist's own paradigms just as much as he wants them to work against the non-theist's view of reality. For if one must be omniscient in order to know that something does not exist, then the theist would have to be omniscient in order to know that Allah or any other competing deity does not exist. He would have to be omniscient to know that his god does not require a god beyond itself in order to exist. He would have to be omniscient in order to claim that there is no evidence that a god does not exist. One could go on and on, but what's the point? It's already clear that such insinuations are untenable because they assume an invalid view of knowledge to begin with.

But again, I am not the one who is making existence claims about this thing called "god." The fact that some makes a claim about something in no way obligates me to accept that claim as valid or true. Garou simply misses my point: I have no god-belief. I am not making existence claims, nor am I making non-existence claims. Those who assert a god are making existence claims. Those who point out that they do not share in this belief are not making existence claims; they are simply pointing out that they do not accept the theist's existence claims.

But notice what Garou finds most acceptable: he says "if you were to say 'i don't know' then I could agree with you." Garou clearly prefers a negation of knowledge and certainty to the position of affirming knowledge and certainty.

Note to Garou: this is a claim to certainty. I know as a point of certainty that I have no god-belief.

This claim is nonsense. The fact that something is greater than a knower is no obstacle to acquiring knowledge of the former. In fact, the claim that something is greater is a claim to knowledge already. So this position essentially disqualifies itself.

With the discovery of the atom and its constituents, and of distant galaxies and black holes, we have proven that our range of knowledge, when guided by reason, can only continue to expand. Is it irrational to believe that the universe exists? What can be greater than the universe? The universe is the sum total of that which exists; by definition, if something exists, it exists within the universe. We know that the universe exists; indeed, to acknowledge the existence of any one thing is to imply the existence of the totality, regardless of how many entities that may include. If we can know that the universe exists - and we do - then the claim that "it is irrational to believe that an individual can know whether something greater than itself exists…. Is an act of utmost arrogance," is a sham, since the universe is by definition greater than any individual. If an individual exists, it is part of the universe.

Reason does not make a claim to omniscience. Mystics make the claim to omniscience. Why do they make the claim to omniscience? They make this claim because those who accept it will obey everything they are told. The claim to omniscience is an expression of the desire of the unearned, namely in terms of unearned authority over others. The notion of omniscience is only useful to those who cannot establish their claims on the basis of reason.

This means that Garou has already granted legitimate credibility to the claim that they exist. But on what basis has he done this? Certainly not on the basis of reason. He grants this credibility to such claims unthinkingly, uncritically; he probably does not even know why he does this. Perhaps he was told to when he was a child, and he simply never questioned it very deeply.

This is quite ironic, for two principle reasons. First, Garou nowhere defend this claim. In fact, I readily embrace the fact that reason has its limits. Reason is the means by which the mind operates in the effort to discover knowledge about reality. It is the faculty which identifies and integrates what the senses provide us. Since the mind has identity (i.e., it is what it is, nothing less, nothing more), the means by which it properly operates (which is reason) also has identity. Claims to "knowledge" of the arbitrary constitute an effort to contradict these facts. However, if these facts are contradicted, one simply discredits his own verdicts. Claiming that claims about the supernatural should be considered because reason is "insufficient" to deal with them - a claim offered with the ambition to denigrate reason and ultimately the thinking human mind, only serves to refute itself. If it cannot be established by reason, what justifies accepting it as knowledge? Answer: Blank out.

Second, Garou grants a power to consciousness which it does not posses: he accepts (or at the very least grants credibility to) the claim that it is possible that a form of consciousness can create the universe. This view implies a fundamental view of reality known in the philosophy of reason as the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness view of reality is contrasted with (and contradicted by) the primacy of existence view. This latter view, the primacy of existence, acknowledges that existence exists independent of consciousness (e.g., the notion of "creation," "miracles," etc.). The primacy of consciousness view holds that existence is dependent upon consciousness, and such a view commits one to a stolen concept. Thus, it is invalid.

Actually, you'll not find anywhere where I said "God does not exist."

That is true. Our ability to reason enables us to expand the range of our perception and, consequently, the scope of our knowledge. How come we've never discovered this thing they call 'god' in reality yet? All we have are the mystic's claims that such things (invisible magic beings) exist. Could it be that the notion is simply a reality-negating fantasy?

Of course. Reality is limited to what it is, and truth is limited to what it is. Thus, reason, the tool by which we discover the truth of reality, is limited to these things. Reason does not allow you to have your cake, and eat it, too.

Oh really? Then why does he want to posit something beyond the access of reason?

To what does "non-rational" mean? And why should one "leave room for the non-rational"? If one claims to "detest the irrational," then on what basis does he determine that he "must leave room for the non-rational"?

Why can't Garou know? I know I don't believe that claim that a god exists. Does Garou believe this claim, or not? If he believes this claim, why does he believe it? If he does not believe it, then what's the fuss?

I agree. In fact, the limitations of principled thinking is not a point of resentment for me. After all, I'm not one who claims anything beyond what reason will validate. If a claim cannot be validated by reason, I cannot accept it as knowledge.

That's right. And if thinking guided by rational principle does not validate a claim, then obviously I cannot accept it as knowledge.

The point in question, however, which Garou does not seem to grasp, is on what basis can one claim that there is something in existence which he admits reason will not detect or uncover? Since it is admitted that reason is not up to the task, then one is essentially saying that non-reason is the necessary "means" to such "knowledge." I.e., it is irrational.

The onus of proof rests with those who assert the positive, not with those who assume the negative in the absence of proof. If someone tells me that Blarko exists, and yet is unable to make any progress in presenting a cogent proof for this claim, then I do not accept it as knowledge. It's quite simple, actually. But there are people who want to claim the arbitrary as knowledge, and think I'm not justified for not accepting their claims as knowledge. But why should I accept the arbitrary as knowledge?

That's easy. The notion 'god' is ultimately posited as an explanation of the fact of existence. But if existence exists, then the notion of an explanation of existence is nonsensical. Whatever is posited as an explanation of existence, must itself also exist, right? Well, if so, then your attempt to explain the fact that existence exists breaks no new ground, and thus has no conceptual legitimacy as an explanation.

But the notion of god even goes a step further than this absurdity. It essentially posits that existence can be explained by an appeal to consciousness. For instance, in the case of the Judeo-Christian god, the universe (the sum total of that which exists - i.e., all existence) was "created" by god's will. An act of will is a form of consciousness. Thus, the notion of "divine creation" (cf. "creation ex nihilo" - literally, "creation out of nothing") asserts that a consciousness created existence when before this act of creation, there was nothing that existed, save this consciousness. Notwithstanding the fact that existence is already presupposed by the assertion of the existence of this consciousness (see paragraph above), this notion asserts a consciousness which exists when nothing exists, i.e., a self-contradiction. It is the claim that a consciousness can exist without objects; but this is a contradiction in terms, since to be conscious is to be conscious of something - i.e., of objects beyond itself. But if all objects beyond this consciousness need to be "explained" by the creative faculties of this alleged form of consciousness, then the same contentless position is again affirmed: consciousness, prior to having created anything beyond itself, had nothing of which it could have been conscious, which is a contradiction in terms. This is known as the fallacy of pure self-reference.

A number of other reasons show why the claim that a universe-creating, reality-ruling god exists contradicts itself, and thus invalidates the theistic position at the very instant one attempts to embrace it. When one asserts a truth claim about reality, he is assuming (however unconsciously) that the truth obtains independent of his consciousness. For instance, if you make the claim that the Queen Elizabeth II has called New York Harbor in the past, you are essentially stating this as a fact whether or not you assent to it. You are saying that this fact obtained even before you became aware of it. Thus, when you affirm a truth claim, you do so on the basis of the primacy of existence principle. However, when the content of your claim is the notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling form of consciousness (e.g., "god"), then you are affirming the primacy of consciousness in the content of your claim. Thus, you embrace two contradictory principles: in the act of affirming the claim, you are assuming the primacy of existence principle, since you think what you claim is true of reality, not just of your imagination. In the content of the claim you affirm, however, you assume the primacy of consciousness view, which means you find yourself in a performative inconsistency. This is the checkmate of all god-belief: it effectively refutes itself before it has a chance to get off the ground. Game, set and match.

If existence exists, all gods are out of a job.

Right. The "realm" that is "beyond the realm of reason" is called arbitrary. It cannot be accepted as legitimate knowledge of reality.

The notion of a god contradicts the very foundation of reason. That foundation is the primacy of existence principle. See my points above. It is clearly irrational to accept the claim that a god exists.

Besides, to say that something does not contradict reason, but that it is "merely beyond reason," is to assert knowledge of whatever it is which is in question. By what means does Garou know that this whatever does not contradict reason? If he asserts such knowledge, then he is asserting it on the basis of something other than reason. Hence, it is not something which he can rightly call reasonable.

I know. You claim that it is "beyond" reason in order to protect it from scrutiny, not because you're able to establish it's existence. To claim that it is "beyond" reason is to confess openly that it is not a reasonable belief.

Elaborate then, please. (Note that he never does.)

Good. Garou should take this opportunity to understand the nature of reason. Does Garou (and others who think like him) think that reason would be more useful if it did not have any limitations? Reason's limits are not a vice, but its very virtue!

Garou's point is, essentially, that since he senses that reason will not enable him to validate claims to the arbitrary, he thinks the best policy is to employ reason only to the extent that it is helpful in establishing the truth of claims, and beyond that one should simply say that "reason has its limits" and that the content of what you claim is "beyond reason's limits," thus giving you an epistemological blank check to confuse the arbitrary with knowledge. I've seen it thousands of times under hundreds of different disguises, but each time it is just as transparent as the previous attempt to do the same. I do not accept it.

Does Garou not recognize that reality and truth are also both limited? Indeed, they are limited to what they are, and are not both what they are and what they are not (i.e., contradictions do not exist). After all, A is A.

It doesn't. But people abandon reason so that they can. That's the problem.

Reason is plenty sufficient for man's pursuit of legitimate knowledge and life on earth. Anything beyond that is guessing at best, quite potentially arbitrary, and very possibly lethal to man.

I'm not sure how you'd argue this, but I'd like to see it.

I have no problem with this.

In order to establish this claim (that "truth can supercede reason!"), one would have to defend it with an argument. To defend it with an argument, one would have to employ a course of reasoning. Yet what "truth" can be accepted as knowledge which reason cannot validate, and why would one accept it? What Garou is saying here, is that he would accept a claim to truth that reason does not justify. In other words, he would confuse the arbitrary for truth. Garou seems to be a smart guy, and I'm sure he's able to see the error here, so I can only assume that he would do this willingly, by openly denying reason and accepting the arbitrary. This is a wanton embrace of irrationality. Look where this kind of choice has gotten the Arab world.

What does Garou mean here by "confined"? See, he wants to claim an escape clause to reason, such that, when he cannot establish the truth of a claim on the basis of reason, he decides that it must be one of those "truths" which is "not confined by reason." This is extremely convenient when he wants to claim something irrational. When else would one need such an escape clause?

Wrong. Simply because you do not know of something which eliminates a suggestion from the realm of possibilities, this deficiency alone is not sufficient for you to claim its potentiality. One must have evidence in order to do this, not simply your appeal to your imagination.

Look at what you've been saying.

What Garou fails to realize is that saying that something is beyond reason is itself a knowledge claim.

My arguments are built squarely on the incontestable facts that existence exists, and that existence exists independent of consciousness. My atheism is a direct corollary of these inescapable assumptions.

Again, I am not the one who is introducing a positive existential claim about a being referred to as "god." I do not claim that a god exists. I have no onus to disprove this claim. Rather, I show why it is irrational to accept it.

See, I make a claim to certainty here.

Not at all. Observe what I said:

See, I'm wholly certain of my position on this matter. I do not accept the claim that a god exists. I have no god-belief. This disturbs some people. I wonder why.

I'm not sure if Garou understood my point here, so I'll elaborate a bit. My position cannot be dismissed as a game of semantics. While semantics is of course a concern in all philosophy (since semantics is the study of meanings), it is certainly no game. Rather, as I state below, I simply refuse to play the mystic's games. The mystic wants me to accept the rules of debate just as Garou has presented them: to accept as a legitimate concern to contend with those arbitrary notions which others conjure from their imagination. The notion of a god has its source not one's perception of reality, but in the imagination of primitive (i.e., pre-scientific, non-rational) men of antiquity. This notion has been accepted uncritically and unquestionably by many who walk the earth today. It is a premise which those who accept it are willing to examine only in the attempt to defend it, meaning they've already accepted its alleged truth as a foregone conclusion. However, they do not really know why they claim it is true - they simply want it to be true. The truth is they claim it to be true because of the emotional investment they've poured into it over their lifetime. To admit that it is all arbitrary and unreal, would be too great an admission for many to bear. Some have invested not only their minds and hearts into the idea that there is a god, but entire lives of study, thousands of dollars in tuition at seminaries and theological institutes intended not only to reinforce this belief, but also to make it seem reasonable. Admitting that this is all an enormous sham is too much for some people to stomach. But a sham it is, all the same, whether one admits it or not.

About what else should I be making claims? Should I presume to speak about something I do not believe?

The light of reason - not the darkness of night - is my guide to knowledge and action.

Also, another point. Love (which theists usually assert but never define) is one's commitment to his own values. One loves his values according to their hierarchical relationship to his life. (At least, that is how the rational man views love.) The opposite of commitment to one's values is non-commitment to values. That is not fear, it is indifference. Fear is the emotional reaction to perceived threats. The opposite of this is not the embrace of values (love), but the determination to achieve and maintain self-control. Fear is a diversion of one's attention to facts which potentially threaten his values.

Are you a member of the class to which your term 'everyone' refers? If so, then you must be saying that your primary response to existence is fear. Why do you fear existence?