Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[otseng]

Post 381 made me think this was your reasoning:
“I'm not assuming it. It's still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.�

That’s why I said “in essence�. You believe that none will be found, correct? Was I wrong?

Yes, I did say that. But, I'm not saying that lack of evidence is evidence for belief in the supernatural.

My apologies. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully, I’m doing this right : )

Yes, looks good. Thanks.

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?

You were the one to bring it up.

So, you’re arguing that science has not proven any properties of god false, therefore it can not be a “god of the gaps� belief? If you’re not saying this, then by definition, it is indeed just that.

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm just asking what properties of god are proven to be false by science.

Not having an answer is a far smaller leap of logic then the leap to an supernatural entity or origin.

If arguments for God just rested solely on the cosmological argument, I can somewhat agree with you. But, there are other independent arguments that also support the idea of God. So, it's not that much of a leap as you suggest.

My only point in bringing up the origin of the universe was challenging the claim that there was zero evidence for God. I'm not going to get into any of the other arguments since that is not the point of this thread. And speaking of which, if anybody does have arguments and evidence to support the belief that gods do not exist, please present them. It's been awhile since any has been presented.

If the properties of god (what he has been attributed to have done or is currently doing) are explained by science, then it is a God of the Gaps belief system.

I'd agree with that.

Science also has many models that account for how it began - without the need for a Cause.

Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.

And how is god not: at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support it?

Because there exist many other independent arguments and evidence to support God, besides the origin of the universe.

[Danmark]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]
Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

I haven't followed this thread, so I'll start at the beginning, since a recent post of Osteng's reminded me of this point.

I agree with his position about the shifting of burdens. The OP takes this on by asking debaters to prove a negative, that 'gods do not exist.' This is a high burden indeed. I confess that it is too high. It cannot be surmounted, at least not by me [I hope to prove myself wrong , but that is what my intuition tells me].

The non theist can take the predictable approach:

"You can't prove that leprechauns, goblins, fairies, angels, demons, ad nauseum do not exist." This approach is annoying, but valid. The problem is, the OP invites this challenge. I confess I cannot meet the challenge. Perhaps the best that can be done is to say there is no need to invent the concept of a 'gremlin' to explain the failure of a mechanical or electrical device; therefore, 'gremlin' is an unnecessary invention. The analogy is obvious: We do not need 'God' to explain nature; therefore, 'God' is an unnecessary invention.

[Divine Insight]

So are you suggesting that Jesus and God were totally unaware that thing things were supposed to withstand the test of time and speak to cultures that would exist thousands of years later?

Actually, it has withstood the test of time and do speak to cultures, even to those that exist now.

It may 'speak' to people on a superstitious level but it clearly makes absolutely no sense at all. For if it made any sense there wouldn't be so many disagreeing versions of it. Also, we can't just count the thousands of disagreeing Christians, because that's just the New Testament. We need to look at the religion as a whole and that would include Judaism and Islam and all their internal disagreeing superstitious sects.

How in the world could and omniscient God have been such a bumbling idiot when it comes to trying to communicate to the objects of his very own creation?

The fact that the Hebrew mythology is not the word of any God is as crystal clear as any truth we can possibly know.

By the way, I'm not saying that I would necessarily believe those writings anyway.

Well, then, it would have made no difference to you anyways, so why is it even important?

Well, that would all depend on what Jesus himself might have written. Maybe Jesus wouldn't have been so contradicting and absurd had he actually written down his own stuff.

But yes, if Jesus actually wrote the New Testament as it is then he would have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no clue what he was talking about. The only thing that "saves" Jesus is the fact that people can simply suggest that the rumors about him may have been wrong in places.

Hmm, do other animals go through pain and suffering during delivery?

Yes, I'm certain that they do.

They might feel pain. But I'm talking about to the extent that women experience.

Well, I don't know about that. Not all women experience the same level of pain. Also why would you think human women should experience pain during childbirth in any case?

You have already suggesting that you don't accept the Biblical story that it was a curse on women to punish them for Eve's fall from grace. So if that's not the reason, then why is having children so painful for women?

Poor design by God?

If you daughter was innocently beguiled by a psychopath would you be mean and cruel to your daughter over it?

This is a loaded question. I wouldn't be "mean and cruel" to my daughter. But, if I warned my daughter to not do something and told her there would be consequences to it, and she does it, then it's not inappropriate for consequences to occur.

Yes, but in the Biblical story of Eve it wasn't merely consequences is was a curse by the Father God.

Moreover Eve was innocently beguiled. She had to have been, because that's how the story goes.

Before Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil she had no clue about evil. She didn't even know that being naked was evil. So when the serpent came along and told Eve that the fruit was ok to eat what should she have done? Should she have said, "No evil serpent you are lying!"

That would have been impossible. Why? Well, because in this fairytale Eve doesn't yet know the difference between good and evil. She can't even know what evil is, and since lying is evil she couldn't even know about lies, just like she didn't know that she was naked.

So you have this Father God who's totally innocent "daughter" is beguiled by an evil serpent and then this Father God takes a temper tantrum and curses Eve with greatly multiplies pain and sorrow in childbirth.

IMHO any Father who would act like that deserves to be thrown in prison until he learns something about compassion and how to properly raise children.

The Bible had to have been written by ruthless barbaric male-chauvinistic idiots. Not some all-wise supremely righteous loving Fatherly God.

I confess to you Otseng that when people suggest that this Biblical story actually makes sense and should be respected as having come from a righteous loving God, it truly does nothing but cause me to question what these people think is righteous and loving.

The Hebrew Bible was written by people like the Taliban. The ancient Hebrews were actually like the Taliban according to their own historical fables.

How anyone can think that these fables represent a loving compassionate and understanding God is beyond me.

Of all the religions and spiritual philosophies in the world why choose the Hebrew mythology to worship?

And especially the Christian version of it. A God who has his own corrupt priests calling for the brutal crucifixion of his totally innocent son, and then demanding that every single human on the planet must accept and condone this act on their behalf?

That's basically the same kind of immoral brute who would curse an innocent Eve with such ungodly curses.

I mean, this thread is about justifying the belief that gods do not exist. Well, in the case of the Hebrew God the justification that the Hebrew God doesn't exist is simple. The Hebrew God is claimed to be "all-righteous" but the Hebrew mythology has this God doing totally unrighteous ignorant things that I would expect to see only from truly disgusting people.

I just can't understand how anyone can support Hebrew mythology. That's like supporting the idea that our creator has the mentality and immorality of a truly sick and demented barroom drunkard.

I just can't believe that people support this kind of mentality as being the mentality of a supposedly all-righteous God. It's just amazing that people can continue to support this endlessly. Of course it doesn't stop with the Christians by far, because people like the Taliban and ISIS are just as dead serious about their beliefs.

Can you believe that the Taliban and ISIS can support their immoral behaviors using this same basics God and mythology?

If you think they appear to be supporting an immoral God, then hopefully you can see why Christianity appears that way to me. Because Jesus is not Christianity. In fact, Jesus taught people that they must love the Father God with all their heart, mind, and soul, not Jesus himself. He also taught that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law.

But let's face it, the Christians worship Jesus and Jesus alone. And they truly do ignore the jots and tittles of the Old Testament. They would flush the Old Testament God down the toilet in a second if they thought the could keep Jesus unscathed in the process. Because, after all, the Old Testament God basically is the Taliban and ISIS.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 492 by Danmark]

I agree with the example, though I would say "It's reasonable to believe x,y,z don't exist" or something similar.

As for good reasons, parsimony is a major reason.
God is not only unnecessary but it's fantastically unnecessary too.
Certainly beyond plausibility for anyone unconvinced by theists' arguments.

[wiploc]

The OP takes this on by asking debaters to prove a negative, that 'gods do not exist.'

This may be splitting hairs, but I'm not sure that justifying a belief is exactly the same as proving that the belief is true.

This is a high burden indeed. I confess that it is too high.

Do you believe that there is a lion in your bathroom, which will kill and eat you next time you go to take a leak? No? You don't believe the lion is there, and you're not even undecided on the issue, are you? A reasonable person would believe that the lion is not there. Shucks, I believe the lion isn't there, and I've never even seen your bathroom.

What if we make it an invisible lion? Does that make it more likely or less?

An invisible omnipotent lion? Getting pretty godlike, now, and way less likely.

A general rule: The more godlike something gets, the less likely it is to exist. The more likely it is that something exists, the less likely that it is a god.

So, presumptively, gods don't exist.

Anything can be presumed not to exist if it is
a) sufficiently unlikely, and
b) not supported by evidence.

So, as a general rule, we can reasonably assume that gods do not exist.

The non theist can take the predictable approach:

"You can't prove that leprechauns, goblins, fairies, angels, demons, ad nauseum do not exist." This approach is annoying, but valid.

Why is it annoying? It's a slam-dunk. Those things are quite unlikely, and they are not supported by evidence. Reasonable people assume they don't exist.

That woman over there who looks like your mother? She could actually be your mother. Of course she could also be a substitute, a doppelganger switched for your mother by the Corflu Cult. Are you worried about that? No, you don't entertain the possibility because it is wildly unlikely on the face of it, and it is not supported by evidence. There is a rational presumption that your mother is really your mother.

This isn't irritating; it's how rational minds work. You couldn't get thru one morning without the presumption that outrageously unlikely things that are unsupported by evidence are not true.

You couldn't function without that presumption. It's how rational minds work.

The problem is, the OP invites this challenge.

And meets it.

I confess I cannot meet the challenge.

Now you can.

[Divine Insight]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]
Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

I haven't followed this thread, so I'll start at the beginning, since a recent post of Osteng's reminded me of this point.

I agree with his position about the shifting of burdens. The OP takes this on by asking debaters to prove a negative, that 'gods do not exist.' This is a high burden indeed. I confess that it is too high. It cannot be surmounted, at least not by me [I hope to prove myself wrong , but that is what my intuition tells me].

The non theist can take the predictable approach:

"You can't prove that leprechauns, goblins, fairies, angels, demons, ad nauseum do not exist." This approach is annoying, but valid. The problem is, the OP invites this challenge. I confess I cannot meet the challenge. Perhaps the best that can be done is to say there is no need to invent the concept of a 'gremlin' to explain the failure of a mechanical or electrical device; therefore, 'gremlin' is an unnecessary invention. The analogy is obvious: We do not need 'God' to explain nature; therefore, 'God' is an unnecessary invention.

I agree with your conclusion that we don't need God to explain nature. A God wouldn't "explain" anything anyway.

In fact think about this:

Let's say that nature is simple magic. How about that for an "explanation"?

Well, the people who claim that we need a "God" would suggest that to just say that nature is magic is no explanation at all unless you also hypothesize a magician who's performing the magic. Then we have an "explanation".

The only problem there is that an unexplained magician who can supposedly do magic is no explanation at all. On the contrary all the theists are trying to do is say, "Look, it's not really magic because there's a magician behind it and therefore it's explained".

That is the fallacy of theology. They have convinced themselves that a magician is an explanation for magic.

~~~~~

On your other point I semi disagree.

The OP takes this on by asking debaters to prove a negative, that 'gods do not exist.' This is a high burden indeed. I confess that it is too high. It cannot be surmounted,...

It may not be surmountable in totality. However, every journey must begin by a single step. So I'd be happy to just take it one step at a time. I claim that the Christian God can be disproved, actually quite easily IMHO. And the reason it can be disprove is because there is an entire book written that describes what this God is like. I hold that this description is an oxymoron and therefore this God cannot exist. It's basically a "Proof by Contradiction". The behavior of the Biblical God simply doesn't match up with the ideal that this God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, supremely intelligent, and all-wise, etc.

The Biblical God is anything but these things.

The Cursing of Satan:

How does the Biblical God deal with Satan in the Garden of Eden? He curses Satan to craw on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days. Is this a supremely intelligent solution to this problem? I say no. Any omnipotent idiot could curse someone and make them craw on the belly and eat dirt. That doesn't require any intelligence. In fact, I hold that such a curse is pathetically unintelligent. But more to the point, did it solve anything? No. Satan has been playing havoc with the world ever since according to the Bible. So this God isn't even very wise since his curses don't even solve anything.

The Cursing of Eve:

How does the Biblical God deal with Eve in the Garden of Eden? He curses her to have greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth. Again, is this a supremely intelligent solution to this problem? I say no. Any omnipotent idiot could curse someone to have greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth. I hold that such a curse is pathetically unintelligent. But more to the point, did it solve anything? No it didn't. Women continued to sin all the rest of the way through the Bible and God continued to support male-chauvinism and oppression toward women.

That's not righteous IMHO, and therefore this God isn't living up to the righteous character that he's supposed to be.

The Flooding of Sinners:

How does the Biblical God deal with the sins of mankind? Well first off he waits until things get totally out of control. That's already unwise IMHO. Nipping things in the bud before they get out of control is far wiser. Moreover, why didn't this God's previous curses already solve the problem of sin?

So this God floods out the planet as an omniscient all-wise solution. I hold that any omnipotent idiot could flood out a planet. That's hardly an intelligent solution to anything. Moreover, did it solve anything? Again no, it didn't. Sin continues the whole rest of the way through the Bible. So not only was this an unintelligent "solution" but it didn't even work. It also seemed kind of messy.

If I were an omnipotent God and were faced with this problem (a problem that was already allowed to get way too far out of control). Instead of having Noah build an ark and flooding the planet I would have Noah and his family build a nursery school. Then I would just turn all the adult sinners into pillars of salt (or maybe something more useful) and have Noah and his family go around and collect all the innocent children and babies and bring them into the nursery and raise them properly.

But we can't expect anything that intelligent from the Biblical God because the Biblical God never does anything intelligent. His "solutions" are always extremely barbaric and unintelligent and NEVER solve anything.

The Crucifixion of Jesus by the Jewish Priests:

Skipping ahead to the New Testament what do we see? This same God sends his only begotten son to Earth to teach men to love one another and then had his very own corrupt priests call for the brutal crucifixion of his son making a drama of blood and guts that supposedly can wash away sins.

Think about this. Here this God is trying to "wash away" sins again. That didn't work in flood with water why would he think it would work this time with blood? And clearly it didn't solve a thing once more. Mankind continues to sin and nothing was solved.

Did I forget to mention that any omnipotent idiot could have someone crucified. Where is there anything intelligent in that? Where is there any sign at all that this God is intelligent or wise? Everything he does is brutal and barbaric and it never solves any problems anyway.

Therefore, I conclude that this God cannot be all wise or supremely intelligent. Thus it is a contradiction to what it is supposed to be.

Proof by Contradiction.

Next God please?

~~~~

Although to be honest with you I have no desire to disprove them all. But the Biblical God is a piece of cake to disprove.

[wiploc]

But you seem stubbornly cryptic on the subject. It's like you don't want me to understand.

Otseng, please accept my apology if I came across as suggesting that you actually don't want me to understand. I was explaining that I was frustrated, in the attempt to encourage you to be more forthcoming/forward/explanatory/discursive.

I absolutely assume you are operating in good faith. I wouldn't be talking to you if I didn't.

===

Also---change of topic here---I have developed a theory about your meaning of "absolute":

Suppose we say that, "Thou shalt not kill," is a rule. And then suppose we say that sometimes the rule doesn't apply. Because, for instance, it's okay to kill in self defense. That's a rule and an exception, so it is not absolute.

But, now, if we write the exception into the rule, "Thou shalt not kill except in self defense," we have a different rule, one that doesn't have exceptions. (We're pretending, for the sake of this example, that self defense was the only exception to the rule against killing.) So this one is objective because the exceptions are incorporated in the original statement of the rule.

Now let's apply this understanding to the two examples that confused me, that seemed to conflict:

Honor the Sabbath:

I can think of this one as a rule with exceptions: "Honor every day, except days that aren't the Sabbath." The exceptions are understood in the original statement of the rule ...

so this rule is absolute.

You Have to Cut Off Your Foreskin:

This Old Testament rule does not say that you have to cut off your foreskin until New Testament times. So the exception to this rule is not stated in the original phrasing.

So this rule is not absolute.


Did I get it right? Or am I at least on the right track?



NOTE: I haven't read the bible. I don't know what it says. I make assumptions about what may be in there based on popular culture, not on any knowledge of the subject matter. I am not imputing to you any belief about killing or foreskins. I am simply devising concrete telling examples that, I hope, will allow us to clarify my understanding of what you mean by "absolute."

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 492 by Danmark]

I agree with the example, though I would say "It's reasonable to believe x,y,z don't exist" or something similar.

As for good reasons, parsimony is a major reason.
God is not only unnecessary but it's fantastically unnecessary too.
Certainly beyond plausibility for anyone unconvinced by theists' arguments.

I agree with the point on parsimony as a form of justification. Too many people have rephrased the OP to say it's asking for proof. It's not; it's asking for justification for a belief.

[Fundagelico]

From Post 483:

Meanwhile we have a long history of empirical research demonstrating that living organisms do not in fact emerge unaided from non-living matter – dust or otherwise.

All living matter is composed of atoms, a non-living bit of matter.

Yes, and all meaningful sentences about living matter are composed of individual letters, non-meaningful bits of sentences.

[Fundagelico]

[Replying to post 483 by Fundagelico]

No, we have <300 years of no examples of life coming from non life in the modern environment.

Just how many years of continual disconfirmation would it take to falsify the theory?

My take is simply this: To the extent that abiogenesis is falsifiable, it has been falsified. To the extent that abiogenesis is not falsifiable, it lacks the rigor of a testable scientific theory. In either case belief in abiogenesis appears about as empirically justified as belief in creationism. (I say that not as an empiricist but as a creationist.)

Even though the environment was completely different billions of years ago.
And we don't observe every environment.

Okay, good. Now if we consider ourselves free to believe that currently unobservable events have occurred in currently unobservable environments, then we should also consider ourselves free to believe in things like angels rejoicing in heaven over the virgin birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

And we might even miss an early stage of life if we did see it. Vesicles can form naturally and may have been key in abiogenesis.

That's like claiming that since a volcano hasn't formed in your back yard, they must be formed magically.

I'm not sure who would make that claim. As a Christian theist I personally don't think it follows from the failure of inanimate matter to produce life that magic must have produced it instead. All I am saying is that you and I both accept the truth of certain extraordinary claims. Do you disagree?

As for naturalism - one wonders what would actually miss the definition of natural.

If naturalism is true, it's very obvious to me that nothing non-, extra- or super-natural would exist. What I wonder about more, then, is whether naturalism is true.