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.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 509 by instantc]

That's not a shotgun method. All three fall under the same thing. Parsimony.

What if dragons and fairies only live in the hollow inside of the Earth? The Earth might be such shaped that using seismic waves may not accurately depict the innards of the Earth. Seismic readings may be wrong on large scales anyway.

There are all kinds of ad hoc justifications you can use.
Who knows, maybe fairies and dragons are spiritual.

Ad hoc justifications can be reasonably rejected on exactly that basis. They are ad hoc, they are specifically designed to save these claims from being falsified.

Let's take a sample God-claim for comparison. Suppose someone says that there exists a personal creator that exists outside time and space. Nothing in that claim is ad hoc.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 511 by instantc]

That would be a genetic fallacy.
The reason they're supposed doesn't remotely affect the reasonableness of them.

[Danmark]

I agree that 'if naturalism is true' then the supernatural does not exist.
Since we know nature exists and we have no evidence of anything outside of nature, it is reasonable to conclude "the supernatural does not exist."

There is a problem with this conclusion however. You say that we know that nature exists and have no evidence of anything outside of nature. But the problem here is that we don't have a complete and full understanding of what nature entails. Therefore how can we conclude that "The supernatural does not exist"?

How can we even speak of the supernatural when we don't know what the natural entails or encompasses?

Are multiple universes supernatural? Scientists have good reasons to suspect that they might exist. Would they then be outside of nature? And if they are, then we already have scientific reasons to suspect that the supernatural exists.

Same thing can be said of extra dimensions in our own universe. Do they exist or not? We have no direct evidence that they exist, yet many scientists feel certain that they must exist. So are extra dimension natural or supernatural?

How can we even speak of the supernatural when we have no clue what constitutes nature?

If some giant man opened up the sky and looked us in the eye we'd suddenly have reason to believe that this is natural because it's actually happening.

In fact, I submit to you that if God exists they necessarily must be natural. In other words they must be part of the natural world.

It that's the case then the term supernatural is meaningless because if a God exists it would be a part of nature.

Yes, your last statement sums up my belief; however, we are still left with only speculation. How do we distinguish the unknown absurd from the unknown plausible? I suspect that if make such a distinction, it is along the lines of a very loosely defined system that says: Leprechauns, Goblins & Gods = absurd; mysterious and undefined forces and dimensions = plausible. The former appear to be primitive man's effort to inject personalities and naming as a way to account for the unknown. The latter tends toward the impersonal, theoretical world of numbers and logic.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 513 by Danmark]

Forces and dimensions have actual utility as concepts and clearly translate to observable properties. (Whether or not they are "real" is a semantic issue. They aren't real in the same sense as objects or attributive properties, but even then objects aren't real in the same sense as attributive properties)

Suggesting a concept needs to convey some properties, one that can't show that it does (ie by supposing something fundamentally observable) is indistinguishable from suggesting nothing.

Parsimony is a good reason to not just reject unsupported and unobservable claims but to treat those that are presumptuous or unnecessary as reasonable to believe they are false.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, your last statement sums up my belief; however, we are still left with only speculation. How do we distinguish the unknown absurd from the unknown plausible? I suspect that if make such a distinction, it is along the lines of a very loosely defined system that says: Leprechauns, Goblins & Gods = absurd; mysterious and undefined forces and dimensions = plausible. The former appear to be primitive man's effort to inject personalities and naming as a way to account for the unknown. The latter tends toward the impersonal, theoretical world of numbers and logic.

I certainly agree with you there. As you well know I dismiss things like Zeus and Yahweh as being clearly man-made inventions that can't possibly be true. I feel that they are sufficiently self-contradictory that it would even matter if they idea of an anthropomorphic God were physically plausible anyway.

I mean, to be perfectly honest with you I don't dismiss entirely the idea of a potential anthropomorphic God. I personally feel that it's highly unlikely, but I can't rule it out as being implausible. However, I can rule out well-defined anthropomorphic God's like Zeus and Yahweh for the very simple reason that the legends that describe them basically demand that they are immature idiots. And that violates the very idea that they would be omniscient enough to have created this universe.

A far as a world based upon "numbers and logic" I'm not impressed. Our mathematical formalism is far more of a man-made invention than most people realized, even most mathematicians. Also our logic is nothing more than our way of reasoning based upon axiomatic premises that we can't even know are true themselves. Therefore our logic isn't even a dependable foundation for knowing the true nature of reality.

The true nature of reality may be totally beyond our ability to even comprehend. I actually hold that to be a very likely "premise".

Whether there can exists 'gods' or not in a general sense is certainly not something we are in a position to address. Whether or not the universe is magical or not, is not something we are in a position to address. I also can't rule out the Eastern Mystical philosophies at their foundational level. They may or may not be true.

But as you point out, we can rule out things like tooth fairies, Santa Claus, Zeus and Yahweh, because all of those myths are clearly man-made fables. The evidence for that exists within those fables themselves. They are simply extremely flawed fables that contain obvious self-contradictions.

~~~~

In the end, even if we could prove that the world is nothing more than a purely 'natural event" (whatever that even means) it would still be "magical". As the Dalai Lama points out with his great laughter, "If there was one Big Bang then there can be infinitely many Big Bangs".

In other words, if we have this experience of life once, we can certainly have it again. Why not?

The purely secular "materialistic" hypothesis basically fails as an explanation for anything because there is no evidence that any "material" actually exists. In the end it's all just mysterious quantum waves vibrating in some sort of standing wave patterns, and that is what creates the illusion of a materialistic world.

The idea that this must be caused by tiny "strings" vibrating is just a guess. Where did those strings from from and where do they go when the universe stops vibrating? And what "plucked" them to start them vibrating in the first place.

Like the Dalai Lama suggests, "If the strings were plucked once they can probably be plucked again."

If all we are is vibrating strings then by golly maybe we are eternal after all. And for reasons we can't discover there also exists an eternal plucker.

Or maybe we pluck ourselves when we're done vibrating? Who knows?

Something got plucked somewhere along the way or we wouldn't be here vibrating right now.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 511 by instantc]

That would be a genetic fallacy.
The reason they're supposed doesn't remotely affect the reasonableness of them.

Genetic fallacy has nothing to do with this. It would be fallacious to say that a certain belief is necessarily false based on its origins alone. Obviously the underlying psychological motivation may in some cases provide strong indication as to whether or not a claim is true. Any criminal psychologists will confirm this. Jurors are often instructed not to accept an ad hoc explanation. Practically anyone who has dealt with this sort of things, I believe, will tell you that the adhocness of a claim provides at least some indication of its untruthfulness.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 516 by instantc]

...no, the reasons for which a theory is put forward has no bearing on it's truth, and I would classify the reasons for which a person put forward an idea as part of it's origin.


There's nothing to stop someone from putting forward the idea of a creator, and then supposing we haven't seen evidence because he's spiritual.
There, I did it right then. If I'd been motivated to try and justify what I was saying, that still wouldn't make it false.

The truth value of a proposition isn't affected by the person who proposes it - nor the reason it was proposed, nor where it was proposed, nor when. That is the genetic fallacy.

[otseng]

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?

No, I said it's not a punishment on women. I would agree though that it is a curse.

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!"

Actually, I think Adam should've spoken up and said, "God said we should not eat from it. So we shouldn't do it."

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.

However, it does not actually demonstrate that God does not exist. Such a God that you describe of being a disgusting God could actually still exist, even if you do not like such a God.

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 don't think anyone is really supporting your version of Yahweh.

[otseng]

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

Sure, I can go along with that.

[otseng]

How can we even speak of the supernatural when we don't know what the natural entails or encompasses?

Exactly.

In fact, I submit to you that if God exists they necessarily must be natural. In other words they must be part of the natural world.

It that's the case then the term supernatural is meaningless because if a God exists it would be a part of nature.

The discussion starts running in circles if one uses the term "nature" to describe everything. The term become meaningless. That is why I prefer to use the term natural to just describe our universe. Sure, other universes could exist. But, there's no way we can even measure, observe those universes.