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.

[wiploc]

What do you (generic term) have to offer?

I wonder if we shouldn't deal with answers to that question in another thread.

[wiploc]

That's based on the hidden presumption that if God existed, then those who believe in it would be able to prove it's existence. Can you show that the hidden presumption is true?

...

1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

It varies with the god.

I don't want to hi-jack this thread and turn it into a discussion of the validity of various theist arguments.

On the other hand, I don't want to seem unforthcoming, so I'll give one example. (But if you want to challenge my example, I'll set up a separate thread for that.)

Example: A universe containing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would have no evil.

given the parameters of the hypothesis in question. It is up to the claimant to show that such evidence could be expected, you cannot just assert it.

We aren't the ones asserting it.

I'm quite sure that the person I addressed in the above quote was asserting that there should be expected evidence.

The theists assert it. Then, when asked to back up their claims, their arguments don't stand up.

If you want specifics, don't ask us to guess what you're after. Name a specific argument according to which you think theists are justified in believing in gods. Then we'll be able to answer your "What evidence exactly?" question. (And we'll answer it in another thread.)

Theists aren't saying, "I believe in god for absolutely no reason." No, they are saying, "My belief is well-founded, and," often enough, "the evidence is so obvious that you are a pervert or an idiot for not already agreeing with me."

Even if they are wrong about their belief being properly founded does not, as such, mean that their belief is not true.

Suppose I claim there is a herd of a thousand free-roaming mile-high elephants in Kansas, and my "evidence" is that they leave footprints everywhere. Further suppose you ask me to show you the footprints, and determine that those little holes were actually dug by voles.

Your statement ("Even if they are wrong about their belief being properly founded does not, as such, mean that their belief is not true") is technically true. But it's also true that---in the absence of actual elephant footprints---we are justified in believing that the elephants do not exist.

Suppose I believe that I have good evidence to show that my neighbor killed my cat. Even if the evidence I gathered turns out to be irrelevant does not automatically mean that my neighbor did not kill my cat.

Granted.

[Zzyzx]

.

What do you (generic term) have to offer?

I wonder if we shouldn't deal with answers to that question in another thread.

Done. Thread created at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 330#673330

I look forward to learning about such evidence.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 66 by otseng]

I think this (among other arguments in the thread) is more along the lines that if God existed, we would expect to have observed at least one reliably documented miracle.

(Similarly for design arguments we would've expected better design, and for suffering arguments we would expect less suffering)

Well said.

Though I'm curious as to whether this is what wiploc wanted to discuss (i.e. the Gods of major religions) or if he actually wanted proof that no Gods exist. (Including ones that are uninteligent, amoral or simply ambivalent towards human life)

We can take them one at a time or by the bushel. If you have an argument that unintelligent, amoral, or ambivalent gods do not exist, I'd like to see it.

[instantc]

Suppose I claim there is a herd of a thousand free-roaming mile-high elephants in Kansas, and my "evidence" is that they leave footprints everywhere. Further suppose you ask me to show you the footprints, and determine that those little holes were actually dug by voles.

Your statement ("Even if they are wrong about their belief being properly founded does not, as such, mean that their belief is not true") is technically true. But it's also true that---in the absence of actual elephant footprints---we are justified in believing that the elephants do not exist.

That's true of course, because if elephants roam somewhere, they most certainly do leave prints. You haven't yet shown me that the same goes for God.

On the other hand, I don't want to seem unforthcoming, so I'll give one example. (But if you want to challenge my example, I'll set up a separate thread for that.)

Example: A universe containing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would have no evil.

So your argument comes down to the problem of evil. Got it.

[instantc]

.

On what basis do you expect that there should be evidence? Do you have any arguments? Any justification? Why do you think there would be evidence?

Advertising and promotion for an enclosed game preserve claims that there a lot of deer on the grounds. However, you see no deer, no signs of deer, no deer tracks after repeated snowfalls.

The promoter says, "You can't see the deer or their tracks unless you believe they are there, then you will see them."

Are you convinced?

I am not convinced, but the fact that he cannot justify his claim does not, as such, give me justification to believe that it is false. I have other reasons to believe that that claim is false though.

Is the absence of evidence proof positive that no deer exist in the game preserve? Of course not BUT it is strong indication that the promoter isn't telling the truth.

It's not the absence of justification but the initial implausibility based on my foreknowledge of the world that makes this claim likely to be false.

[instantc]

On what basis do you expect that there should be evidence? Do you have any arguments? Any justification? Why do you think there would be evidence?

Philosophers of science have long ago recognized that absence of evidence is evidence of absence only where such evidence could be reasonably expected, given the parameters of the hypothesis in question. It is up to the claimant to show that such evidence could be expected, you cannot just assert it.

For a start, it is those who introduced the concept of gods that insist that there are evidence, have doctine that would leave evidence.

What kind of evidence would it leave?

Outside of that I would also expect a personal being would have agendas of their own, and where they act there would be evidence.

Why would you expect a personal being living outside of your reach to have such agendas that you could find out about them?

[wiploc]

Suppose I claim there is a herd of a thousand free-roaming mile-high elephants in Kansas, and my "evidence" is that they leave footprints everywhere. Further suppose you ask me to show you the footprints, and determine that those little holes were actually dug by voles.

Your statement ("Even if they are wrong about their belief being properly founded does not, as such, mean that their belief is not true") is technically true. But it's also true that---in the absence of actual elephant footprints---we are justified in believing that the elephants do not exist.

That's true of course, because if elephants roam somewhere, they most certainly do leave prints. You haven't yet shown me that the same goes for God.

Some gods do, others don't.

Some people believe in god and say that their belief is well founded. Do you understand that it's them saying that, not me? I'm not claiming that there are gods that leave footprints.

The people who say their gods are the sort that leave evidence, those people are wrong. There are no footprints. The absence of footprints proves that footprint-leaving gods do not exist.

The other kind of god doesn't leave any trace. Nobody has any reason to believe in them. And Occam's razor says we have reason to believe they do not exist.

On the other hand, I don't want to seem unforthcoming, so I'll give one example. (But if you want to challenge my example, I'll set up a separate thread for that.)

Example: A universe containing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would have no evil.

So your argument comes down to the problem of evil. Got it.

Seriously, that was a rude misrepresentation. I gave a single example, and offered to discuss any example you want to bring up.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 75 by instantc]

I agree with the implication of the first comment, though I would say that it's certainly unparsimonious to propose a God and that this is a satisfactory reason for believing one does not exist, as is the direct opposition to parsimony that is mind-body dualism.

Occam's razor, or parsimony, is in no way logically deductive - this would be an appeal to Occam's razor, a fallacy. But it is a reasonable justification.

[instantc]

The people who say their gods are the sort that leave evidence, those people are wrong. There are no footprints. The absence of footprints proves that footprint-leaving gods do not exist.

This much I agree with of course, but that only justifies strong atheism towards 'footprint-leaving' Gods, which does not at all mean that there is no personal creator of the universe.

So your argument comes down to the problem of evil. Got it.

Seriously, that was a rude misrepresentation. I gave a single example, and offered to discuss any example you want to bring up.

When you say that you'd expect there to be evidence of God, and since there are none, God doesn't exist, it is up to you to show what evidence you would expect there to be. So far your argument comes down to the problem of evil, as that's the only thing you have brought up so far in this regard.