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.

[mwtech]

If we agree that a miracle is a supernatural event, akin to having the laws of nature superseded, then we can easily agree what constitutes a miracle.

Well, at the risk of derailing this thread, I would say the creation of the universe would be miraculous. The laws of nature were superseded by the creation of the world. And its origin must've been outside our universe since our universe was what was created.

This could only be evidence of a miracle if
1) you can show that the universe was created
2) there were any physical/natural laws to suspend before the universe was created, which is nonsensical

When you don't look at the origin of the universe with any deistic presupposition, there is nothing to be said about it that could constitute is as miraculous. There is no evidence to show what the origin was, and there were no natural laws to supersede because they began at the time the universe began.

[Divine Insight]

There is no evidence to show what the origin was, and there were no natural laws to supersede because they began at the time the universe began.

That's not exactly true.

In modern science there is evidence to show what the origin may have been. According to current scientific knowledge the most likely explanation is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation that was inflated by a process known as inflation. We have evidence for both a quantum world and inflation.

So there may have indeed been "natural laws" in effect prior to the birth of the universe. However, those "natural laws" would not need to have been superseded because they allow for random fluctuations that can then ultimately inflate.

In other words, we are actually very close to having an understanding of how "natural laws" would naturally lead to the creation of a universe without any need to supersede them.

What we may not be able to ever do, is explain why those random laws exist in the first place. None the less, it seems to me that if we can show that the universe was indeed caused by 'random fluctuations" that alone would show that it was not purposefully started or designed.

And everything is currently pointing in that direction.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 128 by dianaiad]

I just realized that our comparison with the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational is indeed very much like a proof that can be applied to the verbatim biblical God.

With the square root of 2 what we were trying to find was a "rational number" that could be the square root of 2. And we were able to show that no rational number exists, thus the square root of 2 must be irrational.

We can do the same things with the verbatim biblical God. In other words we can say that if the Biblical God can be shown to be consistent literally verbatim with the Bible, then the Biblical God is "rational". However, if we must twist the meaning of the Bible in order to try to rationalize this God then we can say that the Biblical God is "irrational" (i.e. is not in harmony with the verbatim biblical literature.)

Using this analogy I think we can easily prove that the Christian God is either an extreme self-contradiction or irrational (i.e. must be salvaged by insisting on non-verbatim and non-literal interpretations of the Bible).

Given that criteria I think it's safe to say that the Biblical God is irrational.

[dianaiad]

I cannot argue about math. I'm discalculaic. However, if you claim to be able to prove a negative in mathematical terms, how about using it to prove that no gods exist?

You can. But you need to have a specific god in mind. Just like proving that there is no rational number that when squared equals 2. That a very specific case.

Isn't that the problem, though? It doesn't matter what specific god you have in mind...even it is one that you can absolutely disprove, how does that disprove the possibility of any god?

You can obviously have a rational number (or even a whole number) than when squared equals 4. So the proof that there cannot be a rational square root of the number 2 does not mean that no number can have a rational square root.

(grin) what part of 'discalculaic" missed your attention, DI? Think 'dyslexic' with numbers. You lost me with ''obviously have a rational number."

As to defining god...I think that the definition of 'god' would be whatever YOU think would make some being qualify for the title. Whatever that is.

Creator God, or 'god' (little 'g') or whatever you want to apply.

I can imagine gods that I can easily disprove. And I can also imagine gods that I cannot disprove.

Well then, that's the answer...for you. But then I don't think you've ever made the claim 'there are no gods,' have you?

So in answer to the question of the thread, "Justify the belief that gods do not exist."

For some gods I can justify this belief.

For others I cannot.

This is why I remain agnostic in the most general sense of the concept.

But it's also why I can be a very strong atheist (even a gnostic atheist) in the case of certain specific gods.

The God of the Bible is like the square root of two. I clearly does not exist, IMHO.

At least not as defined literally verbatim by the Bible.

On the other hand, if someone wants to claim that a God might exist that does not satisfy a literal verbatim description of the Biblical God, then I may not be able to disprove their imagined God.

But this would be like someone in mathematics proclaiming that they believe in a "square root of 2" that doesn't fit the literal verbatim definition of what the square root of 2 means.

How can you argue with that? They can argue that the square root of 2 does not need to be rational. Well duh? We already know that. In fact, that's what we have actually proved must be the case.

In other words, if a person is free to redefine the Biblical God so that it no longer fits the literal verbatim description of the Biblical God, then they can evade the proof that it can't exist. But would that truly be a fair argument?

Well, the problem is that there is no 'literal verbatim' description of God in the bible. The most one can say is 'this is what I think the bible literally says,' and trust me on this one; you WILL get an argument from someone who disagrees with you on the literal meaning.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 128 by dianaiad]

I just realized that our comparison with the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational is indeed very much like a proof that can be applied to the verbatim biblical God.

With the square root of 2 what we were trying to find was a "rational number" that could be the square root of 2. And we were able to show that no rational number exists, thus the square root of 2 must be irrational.

We can do the same things with the verbatim biblical God. In other words we can say that if the Biblical God can be shown to be consistent literally verbatim with the Bible, then the Biblical God is "rational". However, if we must twist the meaning of the Bible in order to try to rationalize this God then we can say that the Biblical God is "irrational" (i.e. is not in harmony with the verbatim biblical literature.)

Using this analogy I think we can easily prove that the Christian God is either an extreme self-contradiction or irrational (i.e. must be salvaged by insisting on non-verbatim and non-literal interpretations of the Bible).

Given that criteria I think it's safe to say that the Biblical God is irrational.

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

[Divine Insight]

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

Not commensurable with the rational numbers.

[Zzyzx]

.

Novels were not written then because something else was.

The CAUSE of novels not being written was because "something else was" written?

England didn't exist because something else did...and I'm not going anywhere near math.

England didn't exist BECAUSE something else did? Could it possibly be that England didn't exist because that culture had not developed?

The point is sometimes made here that theists are atheists to every god but their own, and should understand the mind set. The problem with that one is....one cannot believe in Zeus if one believes in Odin. The two cannot exist together.

Of course Zeus and Odin could exist together. What indicates otherwise? Tales by believers? The tales could be distorted views of the "gods" by human chroniclers

So I, who believe in my own description of deity, do not believe in any other; not so much because I cannot believe in them, as because I do believe in one that, if he exists, makes the existence of those others impossible.

"Makes others impossible" is part of the belief. That is only what one or more of the proposed "gods" is claimed to have said according to the unverifiable tales told about the gods.

Those who claim that 'there are no gods' can't do that.

Few who debate here claim "there are no gods", perhaps realizing the futility of proving non-existence of anything.

However, Theists seem to prefer to debate against the "no god" position even when it is not claimed by their debate opponents – or as a general straw man to argue against.

It is much more difficult for Theists to debate without the straw man (so they inject it often) because they claim existence and are asked for verification that their claims and stories are true. However, that does not justify resorting to "prove my favorite God doesn't exist" OR "provide an alternative."

Those who make a claim are expected and required to substantiate their claim – not demand that others refute it or provide alternatives.

Let's take that Easter bunny thing. As far as I'm aware, nobody believes that the bunny actually lays the eggs (just to get that one out of the way) he is supposed to deliver them.

However, for those who might think so anyway, we don't believe that rabbits lay eggs because rabbits have live kits. They do something ELSE, in other words, that makes the egg laying thing impossible.

MUST one have "something else" to rationally decline to accept a tale as true?

For instance, must one have "something else" to refuse to accept that unicorns exist on Earth?

Candy and gifts, though....well, we all grow out of that one when we realize that Mom and Dad are the basket stuffers there.

We tend to like candy and gifts even if the "occasion" is nothing more than a contrived holiday or "gifting occasion."

In other words, we don't believe in the Easter bunny because we know how all this stuff is done, INSTEAD.

That may be true for some people. Others may refuse to accept the tale for various reasons. Blanket statements are subject to being untrue.

Those who claim 'there are no gods' have nothing to put in place of the gods.

Those who claim there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs, etc "have nothing to put in their place" either. Is something "in their place" rationally required?

They can, in the face of miracle claims, show how that event 'really' happened so that an individual deity can no longer be responsible for it, but for the set of 'all gods, what and howsoever described?"

They have to come up with something else.

And I'm still waiting for that something else.

Are you waiting for the "something else" in the case of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs, etc? Or does that just pertain to god proposals?

Perhaps the something else you ask about is actually knowledge of the real world. When diseases were not known to be caused by microorganisms no one could supply the "something else" as an alternative to various goddidit claims. However, as knowledge increased and microbial causes became known they replaced the god claims.

[wiploc]

The thing that upsets me about these types of debates is that they are often used by Christians when debating Christianity.

Haven't I proven that the belief that there are no gods is reasonable? How can Christians benefit from using that in debate?

For example, this thread is in Christianity and Apologetics, when it reality it should be in philosophy since it's attempting to get at a much broader claim.

I don't understand.

Perhaps you think the title "Christianity and Apologetics" means something like, "Christian Apologetics, and anything else to do with Christianity"? Thus putting, say, discussion of whether Zeus exists beyond the pale?

Myself, I read it as meaning something like, "Religious Apologetics: Does the Christian god exist specifically (because we have a lot of Christians here) but also does any other god exist?"

In any case, I'd call the existence of gods a religious discussion, not a philosophical one.

Maybe you think of religion as a subcategory of philosophy?

And I agree with McCulloch that these types of debates are meaningless when there is no coherent definition for the meaning of the word "god".

This trips my trigger a little bit. So many times I've seen productive discussions derailed by a latecomer who insists that nobody can define god to the latecomer's satisfaction.

People like Dr. William Lane Craig

A jerk.

are masters of pulling these kinds of stunts. He is very good at trying to lure those who debate against Christianity into these kinds of arguments. This is very much in his favor because debating something this broads relieves Dr. Craig from even needed to defend the absurdities of the Bible.

He's an abusive debater who debates all kinds of religious topics. I have demonstrated how to win on this topic. I don't see how losing on this topic could be of benefit to him. If his opponent lets him get away with it, he'll create the appearance of having won on any topic. But that's a matter of competence, not a matter of topic.

Although, in truth, I can't place on the blame on the Christians for sure. I've made the same complaint about popular atheists as well. They often do argue against the idea of any type of gods, which is indeed absurd for the reasons McCulloch has pointed out. They can't claim to rule out "gods" that don't intervene in reality.

But you don't believe in such gods, do you? And you frankly think less of people who do believe in them? Because it doesn't make sense to believe in something implausible like that in the absence of supporting evidence?

I believe that non-intervening gods do not exist. Don't you believe that? If so, wouldn't it be nice to be able to articulate why, so that people would understand that this is a rational position to hold?

In other words, if there is a god or gods who created the universe via the big bang and designed it so that it would evolved just as it has, and they don't intervene with that evolution, then it would be impossible to demonstrate that they don't or can't exist.

Sure, you can't absolutely 100% prove their nonexistence. But their existence is still unlikely, isn't it? Don't you believe that they don't exist? Isn't it true that Occam's razor justifies the belief that they do not exist, and absolutely nothing justifies the belief that they do exist?

So claiming that "no possible gods can exist" is indeed an absurd claim.

Sure, but nobody's making that claim here. This thread is about justifying the belief that no gods (even non-intervening gods) happen to exist.

You wouldn't call that an absurd belief, would you? Isn't it a belief that you hold yourself?

But like I say, the Christians love these kinds of arguments because they know these types of claims are absurd and therefore they can take an easy stand in these types of debates, and then walk away from them acting like they just won a victory for Christianity, which is equally absurd.

Do you see anybody plausibly acting that way here? If so, do you think anybody could be fooled based on actual performances in this thread?

Winning a debate like against the topic of this thread in general does nothing to support Christianity.

But they aren't going to win, anyway, are they? My case is simple and unimpeachable. The strongest opposition we're getting is people claiming, in effect, that they haven't even noticed our posts.

If someone's going to be embarrassed by that, it's not the atheists.

Christianity is not dependent upon nullifying this claim.

Christianity is a form of theism. Theism must necessarily be weakened as strong atheism is strengthened.

On the contrary Christianity claims that there is only ONE God and that the Bible describes him with infallible accuracy.

That's a strawman argument. Not all Christians are inerrantists.

So that's the argument they need to make. And if they allow that the Bible is fallible, then they're done anyway. To claim that the Bible is fallible in order to win an argument that the God of the Bible can't be disproved, only end in the result that nothing in the Bible can be trusted precisely because it is fallible. If it's fallible then which parts do you believe came from God, and which parts should you chalk up to being false?

You make some good arguments. Maybe you should start a thread about that.

So this thread, shouldn't even be in "Christianity and Apologetics". It should be in philosophy in general.

I still don't understand why you say that.

And then McCulloch's point should end it anyway. If you can't define what "all-gods" mean, then it's a meaningless debate.

Suppose you were in a thread for the purpose of exchanging chilli recipes. Would you like it if someone barged in yelling "I HATE CHILLI! NOBODY SHOULD COOK CHLLI!"

I think that would be rude.

To give some credit to the atheists, I think when they say that it's justified to believe that no gods exist, what they really mean is that no intervening gods exist.

Do you really believe that non-intervening gods exist?

No? Then are you really of two minds on the subject? Undecided?

No? Then isn't your real position that it is reasonable to believe that they don't exist, even though it is impossible to prove that they don't exist?

If that's your position, then why are you against people explaining that your position is reasonable?

I think there is a good case to make for that argument.

And this thread is about making that case. Welcome!

Even though it would be impossible to prove that no divine intervention ever took place in all of history, I think it is justified to conclude from known history that if there exists an intervening God it must be intervening in truly trivial and petty ways whilst ignoring the real problems. And that's a sound argument against an intervening God.

Good. That's good. I don't know why you wrote all that contrary stuff at the beginning of your post.

A God who can't intervene is inept, why call it "God"?

Bingo!

A God who can intervene in atrocities but doesn't is is malicious.

Good point, yes.

So even if an intervening God did exist his morality would be highly questionable anyway.

Another good point.

[wiploc]

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

Pythagoras believed that all numbers could be simplified. An ugly decimal like .3333333... reduces to the a simple fraction: 1/3. And ugly fractions reduce to simple decimals.

He was good a finding simple ways to express complex numbers, and thought he was on top of the situation. That is, he thought all numbers would reduce to something simple and beautiful.

If you tried to talk to him about numbers that could not be reduced, he'd say you were being "irrational." God is good. God wouldn't make an inherently ugly number. Get outta here, kid, you bother me.

But, Pi and E go on and on, endlessly, whether you express them as fractions or decimals.

So these numbers, and others like them, are now called "irrational," though without the pejorative intent that Pythagoras had.

NOTE: People like to lie about Pythagoras. "He had a moral rule against eating beans, and he was a highly moral man, because he died of starvation in a bean field." So I don't promise that the above story is true. But it's still excellent for communicating the concept of irrationality.

[otseng]

This thread is entitled:

Justify the belief that gods do not exist.
What are the arguments that there are no gods?

There can be no single argument that rules out all possible gods. Therefore anyone demanding that is making an unrealistic demand.

Hmm, I don't think atheism needs to rest on a single argument. In Christianity, it does not rest on a single argument. Likewise, I would not expect any other belief system to also rest on a single argument. Would it be possible for atheism to rest on multiple arguments?

Since this is in the Christianity and Apologetics forum it makes sense to start by showing that the Christian God does not exist.

How about this? After we deal with the issue of the problem of evil, we can then discuss the veracity of the Bible?