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.

[Divine Insight]

Here you are claiming that it's not valid for a person to not believe in gods all the while you are demanding that no gods exist save for one invisible virgin born zombie demigod.

I'm not "demanding" that any Gods exist or don't exist. As far as I am concerned, there could be a personal creator of the universe, and you or Artie most certainly have not provided a proper argument against that hypothesis. All you have done is try to appeal to my disbelief in Thor and ask why I don't reject a personal creator of the universe on same grounds. The answer is simple, they are two different claims that are to be evaluated on their own merits individually.

If you feel that you can justify your belief that Thor does not exist, then how can you claim that people who justify their belief that your god does not exist don't have sound justification for their belief?

[Divine Insight]

We have good reasons to believe that no invisible car will run us over when we cross a street, don't we? Do you really need me to spell them for you?

Yes, I need you to spell them out for me. Because insofar as I am aware, the ONLY reason we have to believe that no invisible car will run us over when we cross a street is because we have NEVER seen this happen.

We have never seen anyone run over by an invisible car.

So far you haven't provided any reason to believe that there is no personal creator of the universe.

Same reason as the invisible car.

We have never seen any evidence for it.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 172 by Divine Insight]

I would say that the real reason is parsimony, and that while it isn't logically conclusive, it is a good way to decide what is the best explanation of things (and hence what is best understood as reality).

Hence we believe invisible cars don't exist, hence the previous analogy I gave about alien abductions, etc.

It is certainly a good justification/reason for believing a thing does not exist, even though that thing is not known to be logically contradictory.

[dianaiad]

OK, I'll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

1. If you are standing on a street corner without traffic lights you look left and right and left and listen for any cars coming. If you detect no evidence of any cars coming you assume that no cars are coming and cross the street. That is the rational approach. If two people are standing on the street corner and one detects no evidence of any cars coming and gets ready to cross and the other stops him and asks "why did you deem it safe to cross, what evidence do you have that no cars are coming?" I would assume that something was wrong with this person. Wouldn't you?

That only applies to cars which may or may not be on that road, at that time, with specific properties. How can you use that to decide that there are no cars, period?

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don't exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don't exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don't exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don't exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven't made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don't exist?

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

Strong atheists have no such positive belief that precludes the existence of all Gods.

Unless you have something?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 174 by dianaiad]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.
But what makes the choice to believe in the god that "absolutely precludes the possibility of any other" more logical or believable than the others?

Isn't the simple fact that there is no credible evidence to believe in one particular god vs another, a good argument to believe in none? Isn't that a fair and logical justification?

[mwtech]

I think the constants or laws of physics/nature began at the time physical and natural began. How could there be physical laws if there is nothing physical. We can't know if there are laws independent og the universe, we'd have to be able to observe "outside the universe", a concept I can't even imagine.

If this is true, then physical/natural laws cannot account for the origin of our universe. If laws cannot, then it is reasonable to infer a teleological origin to our universe.

How do the laws of nature that we currently use to describe physical constants not being applicable at the time mean that a telelogical origin is necessary? All it means is that the current physical laws we observe wouldnt apply to the singularity. How does it logically follow that because the current laws of physics were inapplicable, then there must have been a designer God that caused the universe to begin to exist?

[Divine Insight]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

That would rule out the Biblical God in any case. The Biblical God has proclaimed as a first commandment to men that they shalt not place any other Gods before him because he is a jealous God.

Why would he feel a need to make such a commandment if there were no other Gods?

Clearly the bible portrays a God that not only believes in other Gods himself, but who is also jealous of them.

[Divine Insight]

How do the laws of nature that we currently use to describe physical constants not being applicable at the time mean that a telelogical origin is necessary? All it means is that the current physical laws we observe wouldnt apply to the singularity. How does it logically follow that because the current laws of physics were inapplicable, then there must have been a designer God that caused the universe to begin to exist?

Actually there is no need to even refer to a "singularity" when considering that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation. No "singularity, is required. Nor is the idea of an infinitely dense dot required either. There is no need to postulate that all the mass, nor all the energy, that is currently in the universe existed it it's final form within this quantum fluctuation.

Inflation, the Higgs field, and the Pauli Exclusion principle totally remove the need to demand that all the energy and mass existed in the initial conditions of the quantum fluctuation. All of those things were produced by inflation and did not exist until the universe had already expanded (inflated) to a very large size. Only then would the Higgs field and the Pauli Exclusion principle need to come into play to "create" the mass/energy that fills the universe. And this would have ultimately been driving by inflation.

So there is no need to even postulate an infinitely dense singularity that contained all the mass and energy that is currently in the universe. All of that mass and energy was a result of inflation itself.

All that is needed to start a universe are the laws of quantum mechanics. And those laws run on purely random potentiality. Therefore there is no need for any "cause" other than pure random chance.

[instantc]

So far you haven't provided any reason to believe that there is no personal creator of the universe.

Same reason as the invisible car.

We have never seen any evidence for it.

But, don't you realize that if there were invisible cars running people over, we would know about it for sure, as there would have been eye witnesses and all that. At least that's a very reasonable expectation. That's a very solid argument against the existence of invisible cars that run people over. If there were a personal creator of the universe, what evidence would you expect to have that is not currently there?

[instantc]

Here you are claiming that it's not valid for a person to not believe in gods all the while you are demanding that no gods exist save for one invisible virgin born zombie demigod.

I'm not "demanding" that any Gods exist or don't exist. As far as I am concerned, there could be a personal creator of the universe, and you or Artie most certainly have not provided a proper argument against that hypothesis. All you have done is try to appeal to my disbelief in Thor and ask why I don't reject a personal creator of the universe on same grounds. The answer is simple, they are two different claims that are to be evaluated on their own merits individually.

If you feel that you can justify your belief that Thor does not exist, then how can you claim that people who justify their belief that your god does not exist don't have sound justification for their belief?

I didn't claim that, did I? I am asking for such justification, but you haven't provided it yet. My belief or disbelief in Thor has nothing to do with it. In any case, I would never hold the belief that Thor doesn't exist on the mere grounds that there is no evidence for it. I think I have the obligation to conduct a proper analysis of any claim that I reject. I might disregard a claim that appears uninteresting, irrelevant or improbable at face value, but I would not make the positive claim that it is false before conducting an analysis of the claim.