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]

In short, the argument that anything that exists must have had a creator is a bogus argument to begin with because that argument would necessarily need to also apply to any imagined Gods that might exist. They too then must have been created by an conscious intelligent creator, and that becomes an infinite regression. It's not a solution to anything.

This is nonsense. Nobody's ever said that everything that exist must have a creator. Some say that the universe must have a creator. Whether or not the same logic applies to that supposed creator is wholly irrelevant. An explanation stands on it own merits that are not dependent on whether or not that explanation demands further explanations. Besides, for you or Richard Dawkins (I don't know any other serious academics who publicly use this "argument") to demand that the creator must then have a creator of its own is already a tacit admission that the original creator-argument stands to reason. That's why I would not recommend that approach.

I simply disagree with your opinion on this.

What grounds can you offer for why a universe would need to have a conscious designer, but that a conscious designer itself would not need to have a conscious designer?

You would need to explain in detail why a universe needs a conscious designer, but a conscious designer would not have this same need. Why not?

As a reminder, you are yet to respond to my previous post, whereby I showed the fatal flaw in your 'invisible car analogy'.

You haven't showed any flaw.

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?

What evidence for an invisible God is currently there?

I have not seen any evidence for an invisible God.

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.

You say, "I am asking for such justification, but you haven't provided it yet."

I have already given my justification for dismissing the Biblical God and specifically the Christian. I won't bother given all of my justification because that could amount to a book as large as the Bible itself. So I'll offer the following as being more than sufficient justification.

Christians claim that the Biblical God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, all-loving, etc, ect, etc.

Fine. But then Christianity expects me to believe that this God couldn't come up with a better way to save his human pets than to have his own corrupt priests call for the brutal beating and crucifixion of his only begotten demigod son.

That, my friend, is absolutely absurd.

Any God who would stoop to such disgusting behavior could not even be remotely intelligent much less supremely intelligent. Nor could he be omnipotent. In fact, if Christianity is true, this God cant' even keep his own religion in order.

There is no way to "redeem" this story. This gory ignorant and utterly stupid crucifixion of the demigod Jesus to pay for the sins of man can only be the result of one of two things. Either this God is so utterly stupid and incompetent that he painted himself into this absurd corner to need to do this utterly disgusting thing, or he planned it from the very beginning, in which case he would necessarily be one sick puppy.

There is no excuse for this religion. There is no excuse for any God that might be affiliated with this religion.

And therefore its more than reasonable and justified to place this religious mythology right on the shelf next to Greek mythology.

IMHO, there is absolutely no sane reason to take Christianity seriously.

To believe in Christianity I would need to believe that we were created by an absolute moron, or worse.

So the justification for dismissing this particular religion and God, is more than vindicated.

~~~~

And I would like to remind you that this is merely one reason, in Christianity alone. I could go through the entire Old Testament and offer many sound reasons for rejecting the God of the Old Testament God before we even get to the New Testament.

And finally, this religion is a gross contradiction to itself overall. In the Old Testament this God deals with sinful men by simply drowning them out in a Great Flood. But then in the New Testament of this very same religion this very same God supposedly loves mankind so much that he sacrifices his only begotten son in a desperate attempt to offer them salvation.

And this is supposedly be an unchanging God who is the Alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and never changes in personality.

Clearly this religion is utterly absurd. It isn't even consistent with its own claims.

~~~~~

I could go on and on and on. There are so many reasons to reject this religion that the mere fact that anyone gives it any serious consideration today at all is the real mystery. But then again, just as many people give the same consideration to Islam too. So I guess it's not surprising. It just shows that humans in general don't even bother to seriously question these religions.

[instantc]

In short, the argument that anything that exists must have had a creator is a bogus argument to begin with because that argument would necessarily need to also apply to any imagined Gods that might exist. They too then must have been created by an conscious intelligent creator, and that becomes an infinite regression. It's not a solution to anything.

This is nonsense. Nobody's ever said that everything that exist must have a creator. Some say that the universe must have a creator. Whether or not the same logic applies to that supposed creator is wholly irrelevant. An explanation stands on it own merits that are not dependent on whether or not that explanation demands further explanations. Besides, for you or Richard Dawkins (I don't know any other serious academics who publicly use this "argument") to demand that the creator must then have a creator of its own is already a tacit admission that the original creator-argument stands to reason. That's why I would not recommend that approach.

I simply disagree with your opinion on this.

What grounds can you offer for why a universe would need to have a conscious designer, but that a conscious designer itself would not need to have a conscious designer?

You would need to explain in detail why a universe needs a conscious designer, but a conscious designer would not have this same need. Why not?

Why would I need to explain that? I didn't say that a conscious designer does not need to have a conscious designer. I said that whether or not that is the case is wholly irrelevant. That's not the question, the question is whether or not the universe needs to have a conscious designer. You cannot turn down an explanation on the mere basis that it demands further explanations.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 202 by instantc]

But you can and should turn down an explanation when it's alternative is simpler and equally explanatory of real world data.

Explanations proposing unnecessary unjustified things such as creator fall in the same boat as conspiracy theories, superstitions and other supernatural ideas. Just because it can be maintained as logically consistent, even in the face of evidence that appears to suggest it to be unreasonable, doesn't mean it is still reasonable.

Can I give justification that homeopathy doesn't work any of the time? Yes.
"But homeopathy actually only works when you aren't testing to see if it does"
Am I still justified in believing it doesn't work any of the time? Yes.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 202 by instantc]

But you can and should turn down an explanation when it's alternative is simpler and equally explanatory of real world data.

Explanations proposing unnecessary unjustified things such as creator fall in the same boat as conspiracy theories, superstitions and other supernatural ideas. Just because it can be maintained as logically consistent, even in the face of evidence that appears to suggest it to be unreasonable, doesn't mean it is still reasonable.

Parsimony is a reason to reject God as an explanation for some given parameters that can be otherwise explained in simplier terms. It's not a reason to believe that God does not exist. Even if nothing that we currently know of demands God as an explanation, it does not follow from there that God does not exist. In the 16th century, nothing that we knew of back then demanded dark matter as an explanation, but those people were hardly justified in believing that therefore dark matter does not exist.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 204 by instantc]

Are there good reasons to believe homeopathy doesn't work?

If someone told you that homeopathy only worked if you weren't testing it (to see if it worked), would there still be good reasons to believe it doesn't work?

Are there good reasons to believe that the innate consciousness cars possess won't transcend their destruction and live forever?

Are there good reasons to believe a man who walks down a street has not been abducted into an undetectable UFO and replaced by a perfect replica?

[Divine Insight]

Why would I need to explain that? I didn't say that a conscious designer does not need to have a conscious designer. I said that whether or not that is the case is wholly irrelevant. That's not the question, the question is whether or not the universe needs to have a conscious designer. You cannot turn down an explanation on the mere basis that it demands further explanations.

Ok then, what is your reason why the universe needs a designer?

And how does that reason not apply to an imagined God?

Typically the reason given for why the universe needs a designer is because it's too complex to have evolved naturally. But if that's the reason for arguing that the universe needs a designer, then surely something as complex as an all-intelligent God would also then need to have a designer for the same reason.

In other words, you need to explain why you think the universe needs to have a designer, and you need to show why this very same reason would not apply to a God.

So, yes, you most certainly do need to explain your reasoning.

~~~~~

Edited, to reconsider.

It does appear that you are suggesting that you do not hold that a conscious designer would not need a designer itself. But in that case, then you have an infinite regression that hasn't gotten you anywhere at all.

[Divine Insight]

Deleted double post

[instantc]

Edited, to reconsider.

It does appear that you are suggesting that you do not hold that a conscious designer would not need a designer itself. But in that case, then you have an infinite regression that hasn't gotten you anywhere at all.

It is true that 'everything has a creator' would imply an infinite regression of explanations. However, 'the universe has a creator' does not, as far as I can see, imply such a regression. It simply implies that the universe has a creator, and whether or not that creator has a creator is another issue completely. It is a fundamental principle in philosophy of science that we don't need to consider the explanation of an explanation in order to recognize it as the best explanation for something. Therefore, if a personal creator is the best explanation for the universe, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not we have an explanation for that explanation.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 204 by instantc]

Are there good reasons to believe homeopathy doesn't work?

If someone told you that homeopathy only worked if you weren't testing it (to see if it worked), would there still be good reasons to believe it doesn't work?

First of all, as far as I can see, the test results in combination with inductive reasoning constitute a justification for the belief that it does not work at all. Second of all, that kind of a claim is woefully ad hoc and can be reasonably dismissed on that basis alone. What it comes to the other examples, I am not going to analyse every ridiculous and pointless claim you come up with. Nevertheless, I would never dismiss a claim on the mere basis that it hasn't been backed up with evidence. I might disregard it on that basis, but never dismiss it.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 209 by instantc]

The test results? But it only works when you aren't testing it.
You didn't just dismiss it, I asked would there be good reason to believe it didn't work.

As for "ridiculous and pointless claims", some of them been seriously believed by people. Not that it matters - incredulity is not an argument.

If we're talking about things being ad hoc, the entire concept of a God is ad hoc.
Being ad hoc itself isn't a fallacy - it's simply a poor hypothesis. The idea of an ad hoc concept appeals to parsimony.


If you think that the examples I gave can be refuted, either give a successful and valid argument, or give a reason that uses a kind of justification through which God can also be eliminated. (e.g parsimony)