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 209 by instantc]

The test results? But it only works when you aren't testing it.

I said test results in combination with inductive reasoning.

You didn't just dismiss it, I asked would there be good reason to believe it didn't work.

And I told you that the test results in combination with inductive reasoning would constitute such a reason. Whether or not it qualifies as a good reason depends on how much value one places on inductive reasoning altogether.

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

And yet, I am not willing to analyze each and every one of them, that's why I picked one example.

If we're talking about things being ad hoc, the entire concept of a God is ad hoc.

I don't see how the concept of a personal creator is ad hoc. Perhaps some more detailed dogmas involve ad hoc solutions, but the idea that the universe was created by a person is not at all ad hoc, it's a very general hypothesis that does not fit any particular parameters, why would you say it's ad hoc?

Being ad hoc itself isn't a fallacy - it's simply a poor hypothesis.

Philosophers tend to recognize it as a good reason to reject a hypothesis.

The idea of an ad hoc concept appeals to parsimony.

This seems odd to me, how are the two even connected?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 211 by instantc]

An ad hoc assumption is unparsimonius by definition.
The idea of an ad hoc hypothesis and an unparsimonius one are effectively synonymous - one shouldn't make unwarranted assumptions is the jist.

A personal creator is unwarranted.


Depending on what exactly you mean by it, inductive reasoning could likely be used to eliminate God.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 211 by instantc]

An ad hoc assumption is unparsimonius by definition.
The idea of an ad hoc hypothesis and an unparsimonius one are effectively synonymous - one shouldn't make unwarranted assumptions is the jist.

I agree that an ad hoc hypothesis is necessarily unparsimonius, but an unparsimonius hypothesis is not necessarily ad hoc, i.e it is not necessarily designed to "conveniently" prevent a theory from being falsified. In any case, the two are entirely different concepts.

[KenRU]

[Replying to dianaiad]

For what? For the conclusion that so far you have seen nothing that would convince you that any of the descriptions of god presented to you exist?
Correct, and it applies to this thread as well. What is the point of discussing things we have yet to imagine?

Sure, that's fair and logical, if you can honestly say that.
I can, and I have : )

However, how does that preclude any possibility that there is a god out there that nobody has described to you? Well, as I re-read the OP, I'm not entirely convinced that it was intended to include gods we have yet to imagine.

But, even if it does, what is wrong with the assertion that without evidence of said supernatural entity, why believe it/he/she exists? Wouldn't that be (again) a logical and justifiable stance? After all, the OP asks point blank: "Justify the belief that gods do not exist."

Justify, doesn't mean prove. Without evidence, there is no point in believing in any god. I'm asking, why isn't that sufficient justification?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 213 by instantc]

Whether or not it's added to the end to justify it wouldn't affect the actual truth value of the content.
What makes it unreasonable is the level to which it is unparsimonius - for example, if it's negation is simpler and equally explanatory.

When I say God was ad hoc, I don't really have a better way of putting it, but the a God hypothesis is not just speculative but 'random' - it's not just unwarranted, but there's nothing reasonable to really even suggest the idea. (At least certainly not before theologians started retroactively trying to justify it)

That's sort of what I meant by ad hoc - not just added to justify an idea, but an idea that's random and without justification (including that kind of ad hoc).
(This is sort of along what I meant: " It can also refer to an improvised and often impromptu event or solution "on an ad-hoc basis", as opposed to well-prepared ones")

[KenRU]

Replying to post 193 by otseng]

Depends on how you define supernatural. If it means outside our universe, then our universe must've had a supernatural origin.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

If we're talking before the beginning of the universe (when), then we can't be talking about where (outside). So, no, it would not be "supernatural" as you intended here. And, the "when" (beginning) could very well have a natural explanation anyways.

Again, not knowing how the universe began, does not require a supernatural (or magical) explanation.

[Divine Insight]

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.

But you are evading the issue.

You say, "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."

Yet you refuse to address why you think a "personal creator" is the best explanation for the universe.

Why do you claim that this is the case?

If you claim that this must be the case because the universe appears to be too intelligently designed to have happened by mere chance, then that reasoning would absolutely fall through to any creator that might have created it.

In other words, you can't claim that the universe must have had a designer because it's too complex not to have been designed, and then pretend that this same logic wouldn't need to apply to any designer that might have create it.

You are demanding to have a FREE LUNCH on that one.

You're claiming to have "logical reasons" why the universe had to have a creator, but then you proclaim that this creator of yours is exempt from this logic.

But why should that be?

All you're doing is trying to sneak in illogical conclusions under the pretense that they are logical. You can't do that. If any part of your reasoning is founded on totally illogical assumptions, then your logic fails. It's topples like a house of card in a hurricane.

If you're going to claim to have a logical argument then your logic needs to be sound.

So what is your logical reason for why the universe must have a personal creator?

If you can't answer this question, then you have nothing.

[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.

But you are evading the issue.

You say, "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."

Yet you refuse to address why you think a "personal creator" is the best explanation for the universe.

You are moving the goal posts. Notice that I said 'if a personal creator is the best explanation ...'. I don't claim to make any such arguments. I simply found your argument terrible and wanted to clear it off, so that we would have room for better conversations in this thread. I am much interested in hearing other people's thoughts as to why the universe does or does not demand a personal creator, and whether or not the said creator would demand another creator is wholly irrelevant.

You're claiming to have "logical reasons" why the universe had to have a creator, but then you proclaim that this creator of yours is exempt from this logic.

Frankly, this repetition is getting slightly comical. Show me where I have ever argued that the creator of the universe does not need to have a creator, and I will immediately wire you $5000 to an account of your choosing.

In your previous post you seemed to realize that I never suggested this, but now you forgot it already?

As a sidenote, I would much appreciate an answer from you to my question in the fine-tuning thread in the science section.

[Divine Insight]

You're claiming to have "logical reasons" why the universe had to have a creator, but then you proclaim that this creator of yours is exempt from this logic.

Frankly, this repetition is getting slightly comical. Show me where I have ever argued that the creator of the universe does not need to have a creator, and I will immediately wire you $5000 to an account of your choosing.

In your previous post you seemed to realize that I never suggested this, but now you forgot it already?

As a sidenote, I would much appreciate an answer from you to my question in the fine-tuning thread in the science section.

Well, duh?

If you don't believe that the best explanation for the universe is a personal creator, then how did we ever get into this conversation in the first place? Because I sure don't feel that way. And I would have never suggested it.

So what exactly are you arguing for?

Are you arguing that there is no justification for the belief that gods do not exist?

If so, what is your argument why this is an unjustifiable position?

By the way, you specifically asked me to give reasons why I justify the belief that Yahweh doesn't exist specifically. I did so in post #201 but you never responded to that justification or even acknowledged it.

[instantc]

If you don't believe that the best explanation for the universe is a personal creator, then how did we ever get into this conversation in the first place? Because I sure don't feel that way. And I would have never suggested it.

So what exactly are you arguing for?

I am saying that the old 'then who created God' -argument that you invoked is rubbish for the aforementioned reasons.

By the way, you specifically asked me to give reasons why I justify the belief that Yahweh doesn't exist specifically. I did so in post #201 but you never responded to that justification or even acknowledged it.

I'll respond to that later when I have more time. I think you are right with those arguments though, I was more interested in arguments as to why there can be no personal creator of the universe at all (i.e deistic God).