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]

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).

To being with, this thread is simply asking if it's justifiable to believe that gods do not exist. It's not asking anyone to argue why there can be no personal creator. It's quite possible to justify a belief that gods do not exist without establishing that the idea would necessarily be impossible.

According to Wiki deism was actually born out of Christianity by Christians who rejected the overall dogma but kept the idea of a "Father-like" Godhead.

from Wiki:

Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity

I could never understand why this idea of a totally separate creator is thought of as a "personal God". This is a creator who is threatening to unleash his wrath on you if you fail to love him and obey his every command. Why does that amount to a "personal God"? Seems rather impersonal to me. Especially in Christianity where this impersonal relationship is going to be maintained for eternity (i.e. you will forever be under the thumb of this God.)

It seems to me that the pantheistic religions are far more 'personal'. In those religions you are a facet of the mind of God, not a totally separate entity at all. What could be more personal than that?

By the way, I think it's justifiable to believe in pantheism. But I think it's also justifiable to reject the idea.

I also wouldn't argue that a belief in a separate deity like God is unjustifiable. But I think it is totally unjustifiable to claim that it's not reasonable for other people to reject the idea. The bible certainly makes that claim. It claims that people who do not believe in the biblical God are "Without Excuse". I say baloney. Atheism is totally justifiable. As is pantheism.

[Divine Insight]

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 wouldn't be saying "Then who created God?" unless someone had already suggested that a creator is the best explanation for the universe. In order to make that claim they must give a reason why they feel that this is the "best explanation" and the reason that is almost always given is that the universe is so complex or intelligently designed that it had to have a creator.

And it is that reasoning that carries over to the God and justifies the question, "Then who created God?"

So it's not rubbish at all. On the contrary it's the very next logical question to ask.

[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 wouldn't be saying "Then who created God?" unless someone had already suggested that a creator is the best explanation for the universe. In order to make that claim they must give a reason why they feel that this is the "best explanation" and the reason that is almost always given is that the universe is so complex or intelligently designed that it had to have a creator.

And it is that reasoning that carries over to the God and justifies the question, "Then who created God?"

So it's not rubbish at all. On the contrary it's the very next logical question to ask.

It's the next logical question to ask, but by asking it you are tacitly admitting God's existence, not arguing against it.

[otseng]

All it means is that the current physical laws we observe wouldnt apply to the singularity.

And the definition of a miracle is consistent with this. Natural laws would not be consistent with this.

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?

There are three possible explanations for the cause of something.
1. Natural law/process
2. Chance
3. Intentional design

If 1 and 2 are ruled out, then it's logical that 3 is a solution.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 193 by otseng]

The Universe doesn't need an origin.
It can simply not come, or come from no thing (which some people think is different to coming from nothing).

Is that supernatural?

If the universe existed eternally in the past, I'd agree with you. But since the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past, it had an origin.

[wiploc]

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

Don't know what the aformentioned reasons are, so maybe I shouldn't butt in here. But, there are times when the "Who created god?" argument, or something very like it, is completely appropriate non-rubbish.

Here, for example, is kenblogton, in post 53 of http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 218#674218

However, I would remind you that you have never satisfactorily dealt with the 2 fatal flaws in the atheist argument:
1. Something always comes from something, never from nothing.
2. There are no infinite regresses.

[otseng]

No, that's not what they are claiming. They are claiming that it's justifiable to believe that no invisible cars exist at all.

In Artie’s original post (which I was addressing), there is no reference about invisible cars. The concept of invisible cars were only brought in later.

Also, by the way, his original post never provided evidence that gods do not exist.

Sure there is. If a Christian believes they can justify that Thor does not exist, then surely they are in a far better position to understand why a non-Christian can justify that Yahweh doesn't exist. Because now we're speaking "Atheist-to-Atheist". The Christian is an Atheist with respect to Thor whilst the non-Christian is an Atheist with respect to Yahweh.

This is assuming that Thor and Yahweh are equivalent. But, this is not the case.

In fact, IMHO, any God who is claimed to be a supernatural supremely intelligent being who is supposedly infinitely wise and loving, yet he created a situation where he had to have his own corrupt priests brutally beat and nail his only begotten son to a pole before he could forgive the objects of his creation their failings which he clearly designed into them when he created them, would necessarily be so utterly stupid that he couldn't possibly be supremely intelligent.

OK, we can discuss this after the problem of evil and the problems of the Bible.

[wiploc]

There are three possible explanations for the cause of something.
1. Natural law/process
2. Chance
3. Intentional design

If 1 and 2 are ruled out, then it’s logical that 3 is a solution.

Is that a rule, a natural law, that those are the three choices?

Would that rule still work in a singularity, where the rules are suspended?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 193 by otseng]

The Universe doesn't need an origin.
It can simply not come, or come from no thing (which some people think is different to coming from nothing).

Is that supernatural?

If the universe existed eternally in the past, I'd agree with you. But since the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past, it had an origin.

Then what was god's origin?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 227 by otseng]

This is assuming that Thor and Yahweh are equivalent. But, this is not the case.
I'm curious how they are different.