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.

[wiploc]

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.

Not at all. We're pointing out that your logic doesn't support your conclusion. We're following your logic beyond where you arbitrarily stopped. If everything needs a cause, then you get an infinite regress, not a god.

[otseng]

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

I have posted my argument repeatedly in this thread.

Would you agree that evidence is not the same thing as an argument?

Yes.

Good. Then what evidence is there that gods do not exist?

But there turns out not to be any reason to think that such gods exist.

So, your argument boils down to that theists have not presented any evidence for theism so atheism is true?

I think that's unfair, a misrepresentation.

I'm willing to be corrected.

You stated:
"Thus, once again, we find ourselves dealing with extraordinary claims and no evidence."

You also mentioned the problem of evil, but that only deals with the Christian God. It does not address the general claim that no gods exist.

You had summarized the arguments early on in post 6:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 594#672594

Arguments 1-3 in effect are claiming that theists have no good justification for theism.
Argument 4 is attacking the Bible (which I'll address later) and not addressing atheism in general.

So, why would my analysis be a misrepresentation?

[Divine Insight]

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

What problem of evil are you talking about?

As a secularist I know of no problem of evil that exists outside of theology.

From my point of view there is no such thing as a problem of evil, so I have no clue what you are talking about. Although in truth, I do. I fully understand that if you are going to support theology then this is indeed your problem. But it's certainly not my problem.

Let's get this "Problem of Evil" out of the way right now since it seems to paramount to you.

From Wikipedia:

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism). An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.

You see, the "Problem of Evil" doesn't even arise until you have already postulated the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. Only then do you have a problem explaining how evil came to be in the world.

Outside of religious theology there is no problem of evil. Things we call "evil" are simply things that we don't like. And there is no problem with that in a secular world. Why should this be a problem in a secular world that believes that life just evolved naturally for no specific purpose? Why should we expect the world to be perfect? There is no reason to believe the world should be perfect or not contain things we don't like. So there is not such thing as a "Problem of Evil" for a secularist.

Now this problem is clearly paramount to you since this is the second or third time you've bought it up as being the FIRST thing that need to be debated.

I will gladly debate you on the "Problem of Evil" from the point of view of secularism. There simply is no justification for it. On the contrary, the fact that this problem comes up the moment that you postulate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, seem to feel that this problem is paramount, seems to me that this is a reason why you, yourself, should reject the postulate that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God exists. After all, do away with that postulate and you no longer have any "Problem of Evil" that you apparently deem to be of utmost importance in your theology.

In short, the "Problem of Evil" does not support theology, but rather it arises the very moment you consider theology.

~~~~~~

On a second related note, I can even argue against the Christian theodicy of the "Problem of Evil" from within an alternate theology of Mysticism.

In other words, I believe that even if we consider the possibility of a divine essence to reality, there are better ways to handle the "Problem of Evil" from how Christianity deals with the problem.

From Wikipedia:

Theodicy (/θi�ˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos "god" + dike "justice"), in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy attempts to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience, in either their absolute or relative form, with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world

In mysticism the "Problem of Evil" is dealt with in an entirely different way. And I would even argue that it actually makes far more sense as a solution. However, I confess that such arguments are at a disadvantage because of the extremely limited number of people who actually understand Eastern Mystical philosophies.

~~~~~


For this reason if I were going to debate with you over the "Problem of Evil" I would much prefer to simply take the secular position. From the secular position there is no justification for even claiming that there is a "Problem of Evil." There is no "Problem of Evil" until you postulate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, only then does the problem arise in the first place.

So "The Problem of Evil" is meaningless to a secularist. There is no such thing.

The "Problem of Evil" is entirely on the shoulders of the theologian and only comes into being upon the postulation that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent supposedly exists.

Therefore if the theologians believe the "Problem of Evil" is a paramount problem, then clearly they are the ones who have a difficult problem in their theology. And secularists have no problem at all with their atheism.

Seems to me the secularists win that debate hands-down.

Theologians - Have a major problem with evil.

Secularists - Have no problem with evil at all. In fact, in secularism the very concept of "evil" is nothing more than a subjective dislike of something. And because of this, different people have different things that they label as being "evil". It's not even an absolute concept at all.

Sounds like a win for the secularists to me.

So yeah, if you would like to debate "The Problem of Evil" I'm more than willing to debate it, but as far as I can see the debate should indeed be as short and sweet as what I have already stated in this single post. Why should I, as a secularist, acknowledge that there even exists such a thing as a "Problem of Evil"? That's purely a problem of theism, it's not a problem in secularism at all. It simply has no meaning in secularism. You need to postulate an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God before you have even created this problem to begin with.

[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.

Not at all. We're pointing out that your logic doesn't support your conclusion. We're following your logic beyond where you arbitrarily stopped. If everything needs a cause, then you get an infinite regress, not a god.

Be careful with reading. Nobody has ever said that everything needs to have a cause. Some apologists assert that the universe needs to have a cause, not everything. Whether or not the same logic would apply to the said creator is irrelevant to the argument. We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

[Divine Insight]

Be careful with reading. Nobody has ever said that everything needs to have a cause. Some apologists assert that the universe needs to have a cause, not everything. Whether or not the same logic would apply to the said creator is irrelevant to the argument. We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

This is absolute nonsense.

You say:

Some apologists assert that the universe needs to have a cause, not everything.

And such an assertion would be totally empty and devoid of any merit if it isn't also accompanied with a reason why this assertion should be accepted.

Without a reason, it's just an empty opinionated assertion and has no meaning, value, or merit.

Whether or not the same logic would apply to the said creator is irrelevant to the argument.

What logic?

If no logical reason has been given to support this assertion then the assertion becomes nothing more than an empty subjective opinion that has no logical basis.

We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

What "explanation" has been offered?

None. All you have done is assert that the universe must have had a creator, and according to you, you have absolutely no logical reason to back up that claim. Therefore it can hardly be called an 'explanation" for anything.

And then you arbitrarily turn around once again, for no logical reason whatsoever, and assert that your creator does not need to have a creator.

You have absolutely no explanation for anything. All you have are totally empty subjective claims that you refuse to even associate with logical reasoning.

I can't believe that you are even posting this as an argument. It has absolutely no basis in logic or reason at all. On the contrary, what you are proposing here is extremely unreasonable.

All you are saying is the following:

We assert, for no logical reason, that the universe had to have a creator, and we further assert, for no logical reason that the creator needs no creator.

And you claim that this "explains" something?

I think you have just demonstrated to everyone precisely the type of illogical thinking a person must employ to be a theist.

[instantc]

All you are saying is the following:

We assert, for no logical reason, that the universe had to have a creator, and we further assert, for no logical reason that the creator needs no creator.

Seriously, this needs to stop. How are we supposed to have a debate, if after four times of me asking you to drop this ridiculous misrepresentation of my argument, you keep repeating the same nonsense that I have never in my life suggested. Show me a quote where I have said that "creator needs no creator" or admit that you are making up misrepresentations for some reason that completely goes over my head.

I think you have just demonstrated to everyone precisely the type of illogical thinking a person must employ to be a theist.

For your information, I am by no means a believer in God. I am interested in the arguments on both sides though, and I pointed out the irrelevancy of your 'who created God' objection in order to make room for better conversation in these threads.

None. All you have done is assert that the universe must have had a creator, and according to you, you have absolutely no logical reason to back up that claim. Therefore it can hardly be called an 'explanation" for anything.

Let me put this in simple terms. The only contention that I have made, my only input to this conversation is the following:

Whether or not a creator would require an explanation of its own is wholly irrelevant to the question whether or not God is in fact the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 225 by otseng]

No, an origin is somewhere you came from.

The fact that the Universe began to exist doesn't mean that it had to begin somewhere or at some time or from something - there weren't any of those things.

If you imagine a film - it's of finite length. But does playing the first frame of the film coincide with the film reel beginning to exist?

[wiploc]

As a secularist I know of no problem of evil that exists outside of theology.

That's like saying 2+2=4 is only true in math.

Let's get this "Problem of Evil" out of the way right now since it seems to paramount to you.

I request that you hold off on that. Let's you and me deal with it, get on the same page, before either of us deals with others.

I can't post more now, but I'll be back with an explanation of the PoE.

[Divine Insight]

I think you have just demonstrated to everyone precisely the type of illogical thinking a person must employ to be a theist.

For your information, I am by no means a believer in God. I am interested in the arguments on both sides though, and I pointed out the irrelevancy of your 'who created God' objection in order to make room for better conversation in these threads.

Ok, fine. I accept that your not arguing for a God. Your argument is still bogus.

You say:

We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

This is still wrong.

And explanation shouldn't need a explanation. It should BE an explanation.

Asserting that the universe "needs" to have creator is NOT an explanation.

An explanation would amount to explaining why this assertion has to be true. And the explanation that is almost always given for this particular assertion is that the universe appears to be too intelligently designed not to have a creator.

That IS the explanation that is almost universally offered along with this assertion.

Therefore it's perfectly natural to respond to that explanation, by pointing out that any intelligent designer who created the universe would necessarily need to be far more intelligently designed, and therefore this explanation must necessarily apply to that intelligent designer as well.

I don't care whether you are arguing for a God or against a God, your claim that this objection doesn't naturally follow is simply wrong.

Therefore you are wrong to claim that my "Who created God then?" question is irrelevant. It's perfectly relevant to the logic that has been offered.

You seem to be in denial that any explanation is required along with the assertion that the universe needs to have a creator. But just asserting that the universe needs to have a creator is not an explanation of anything. It's just a groundless assertion.

If you simply said, "The universe needs to have a creator", my very FIRST question back to you would be to ask "Why?". And if you couldn't answer that then I would be totally justified in just rolling my eyes and dismissing your assertion as having no reasonable grounds.

An empty assertion does not constitute and explanation.

So your argument is wrong whether you're arguing for a God or against a God, or whatever. It doesn't matter. Your claims are not making logical sense, period.

[Divine Insight]

I can't post more now, but I'll be back with an explanation of the PoE.

You have already stated a totally "non-theological" PoE earlier in this thread. You had stated some purely philosophical form of the problem concerning logical contradictions. That is not what theologians mean by their "Problem of Evil". Their problem of evil has to do precisely with their religious believe, and does not exist outside of that domain,

I've already pointed this out:

From Wikipedia:

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.

Now even if you try to move into a purely logical discussion of this problem, you'll note that all of these arguments are arguments that try to justify a God in a world that contains evil. So this is still a problem in theology.

Here's a site that covers these thoughts:

Logical Problem of Evil

This is still all being done in defense of a supposedly beneovlent God that has allowed evil in the world. It's still a religious problem

There is no such thing as a purely "Secular Problem of Evil". It simply doesn't exist.

There is no reason for a secularist to question why the world should not be perfect. A secularist would absolutely expect the world to be quite imperfect, and alas it is. It's not Problem for secularism at all.

I mean, an individual secularist might personally feel that living in an imperfect world is personally a problem. But this is not a problem for secularism as a philosophy.