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.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 382 by otseng]

What I'm referring to is not just religious texts, but any texts - history books, science books, novels, etc. My point is that just because something is written by man, that by itself does not mean what it contains is either true or false.
Fair point. But what texts do you consider supportive evidence to justify a belief in a supernatural cause?

I would have thought the evidence would have yielded different results.

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. Does that line up with evidence?
Maybe yes, maybe no. The bible makes many erroneous claims as well. Shouldn't that be considered as well when justifying a leap to supernatural creator?

The set is all gods. If that set is not a true set to play with, then how can atheists make the claim that nothing is in that set?
Certainly I am not speaking for all atheists. There are many here (on this thread alone) who are much more capable and smarter than I.

My point is simply, the goalposts seem to move very rapidly when I make the comparison from one god to another. In essence, the belief in one religion, has just as much evidence of its authenticity as another. Which, to me, is yet another justification to believe that there are no gods.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight pointed this out in post 316.

He was confused. I dealt with that in 318.

And I responded to your objections again in post 320.

Our disagreement between the difference between "objective" and "subjective" appears to be a matter of how we are using the terms. If we are using these terms as being opposites (i.e. something is either objective or subjective but cannot be both) then your arguments fail. Because all you are doing is attempting to claim that "Subjective Experience" is "Objective" simply because it's a real experience.

In other words, you seem to be using the term "objective" to simply mean "real", and therefore since subjective experience is "real" you argue that it must be "objective".

But that's not what the term "objective" means in this context. If it meant that, then all subjective experiences would be objective.

In this context the term "objective" means "To be measurable by everyone resulting in a consistent observational conclusion". But that wouldn't be the case with your sources of subjective unhappiness.

If you claim to be unhappy I cannot verify that claim. You could be lying to gain sympathy or for some other motivation. I have no way of verifying that you are truly experiencing unhappiness. Therefore your subjective happiness is not objective to me. It's not something I can objectively confirm.

Also, you have defined evil as anything that makes people unhappy. But if the same thing make one person happy and another person unhappy then it would be both evil and non evil at the same time. Therefore it could not be said to be objectively evil. It would clearly only be evil relative to some subjective views an not to others.

Therefore your definition of evil as the source of unhappiness fails as an objective definition for evil. The only way it could be made to work is if all sources of unhappiness were deemed to cause unhappiness in every single person without exception. But that's typically not the case. In fact, we know for certain that this is not the case. For some people being made to ride on a roller coaster would be horrifying and that would make them extremely unhappy. For others it would be thrill and they would love to ride the roller coaster as many times as possible. So he we have a case where a roller coaster is both a source of unhappiness and happiness, both "evil and not evil" by your definition of "objective Evil". But as you can see, this is already not an objective.

So your definition for objective evil fails. It certainly wouldn't be an absolute. It would be entirely subjective and relative to each observer subjectively. Not only that but each observer would even be free to change their mind. In other words, at one point in someone's life riding a roller coaster might be terrifying and cause them to be unhappy, but then later they might actually learn to like it and ultimately become a roller coaster fan. So there's a case where a single individual decided that something that they used to think was "evil" has now become "not evil". So it's not even objective for an individual. It's clearly totally subjective.

[wiploc]

Divine Insight pointed this out in post 316.

He was confused. I dealt with that in 318.

And I responded to your objections again in post 320.

In my conversation with Otseng, he referenced your post #316, so I was talking to him about that.

In my conversation with you, I don't know whether to go back to look at #320, which I assume I've already responded to, or just deal with what you've said here. I'll go with responding to your latest material. If that doesn't suffice, if you want me to revisit 320, just let me know.

Our disagreement between the difference between "objective" and "subjective" appears to be a matter of how we are using the terms.

I tend to view "objective" as a wiggle word, something used for equivocation. So I try not to introduce it myself, and I try to stick with the meaning intended by whomever I'm talking to when I do use it. But I'm not perfectly consistent in this. I sometimes slip up.

If we are using these terms as being opposites (i.e. something is either objective or subjective but cannot be both) then your arguments fail. Because all you are doing is attempting to claim that "Subjective Experience" is "Objective" simply because it's a real experience.

You know, I do tend to think of "objective" and "real" as synonyms. That may be my first guess as to someone else's meaning when they use the word.

But I'm not yet willing to concede that that's how I've been using the word in this thread.

If I did, I screwed up, because that's clearly not what we're discussing here.

In other words, you seem to be using the term "objective" to simply mean "real", and therefore since subjective experience is "real" you argue that it must be "objective".

Let me work thru that with an example. Suppose Joe says, "This is a sad day, dark and drab. Life sucks." Let us stipulate that Joe is unhappy, and that the weather made him unhappy.

Does life objectively suck? No, it sucks for Joe, but it doesn't suck for Sara, who just got winked at by a cute girl. So the suckiness of the day is subjective, not objective.

Is the day objectively sad? No, it is sad for some, but not for others. It is subjectively sad.

But, is it objectively true that the day is sad for some? Yes it is. That's a cold, hard, non-subjective, non-ambiguous fact that doesn't depend on your personal opinion. That's objective.

Is it objectively true that the weather caused unhappiness? Yes it is. It may not have caused me unhappiness. But it nonetheless caused unhappiness for someone.

-

Okay, I've worked thru the example. I don't see the problem. If I slipped up and used the word "objective" incorrectly at some point, I apologize.

But that's not what the term "objective" means in this context. If it meant that, then all subjective experiences would be objective.

We want to be careful not to use the slippery-slope argument in either direction. It has seemed to me, at times during this discussion, as if someone was near to being able to declare that everything (or at least everything having anything to do with people or thoughts) is subjective.

I stipulate that Joe's opinion that life sucks is a subjective (and hyperbolic) truth. But the fact that Joe feels that way is an objective truth.

In this context the term "objective" means "To be measurable by everyone resulting in a consistent observational conclusion". But that wouldn't be the case with your sources of subjective unhappiness.

That doesn't work.

Consider a coin that falls to the ocean bottom. It landed either heads up or tails up. Nobody knows where it landed. It was deeply covered with silt. And, for good measure, let us say that it has since been consumed by a subduction zone.

So, the fact that it was heads (or tails) is objective because it is true regardless of anyone's opinion.

But nobody can measure it.

We could do other examples, but I'm thinking that this should dispose of the issue. Things can be objectively true without being measurable.

Okay, one more example. Brain science will soon be advanced enough that we'll know for sure (measurable by anyone, consistent observational conclusion) whether Joe is subjectively unhappy.

Thus, you don't have to be able to measure objective facts, and you may be able to measure subjective facts.

If you claim to be unhappy I cannot verify that claim.

Right, but the claim about a subjective state would still be an objectively true (or false) claim. That is, your opinion about whether it's true would not affect whether it is actually true.

Interestingly, the value of a share of IBM stock is a more murky issue: If nobody thought it was valuable, it wouldn't be valuable. Objective? Subjective?

You could be lying to gain sympathy or for some other motivation. I have no way of verifying that you are truly experiencing unhappiness.

But I will be either truly experiencing unhappiness or not. I'll objectively be lying or not.

Just because you don't know what a truth is, that doesn't mean that the truth doesn't exist. There are many truths that will never be known, because the facts about the universe are more numerous than the human brain can contain. But they are still (many of them) objective facts.

Therefore your subjective happiness is not objective to me. It's not something I can objectively confirm.

I don't care. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about whether it really happened, not whether you can confirm it. (And the "it" that really happened can't be subjective like, "Life sucks.")

Also, you have defined evil as anything that makes people unhappy.

Right.

But if the same thing make one person happy and another person unhappy then it would be both evil and non evil at the same time.

If it makes someone happy, it wouldn't just be non-evil, it would be good.

Therefore it could not be said to be objectively evil.

Yes it can. I say that myself. Anyone using my definition of evil would say that.

You may prefer a definition of evil that won't allow for something to be simultaneously good and evil, but, as you point out, that has to be the case if we use my definition.

Maybe you're thinking of something like "net evil" or "on average good." There's no way that something could simultaneously cause more happiness than unhappiness and more unhappiness than happiness.

It would clearly only be evil relative to some subjective views an not to others.

I don't understand this "relative" talk. If it causes unhappiness, then it is evil. Period.

Therefore your definition of evil as the source of unhappiness fails as an objective definition for evil.

No, for the reasons I hope are now clear.

The only way it could be made to work

It works
a) fine, and
b) better than any other definition I'm familiar with.

is if all sources of unhappiness were deemed to cause unhappiness in every single person without exception.

That may be your definition, but it is not my definition. I don't know what your definition would be good for.

But that's typically not the case.

Sometimes, an ill wind blows somebody good. I'm with you. But it's still an ill wind.

In fact, we know for certain that this is not the case.

Which is why I didn't use your screwy definition of evil that requires unanimous agreement.

You're attacking a straw man.

For some people being made to ride on a roller coaster would be horrifying and that would make them extremely unhappy.

Then it is evil. Or---since you are using the subjunctive---it would be evil if one of those people actually rode on it and thereby became unhappy.

For others it would be thrill and they would love to ride the roller coaster as many times as possible.

So it's also good.

So he we have a case where a roller coaster is both a source of unhappiness and happiness, both "evil and not evil" by your definition of "objective Evil". But as you can see, this is already not an objective.

And yet you give it as a fact that it would make some people happy and other people unhappy. Is that a subjective fact?

If you can give it as objectively true that roller-coasters make some people happy and some people unhappy, then why can't I say it is objectively true that they are both evil and good.

If you accept that I mean what I say (that evil is anything that causes unhappiness) then you will see that my statement is exactly as objective as yours.

You say that roller-coasters make some happy and some unhappy. I say that roller-coasters are both good and evil. We're saying exactly the same thing. And both of our statements are objective truths, because you can't change their truth value by your opinion, or by some other subjective state. They are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

So your definition for objective evil fails.

No, it's impeccable.

It certainly wouldn't be an absolute.

I don't know what that means.

It would be entirely subjective and relative to each observer subjectively.

No, because roller-coasters really do make some people happy and other people unhappy. That's an objective fact because its truth does not depend on whether people agree with it.

Not only that but each observer would even be free to change their mind. In other words, at one point in someone's life riding a roller coaster might be terrifying and cause them to be unhappy, but then later they might actually learn to like it and ultimately become a roller coaster fan.

Good point. In that case, roller-coasters would be both good and evil. Objectively.

So there's a case where a single individual decided that something that they used to think was "evil" has now become "not evil".

I suspect that you are here using "evil" to mean "I don't like it." That's not the topic of our discussion.

So it's not even objective for an individual. It's clearly totally subjective.

I believe that I have disposed of this objection.

[Divine Insight]

Is it objectively true that the weather caused unhappiness? Yes it is. It may not have caused me unhappiness. But it nonetheless caused unhappiness for someone.

I didn't read through your entire post wiploc. I'm just going to say that I simply disagree with your views on this.

You're weather example above proves my point, not yours.

If I want to go sailing and it's a windy day I'm happy. Is someone else is trying to do something that requires no wind they are unhappy with precisely the same weather on precisely the same day.

The weather is objective. But whether or not it makes someone happy or sad is entirely subjective.

So your examples just confirm what I'm saying. If we're still in disagreement at this point our disagreement necessarily must be one of semantics and not of actual concepts.

So I'll just let it be at that point.

Your definition of "objective evil" is simply whatever makes someone happy or not is simple false. That would indeed be a "subjective" definition of evil, not an "objective" definition.

[otseng]

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning.

Yeah. It also claims the earth was made before the stars.

Yeah, one day science will catch up on that one too.

[otseng]

Divine Insight pointed this out in post 316.

He was confused. I dealt with that in 318.

He was not confused.

Let me just ask you this. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil?

[otseng]

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning.

Isn't this something that all "Creation Myths" have in common?

Possibly. Even if this is true, how would it affect things?

The Bible doesn't say the Universe began to exist either. It says "In the beginning". It doesn't reference what is beginning - and considering that the Bible omits the entire Universe (to more than 100 decimal places by volume), it doesn't seem like it is talking about that, more that it's talking about the world.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen 1:1

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng]

But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.
What makes this any difference than an assumption? Sounds like splitting hairs to me.

In science, making an assumption and making a prediction is not splitting hairs.

Well, perhaps I'm mistaken, but the parts of god (properties) that are proven to be false by science, would most certainly be falsifiable. What's left becomes non-falsifiable ... for the time being.

Yes, you're mistaken.

Would you accept "I don't know" as a satisfactory answer to questions about the Bible or Christianity
No, for Christianity and the bible.

Then why should anyone accept "I don't know" as a satisfactory answer to the origin of the universe?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 397 by otseng]

Yeah, it pretty obviously refers to the sky and the ground.
Not the atmosphere or the planet beyond just the crust.

Just like how it refers to the lights in the sky. Not to the stars.

[otseng]

But what texts do you consider supportive evidence to justify a belief in a supernatural cause?

I suppose you are implying some religious text. So far, I've limited myself to just the argument of the origin of the universe for justification for a creator god. Not much religious text is required for that argument.

The bible makes many erroneous claims as well. Shouldn't that be considered as well when justifying a leap to supernatural creator?

In due time we can address those.

My point is simply, the goalposts seem to move very rapidly when I make the comparison from one god to another.

What would be the goalpost?