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]

Ok, so let's assume that your mind must by default dismiss these as well:

1. A universe came into existence from nothing whatsoever (or has existed forever).
2. A single-celled living organism sprang to life from an inanimate pool of chemicals.
3. By mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations this single-celled organism evolved into rational minds capable of explaining their own existence in terms of mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations from a single-celled organism.

By that argument, you would have to dismiss the following as being more absurd, correct?

1. A universe came into existence from an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural entity that has existed forever.

An omnipotent entity is about the only sort of entity I would consider capable of existing forever.

So, a more fantastic explanation becomes more reasonable?

2. This same all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural entity created Adam from the dust in the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib. All completed within the last 10000 years.

Again, I expect that omnipotence would be capable of both feats. Inanimate matter? Not so much.

Again, a more fantastic explanation becomes more believable. Rather than admitting we don’t know, we should create a more complex answer?

3. Despite nature providing vast amounts of evidence that evolution occurs (fossil records, microbiology, taxonomy and genetics) Modern Man is exempt from the forces of evolution.

I'm not dealing with evidence at this point (if I was I would say the evidence for evolution has been overstated), but rather a subjective evaluation of prior probability based on observations and experience. I don't know anyone who has ever witnessed Modern Man producing anything but more Modern Men – unless you want to consider postmoderns a novel species.

Gentic similarity notwithstanding, right?

Which seems more incredulous to you?

Atheism is nothing if not incredulous… Heh-heh.

Nice witticism. Yet it is hardly a substantive response.

[KenRU]

You're claiming lack of evidence (in essence) is evidence for belief in a supernatural origin of the universe.

Where did I ever say that?

Post 381 made me think this was your reasoning:
“I'm not assuming it. It's still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.�

That’s why I said “in essence�. You believe that none will be found, correct? Was I wrong?

Also, it's getting very difficult to read your posts. I'd ask you to please use the quote bbcode to show who said what. See Quick BBCode Tutorial.

My apologies. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully, I’m doing this right : )

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?

You were the one to bring it up.

So, you’re arguing that science has not proven any properties of god false, therefore it can not be a “god of the gaps� belief? If you’re not saying this, then by definition, it is indeed just that.

There are certainly many factual inaccuracies in the bible.

I'd disagree with this. There can be some, but I wouldn't agree with many.

Many or some, my point is still valid.

But even if nothing about god has ever been proven false by science (which I disagree with), I still don't see how it couldn't be considered a god of the gaps, given your earlier admissions.

If you disagree, then you must have some reason to support it.

Yes, and I’ve stated it already and again in this post. Not having an answer is a far smaller leap of logic then the leap to an supernatural entity or origin. If the properties of god (what he has been attributed to have done or is currently doing) are explained by science, then it is a God of the Gaps belief system.

Science also has many models that account for how it began - without the need for a Cause.

Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.

And how is god not: at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support it?

[Fundagelico]

An omnipotent entity is about the only sort of entity I would consider capable of existing forever.

So, a more fantastic explanation becomes more reasonable?

Not exactly. Keep in mind, the question here is which of the two claims is more extraordinary. To assert that an eternally self-existent creator is more fantastic than an eternally self-existent universe begs that question (by ascribing to the universe properties it does not appear to have). Evidently theists are not alone in believing extraordinary claims.

Again, a more fantastic explanation becomes more believable. Rather than admitting we don’t know, we should create a more complex answer?

Again, the assertion that theism is more fantastic or more complex than naturalism (materialism, physicalism, whatever) only begs the question. Now if we really don't know which claim is more complex or more fantastic, we clearly have no basis for making authoritative pronouncements that one is more complex or fantastic than the other. Meanwhile we have a long history of empirical research demonstrating that living organisms do not in fact emerge unaided from non-living matter – dust or otherwise.

Gentic similarity notwithstanding, right?

Right. Evolution of humans implies not merely that humans have a closer genetic similarity to some organisms than to others (a fact which should surprise no one), but that humans are currently evolving (presumably into something non-human). The latter seems to me a far more extraordinary claim.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 483 by Fundagelico]

No, we have <300 years of no examples of life coming from non life in the modern environment.
Even though the environment was completely different billions of years ago.
And we don't observe every environment.
And we might even miss an early stage of life if we did see it. Vesicles can form naturally and may have been key in abiogenesis.

That's like claiming that since a volcano hasn't formed in your back yard, they must be formed magically.

As for naturalism - one wonders what would actually miss the definition of natural.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 483:

Meanwhile we have a long history of empirical research demonstrating that living organisms do not in fact emerge unaided from non-living matter – dust or otherwise.

All living matter is composed of atoms, a non-living bit of matter.

[Zzyzx]

.

Still waiting.

Moderator Comment

This is a prime example of a non-contributing one-line post. "Prodding" someone is not advised and is not justification for rule violations.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

So are you suggesting that Jesus and God were totally unaware that thing things were supposed to withstand the test of time and speak to cultures that would exist thousands of years later?

Actually, it has withstood the test of time and do speak to cultures, even to those that exist now.

By the way, I'm not saying that I would necessarily believe those writings anyway.

Well, then, it would have made no difference to you anyways, so why is it even important?

Hmm, do other animals go through pain and suffering during delivery?

Yes, I'm certain that they do.

They might feel pain. But I'm talking about to the extent that women experience.

If you daughter was innocently beguiled by a psychopath would you be mean and cruel to your daughter over it?

This is a loaded question. I wouldn't be "mean and cruel" to my daughter. But, if I warned my daughter to not do something and told her there would be consequences to it, and she does it, then it's not inappropriate for consequences to occur.

[otseng]

Please either retract your claim that the universe's beginning is evidence that Christianity is true, or accept that science saying stars existed before the earth is evidence that Christianity is false.

You mean you don't want to hear my argument of why I believe the earth existed before the stars did?

On the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

The argument starts with refuting the mediocrity principle. I created a separate thread here to discuss it:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=26442

I'll probably weigh in in the other thread, but I don't see how refuting the principle of mediocrity makes the the stars any younger (or the earth any older) than today's science tells us. All it would imply is that the earth is "special"- whatever that means.

So your problem remains. You need to justify taking science as authoritative regarding the universe's beginning, while simultaneously taking it as non-authoritative regarding the relative ages of the earth and stars.

Or you could always just retract your claim that Christianity is supported by how today's science tells us the universe had a beginning.

Let's discuss that in the other thread. This thread is already discussing too many unrelated issues to the OP.

[otseng]

Can the problem be that I didn't use the subjunctive properly? Should I have asked, "IF it WERE objectively evil for a man to kill, then WOULD it be objectively evil for a god to kill?

Yes.

For instance, you might tell me whether, if slavery WERE objectively evil now, WOULD it follow that slavery was objectively evil in biblical times?

Yes.

If I were defining terms, I'd say 2+2=4 is absolute because it is always true everywhere and for every person. I'd say it is objective because it is true regardless of what you think.

Right. This is what is being meant by objective evil.

But you could have objective things that aren't absolute. Mars is objectively red without being absolutely red.

I don't think color would be a good example. Color would always be relative to the individual and be subjective. However, if you are talking about frequency, that would be objective.

A rule that only applies on Sundays is objective, but a rule that only applies to the Old Testament is Subjective?

If a specific time is mentioned in the rule, then you can only apply it to that time period. If no time period is mentioned, then it can apply at anytime.

[Danmark]

But you seem stubbornly cryptic on the subject. It's like you don't want me to understand.

Moderator Comment
It is better to stick to the argument itself rather than to project personal motives onto your fellow debaters.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.