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 539 by instantc]

It lacks explanatory value because it hasn't been shown to have any - which for an explanation means it doesn't currently have any.

That's an unjustified leap though. Just because something hasn't been shown to have explanatory value doesn't mean that it doesn't have any. Explanatory value of things doesn't increase, our knowledge of it does.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 541 by instantc]

As I said, there might in future be some, but as of yet, there is no value in it.

Something that isn't viewed to have value, by definition, has no value. You can't have something that's valuable to noone and yet still called valuable.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 541 by instantc]

As I said, there might in future be some, but as of yet, there is no value in it.

Something that isn't viewed to have value, by definition, has no value. You can't have something that's valuable to noone and yet still called valuable.

That's why explanatory value is not the correct term, whether or not a theory happens to have explanatory value to someone is irrelevant. Parsimony has got to do with explanatory power.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 543 by instantc]

An explanation is an extant concept - if you don't have an explanation for how X does Y, then that explanation does not exist. It might be possible to explain Y with X, but the explanation does not yet exist.

All of this is irrelevant - issues with parsimony is the only thing in common between falsity of dragons, fairies, observer dependant homeopathy, etc.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 543 by instantc]

An explanation is an extant concept - if you don't have an explanation for how X does Y, then that explanation does not exist. It might be possible to explain Y with X, but the explanation does not yet exist.

What does it mean for an explanation to exist? The BBT does not cease to have explanatory power if humans went extinct. Things have certain amount of explanatory power with regard to certain models regardless of whether we have come up with those models yet.

All of this is irrelevant - issues with parsimony is the only thing in common between falsity of dragons, fairies, observer dependant homeopathy, etc.

These claims should be considered individually on their own merits, not reject them in bulk because they don't have any explanatory power that you have heard of so far.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 545 by instantc]

What about their own merits allows them to be rejected?
Fairies and pixies are (almost by definition) near impossible to find.
Same with leprechauns.
Someone could claim that a dragon did exist.

The only thing these all have in common is that to be true they must be highly fantastical in an unparsimonious sense.


The BBT is based on positive evidence, and is the least contrived and most likely explanation that covers the evidence.
If the BBT hadn't been invented, it wouldn't exist.
The big bang theory was invented - it might still have conformed to reality but that doesn't mean it existed as a theory or explanation.

[otseng]

Unless I’m mistaken, this was in the context of discussing the need for a universe to have a Creator. So, if you’re not saying the lack of scientific evidence available to explain the origin of the universe necessitates the need a supernatural explanation, then what are you saying?

If our universe is what is considered natural and if the cause of our universe was not by itself, then it must've had a supernatural cause.

Indeed this is a key question, perhaps the key question. But what is the evidence that the universe has not always been, in one form or another? In the alternative, what is the evidence the universe did not cause itself in the singularity that resulted in the 'Big Bang?'
For me the key is that we know the universe exists. We have no reason to suppose it has not always existed or in the alternative that it did not cause itself via the 'Big Bang' as some theorize. In any event we do not doubt its existence and we only speculate on its origin if indeed it has not always been.

It could not have always existed, unless you want to propose that physical laws have changed.

As for the universe causing itself, that would go against the principle of causality. The effect and the cause cannot refer to the same thing.

However, by supposing it had an unknown cause and labelling that cause 'God,' we have entered into the region of pure speculation.

At this point, I use "God" in a very generic sense. I'm not even saying such a God is Yahweh. It could be any type of Deist creator god.

[otseng]

I just can't understand how anyone can support Hebrew mythology. That's like supporting the idea that our creator has the mentality and immorality of a truly sick and demented barroom drunkard.

I don't think anyone is really supporting your version of Yahweh.

Again it doesn't matter. If I can't trust Yahweh then he's untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if you think you can trust him.

Sure, you are free to not trust Yahweh.

If Yahweh would do any harm to me at all on purpose, then he's an untrustworthy God. If I can't trust him to be righteous, then I can't trust him. Period amen.

Righteousness is not equivalent to not harming another.

Suppose Frank is a mass murderer. He is proven without a doubt that he has killed 20 people. Would it be unrighteous to punish Frank?

The mere fact that I am being open and honest about how disgusting I feel the biblical claims are, from God cursing eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in procreation, to God taking part in the crucifixion of his own demigod son, or condoning this in any way as being a criteria for salvation, is nothing short of an act of pure honesty on my part.

I have no problem with you being honest. And actually, I don’t think God would have a problem with your honesty either. But, honesty does not mean one is actually correct or in the right.

For example, I can honestly say that I did not know the speed limit when I go through a speed trap. However, the cop still has the right to give me a ticket, even if I honestly did not know the speed limit or even if I honestly thought that it was unrighteous to put a speed sign up where it should not be.

[otseng]

But what would that mean? That would mean that Yahweh would realize that I'm not rejecting him at all but instead I'm rejecting a totally wrong picture of him that holds no truth at all.

He would be elated and extremely pleased with me for not believing that false, incorrect, and wrong picture.

But you do not claim to be rejecting the "Wrong Yahweh". You are claiming to be rejecting the "True Yahweh".

The popular Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and all the others also have proclaimed quite passionately that they see an extremely "immoral God" being portrayed in the Bible.

Yes, I realize that. We've already done a book debate on The God Delusion. Perhaps we should do one from Sam Harris.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 547 by otseng]

Why must the Universe have a cause?

Causality is the Universe and physical laws plus the subjective scope of an "arrow of time" resultant from the second law of thermodynamics.

If we are to treat causality, a mere intuition with clear limitations in the quantum scale and in large quantities of interactions, as somehow a 'metaphysical' principle then we must be honest and accept that we are talking about time.

Cause precedes effect in time. By definition, a cause cannot precede the beginning of time, therefore there cannot be a cause for the beginning of time.

Theoretical physics doesn't deal with causality.
Quantum mechanics doesn't deal with causality.

It's an illusion that is only useful under a perceived arrow of time, nothing more.