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.

[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.

That’s a big “if� and also an assumption.

Which assumption are you referring to?

That our universe is what is considered natural?
That the universe did not create itself?

You have no evidence that the universe needs a Creator, and no evidence that says the universe could not have existed in any other varied form.

And you have evidence that our universe existed in another form?

So, if and when science does have an explanation for these things, wouldn’t that place this squarely in the “god of the gaps� argument?

For myself, no. Like I mentioned earlier, a god of the gaps argument is non-falsifiable. I’m making the argument that God created the universe to be falsifiable. That is, if there is a valid scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the idea of a creator God is falsified.

You have not yet to shown why this is proof for the need to have a god as a Cause.

I’m not giving a proof. I’ve given an argument.

[Fundagelico]

[Replying to post 483 by Fundagelico]

No, we have <300 years of no examples of life coming from non life in the modern environment.

Just how many years of continual disconfirmation would it take to falsify the theory?

My take is simply this: To the extent that abiogenesis is falsifiable, it has been falsified. To the extent that abiogenesis is not falsifiable, it lacks the rigor of a testable scientific theory. In either case belief in abiogenesis appears about as empirically justified as belief in creationism. (I say that not as an empiricist but as a creationist.)

No, it has not been falsified, and it is falsifiable. If no plausible sequence of chemical reactions and physical actions could have resulted in life over a 1 billion year period across the entire Earth, then it is falsified. Lacking a developed mechanism does not mean the transition is unreasonable.

Sorry, but a speculative reconstruction of prehistory based on subjective perceptions of "plausibility" hardly counts as a rigorous scientific testing of a hypothesis. Better to just admit the question is largely metaphysical and decide what to believe based on considerations other than science.

By your standard, if we give ten thousand different chemical mixtures ten thousand opportunities under ideal experimental conditions to confirm abiogenesis, and it fails to occur, abiogenesis has not been falsified because… well, we can always imagine alternative scenarios that have not been tried yet. But of course, if abiogenesis did happen to occur just once out of those ten thousand attempts, abiogenesis would be gloriously confirmed as a fact of science. I call that sort of can't-lose methodological approach confirmation blindness (a higher level of personal dedication to a theory than your basic, run-of-the-mill confirmation bias).

Abiogenesis could in practice be observed, not to mention that it doesn't need to be itself observed (the entire process) to justify it.

In practice? I'm guessing you mean "in principle." In any event the language of "justification" here suggests an acknowledgement that what we're dealing with are largely epistemological rather than strictly scientific issues. That's progress, I suppose.
�
But I disagree with your statement as it stands. It would be difficult to justify an abiogenesis claim even if we could observe the entire process in distinct pieces or phases (we can't) – at least not without committing a fallacy of composition. If we're wanting to know how life came together it does matter quite a bit that we know just how those individual phases of its construction came together.

We don't assume requirements without justification, hence we don't assume a God without justification.

I'm not really following you from this point forward, so I'll just stop here.

[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.

This seems rather disingenuous. Using your analogy, you say this:
A “self-existent universe� is equally as believable and fantastic as sentient “self-existent creator�.

Did I get that right?

Pretty much, although I would go further and suggest that a self-existent universe is less believable and more fantastic than a self-existent creator. It may turn out that I am wrong, I suppose, but what's disingenuous about that?

If your assertion is correct, then off the bat, you admit to having no evidence at all for a Creator. Bringing us back to why the need for a supernatural explanation.

Following your own suggestion, I offered as a hypothetical that "we really don’t know which claim is more complex or fantastic" – which of course would mean that neither of us has a complete explanation. It does not follow from this that neither of us has any evidence at all for our respective positions.

Under no definition is a sentient, all powerful being equally as fantastic as a natural explanation. Since no one is claiming that the universe is sentient, you have the existence of said Creator to explain, plus its sentiency.

That seems an odd bit of reasoning. Given that God is creator of the universe rather than vice versa, God's features would not depend on particular features of the universe. Are you suggesting that the act of creation entails God duplicating himself?

A better argument in my view would be, "Under no definition of naturalism is the natural universe itself sentient. Since no one is claiming that the universe is sentient, you have the existence of sentience (as manifested in humans, for example) within the universe to explain."

As I understand evolution (and I am by no means an evolutionary biologist), all life is continuously evolving. And, there is massive evidence to support Evolution.

But (as mentioned previously) there is no evidence that humans are continuously evolving – as in, evolving into an identifiable non-human species. That among other things suggests to me (as mentioned previously) that the strength of evidence for evolution has been overstated.

I’m not sure how you can assert that these two are equally fantastic. It would seem to me (as is evidenced by my conversations with many theists) that this is a matter of faith, something most are very proud of. It is a leap they are most proud to admit to.

Yes, it is largely a matter of faith, specifically a matter of how one chooses to interpret the evidence we do have. But why as a theist should I think your interpretation is less fantastic than mine?

[Danmark]

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.

That’s a big “if� and also an assumption.

Which assumption are you referring to?

That our universe is what is considered natural?
That the universe did not create itself?

I have assumed the universe "always was." At least until those pesky cosmologists started talking about a 'big bang.'* Theists believe God 'always was,' that he is beyond the scope of time and space. What is the problem with assigning this same attribute to the universe? Pasting the label "God" on to the equation doesn't change anything but the name.

______________________
*Now I feel I must add, "in one form or another" to "universe." There are at least two supporting theories [or aspects of the same theory] for this, even if we accept 'big bang' theory. The cyclic nature of the 'big bang' and the fact that the 'nothing' that immediately preceded it, was more than 'nothing' as Krauss points out in his ironically named A Universe From Nothing.

[KenRU]

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.

That’s a big “if� and also an assumption.

Which assumption are you referring to?

“and if the cause of our universe was not by itself�

Not to mention we don’t necessarily know a Cause (or cause) is definitely necessary.

You have no evidence that the universe needs a Creator, and no evidence that says the universe could not have existed in any other varied form.

And you have evidence that our universe existed in another form?

That’s the point. Since this origin is still unknown, I fail to see how a Creator is either necessary or the best explanation. Why the need to go outside of nature for an explanation?

So, if and when science does have an explanation for these things, wouldn’t that place this squarely in the “god of the gaps� argument?

For myself, no. Like I mentioned earlier, a god of the gaps argument is non-falsifiable. I’m making the argument that God created the universe to be falsifiable. That is, if there is a valid scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the idea of a creator God is falsified.

I’m not sure I agree that the god of the gaps argument is non-falsifiable. But even if I did, the overall point is that god’s abilities and properties (in this case) become smaller and less grandiose. Correct?

You have not yet to shown why this is proof for the need to have a god as a Cause.

I’m not giving a proof. I’ve given an argument.

Fair point. I should have said evidence or reasoning (other than a lack of a scientific explanation).

All the best,

[KenRU]

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.

This seems rather disingenuous. Using your analogy, you say this:
A “self-existent universe� is equally as believable and fantastic as sentient “self-existent creator�.

Did I get that right?

Pretty much, although I would go further and suggest that a self-existent universe is less believable and more fantastic than a self-existent creator. It may turn out that I am wrong, I suppose, but what's disingenuous about that?

I’d like to hear your reasoning for this claim.

If your assertion is correct, then off the bat, you admit to having no evidence at all for a Creator. Bringing us back to why the need for a supernatural explanation.

Following your own suggestion, I offered as a hypothetical that "we really don’t know which claim is more complex or fantastic" – which of course would mean that neither of us has a complete explanation. It does not follow from this that neither of us has any evidence at all for our respective positions.

You have evidence that god exists? I’d love to learn more.

Under no definition is a sentient, all powerful being equally as fantastic as a natural explanation. Since no one is claiming that the universe is sentient, you have the existence of said Creator to explain, plus its sentiency.

That seems an odd bit of reasoning. Given that God is creator of the universe rather than vice versa, God's features would not depend on particular features of the universe. Are you suggesting that the act of creation entails God duplicating himself?

A better argument in my view would be, "Under no definition of naturalism is the natural universe itself sentient. Since no one is claiming that the universe is sentient, you have the existence of sentience (as manifested in humans, for example) within the universe to explain."

God being the Creator does not exempt him from being defined or understood. If he can’t be, then you admit to him being more complex than our natural laws and consequently, more complex than a self-sustaining or self-causing universe.

As I understand evolution (and I am by no means an evolutionary biologist), all life is continuously evolving. And, there is massive evidence to support Evolution.

But (as mentioned previously) there is no evidence that humans are continuously evolving – as in, evolving into an identifiable non-human species. That among other things suggests to me (as mentioned previously) that the strength of evidence for evolution has been overstated.
But there is evidence (very strong evidence) that humans evolved from earlier species.

I’m not sure how you can assert that these two are equally fantastic. It would seem to me (as is evidenced by my conversations with many theists) that this is a matter of faith, something most are very proud of. It is a leap they are most proud to admit to.

Yes, it is largely a matter of faith, specifically a matter of how one chooses to interpret the evidence we do have. But why as a theist should I think your interpretation is less fantastic than mine?

In simplest terms, we have the natural world and evidence which supports much of how it works and we have no evidence of a supernatural world. The only evidence (that I have ever been confronted with anyway) for a supernnatural world has been the absence of science to explain the things we do not know currently. That is not evidence.

If you have evidence which supports a Creator, please present such evidence.

All the best,

[Danmark]

....a self-existent universe is less believable and more fantastic than a self-existent creator.

I echo KenRU's question. What is your basis and reasoning for this opinion?

We know the universe exists.
We do not know a 'self-existent creator' exists.

If an always existing God can exist, why not a universe?
The additional burdens that a "god supposition" requires are many:
1. That a 'god' exists at all.
2. An additional burden for each quality supposed this 'god' supposedly possesses.
For example:
Does he* have a personality?
What is his nature?
3. Does he give us any thought at all?
4. If so, why should he?
... and so on.

Tho' the principle of parsimony is not proof it certainly disfavors the 'god hypothesis.'
______________________
*I dislike assigning God or god a pronoun. I do so only as an accommodation to ease of language.

[Fundagelico]

You have evidence that god exists? I’d love to learn more.

That probably deserves another thread, or perhaps just revisiting some old threads. For now I will merely suggest that we have at least as much evidence that a self-existent creator exists as we have evidence that the observable universe has the property of self-existence.

God being the Creator does not exempt him from being defined or understood. If he can’t be, then you admit to him being more complex than our natural laws and consequently, more complex than a self-sustaining or self-causing universe.

A few points here:

1. God's being more complex than natural laws does not follow from his being less than completely defined or understood. (Besides, if the history of science teaches us anything, it's that we don't understand natural laws nearly as well as we think we do.)

2. Even given the premise of God's greater complexity, there is no reason to think that a more complex entity is less likely to exist than a simpler entity. Right now I'm looking at my computer and thinking about a solid gold sphere, five feet in diameter, which sits in my garage. I just checked, and sure enough, the far more complex computer exists while the far simpler solid gold sphere does not. Remember, the principle of parsimony is to not multiply entities beyond necessity. The existence of a contingent universe needs an explanation beyond itself, especially for those who demand scientific rather than metaphysical explanations.

3. As long as we're discussing definitions: I mentioned that "under no definition of naturalism is the natural universe itself sentient." If you agree, then the burden of proof for your side of this debate is to show just how a non-sentient universe managed to bring forth sentience – let alone intelligence, moral awareness, etc.

4. Without derailing the thread, I should mention that God is held by many sophisticated thinkers (Richard Swinburne among others) to be the simplest possible cosmological hypothesis.

In simplest terms, we have the natural world and evidence which supports much of how it works and we have no evidence of a supernatural world. The only evidence (that I have ever been confronted with anyway) for a supernnatural world has been the absence of science to explain the things we do not know currently. That is not evidence.

In terms of metaphysics I think it would be less presumptuous to simply say that we have the observable universe, and we are not sure how and why it is here, or how and why we are here to observe it. It all seems to call for an explanation. God as creator would supply one such explanation. The universe existing, on the other hand, would not explain its existence.

But don't get tripped up with semantics. If you're convinced that everything that exists rightly belongs to the natural (and vice-versa), we could easily conceive of God not as a supernatural but a higher-dimensional entity. That would place God in the same meta-cosmological category as various entities postulated by M-theory.

There's a saying that goes something like, "If you see a turtle on top of a fence post, you know it got some help." Now I would add that if you see a contingent, temporal and finite universe, you should know it got some help coming into existence. To simply say "the universe is all there is" would be nice and parsimonious, if the universe happened to exhibit properties of self-existence or eternality or infinity. But all the evidence we have at our disposal suggests the universe to be contingent, temporal and finite. From a cosmological standpoint, naturalism therefore borders on incoherence.

If you have evidence which supports a Creator, please present such evidence.

I have my doubts whether you and I share the same understanding of what constitutes "evidence." Just so that we don't waste lots of time talking past one another, please first let me know what exactly you think evidence is and then I'll do my best to either supply said evidence or correct your understanding of what it is.

All the best,

Thanks for that. It's all too easy for most of us to overlook common courtesy during debates and disagreements.

[Fundagelico]

....a self-existent universe is less believable and more fantastic than a self-existent creator.

I echo KenRU's question. What is your basis and reasoning for this opinion?

We know the universe exists.
We do not know a 'self-existent creator' exists.

Agreed, except in the context of this discussion your first statement should read "We know a self-existent universe exists" – in which case your argument would immediately collapse. Think about what a theory or an explanation is. It's not simply restatement of an observation. In explanatory terms the fact that I can see a mountain on the horizon tells me precisely nothing about how it got there.

If an always existing God can exist, why not a universe?

There's nothing logically preventing a universe from existing forever. But the universe unfortunately does not exhibit properties of self-existence, but rather contingency, temporality and finiteness. The question here is what supplies the best explanation for that universe. The basic observation that "the universe exists," while clearly true, is just as clearly not an explanation for the existence of the universe.

The additional burdens that a "god supposition" requires are many:

I'm running short on time, so I'll just address the first:

1. That a 'god' exists at all.

Again, we're looking for an explanation for things. Gravity has been mentioned as an analogy. The proposition that God (or 'god' if it really matters to you) exists bears roughly the same burden of proof as gravity. As carefully and frequently as we observe massive objects interacting in certain mathematical generalizable ways, we never directly observe "gravity" – or whatever it is that best explains this interactive relationship.

Nor do we know whether gravity is prescriptive or merely descriptive, what caused gravity to begin its operation in the universe, etc.

[Divine Insight]

1. That a 'god' exists at all.

Again, we're looking for an explanation for things. Gravity has been mentioned as an analogy. The proposition that God (or 'god' if it really matters to you) exists bears roughly the same burden of proof as gravity.

As carefully and frequently as we observe massive objects interacting in certain mathematical generalizable ways, we never directly observe "gravity" – or whatever it is that best explains this interactive relationship.

Nor do we know whether gravity is prescriptive or merely descriptive, what caused gravity to begin its operation in the universe, etc.

Gravity and God are nowhere near the same.

Gravity began as an observation of behavior. The name "Gravity" actually labels that observed behavior.

In what way would propositions that a "God" exists be even remotely similar?

What "observations" are you calling "God"? And why did you choose that label. What do you mean by "God" beyond the observations that you are calling "God"?

You need to be very specific here.

Gravity began as a label for the simple observation that most things fall to the earth and are heavy to pick up. In fact, some things actually floated up into the air and were originally believed to be example from gravity and having some other property. We now know that nothing is exempt from gravity and things that rise do so for other reasons, such as being lighter than the atmosphere.

When Isaac Newton came along he discovered a very rigorous mathematical description of "Gravity" (a description of an observation). And he even went much further and recognized that his same behavior is observed to be the mechanism that drives the paths of the planets. He also showed by his mathematical relationships that gravity is a property of mass. So he's beginning to take it beyond a mere observation of motion and recognizing that it has something to do with mass.

Albert Einstein then came along and blew our understanding of gravity through the roof. He explained how mass creates gravity by warping a field of "spacetime". And once again he showed very rigorous mathematical equations that describe this relationship. You can even say that he took it beyond the mere descriptive to the prescriptive indeed.

~~~~~~~

So now how does your concept of "God" compare with this?

What observation are you calling "God" and what have you learned about this observation to be able to say anything descriptive or prescriptive about it?

Nor do we know whether gravity is prescriptive or merely descriptive, what caused gravity to begin its operation in the universe, etc.

By the way, we actually do know what caused gravity to begin its operation in the universe. Einstein's General Relativity tells us exactly what causes gravity to operate.