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.

[Danmark]

This is the very point. The physical brain is physically affected and this causes changes in the mind. Yes, the mind itself is not directly affected. The brain is affected and since the mind is a projection of the brain, the mind is indirectly affected.

Your assumption here is that "mind" is a projection of the brain. But that still doesn't explain what it is that is having an experience? Is the projector having an experience or is it the projection that is having an experience?

What is it that is having an experience?

I keep reiterating that the mind is complex and yes, a projection of an almost infinitely complex brain. Memory is one aspect of this. We store experiences in our memory; that is, we store events which we can recall in various ways. We call this collective memory 'experience' among other things.

Let's take an example. Jokes. If I just think, 'what's a favorite joke of mine?' nothing immediately comes to mind. But a second later I think of one. That single memory of a joke reminds me of another, and another. The end result is that if any one tells me a joke, immediately I remember one that is linked to it. Not one usually, but several. My conscious mind has no jokes in it, until you say 'joke.' Then one emerges from below, quickly followed by another and another . . . . until . . . somebody slaps me or tells me to shut up. At any given moment it seems to me there is nothing on my mind, then with a wee bit of stimulus, I realize that all these memory tabs have been excited, eager to contribute, even obnoxiously so.

This store of memories is the result of my experience. I do not understand how there can be much mystery about this. We are only beginning to understand how the brain and mind work, but it seems to me that 'experience' is the sum total of our 'experiences,' each of which is stored in the brain under several different cataloging systems.

For example, a favorite joke is about the guy who was born with five penises.
"His pants fit like a glove."

I know from experience this joke is stored under several tabs that are likely to provoke it:
birth defects
penises
gloves
hands
pants
medical news
doctors
nurses
freaks
As I'm starting to type this I find myself smiling, because I am recalling that almost anything can draw out this memory.

Speaking of experience, I have a motorcycle buddy who, when chided about the little 'roll' that was developing around his waist, smiled and called it 'experience.'

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 581 by Danmark]

I don't think we are using the term "experience" in precisely the same way. I'm not speaking about your past experiences, or a list of past experiences that is stored in your memory. I'm talking about the immediate experience of the instantaneous moment. It's doesn't even require thoughts at all.

This is the idea behind transcendental meditation. The idea here is to just experience existing without thinking about anything. Being precisely in the moment. No thoughts of the past and no thoughts of the future, you're just totally focused on what you are currently experiencing.

What is it that is having that experience?

It's just not a computer collecting data to store in a memory to later recall as "past experience". This live experience that is happening in the current moment is being "experienced" by something.

Something is having an experience right now in the moment. It's not merely recording events to later be recalled as "past experiences". The idea of memory can indeed be attributed to a brain. But is memory required to have an experience in the moment?

And more importantly, if there is nothing to have an experience in the moment, then what good would a vast collection of memory be anyway? There would be no entity to even experience the memory.

The experience is what is happening now. In the moment. If you recall a previous experience all you are doing there is choosing to experience a past experience over again in this moment.

In fact, memory alone is clearly not experience because when you aren't currently experiencing things that may be stored in your memory then you have no current experience of them.

I have to smile here because when I said that a whole flood of memories flashed through my mind reminding of me of many previous experiences I have had in the past. And I clearly don't experience those things in the moment daily.

My instantaneous experience is the essence of the real-time me. The only time in which I can have an experience is the now.

[otseng]

I have assumed the universe "always was." At least until those pesky cosmologists started talking about a 'big bang.'*

Do you have any justification for this? Or is it just an assumption?

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?

If you want to believe science, you can't posit an eternal universe. As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science.

[otseng]

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

If the universe began to exist, then it requires a cause.

If the universe caused itself, then like I said, it violates the principle of causality.

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?

Do you have another explanation other than a supernatural explanation?

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?

If it is a God of the gaps argument, yes. But, like I said, I'm not making a God of the gaps argument.

[Danmark]

I have assumed the universe "always was." At least until those pesky cosmologists started talking about a 'big bang.'*

Do you have any justification for this? Or is it just an assumption?

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?

If you want to believe science, you can't posit an eternal universe. As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science.

I entirely agree with you about my belief the universe has always been. It is simply my own intuition. When given the choice between the universe coming into existence from nothing and the alternative that it has always been, the latter makes infinitely more sense to me. That there are physicists who agree with me, is of no great importance to me. My own intuition or sense of logic or whatever you want to call it, speaks to me. I cite no other authority.

My central postulate is that this 'eternity principle' or whatever you want to call it, is at least as justifiable for what we know is here [the universe] as it is for some speculative 'ground of being' + personality called 'God.'

[wiploc]

If you want to believe science, you can't posit an eternal universe.

Why do you say that?

As for God being eternal, God is not bound by science.

Talk about special pleading.

Is he by any chance bound by logic? Or are we free to say any nonsense about him that we want?

[Divine Insight]

My central postulate is that this 'eternity principle' or whatever you want to call it, is at least as justifiable for what we know is here [the universe] as it is for some speculative 'ground of being' + personality called 'God.'

I totally agree with this sir. This is my belief as well. Natural or supernatural, it makes no difference. Whatever exists has always existed in some fundamental form.

I may possibly go a bit further to say that we are necessarily the thing that has always existed. For what else could we be?

[Danmark]

My central postulate is that this 'eternity principle' or whatever you want to call it, is at least as justifiable for what we know is here [the universe] as it is for some speculative 'ground of being' + personality called 'God.'

I totally agree with this sir. This is my belief as well. Natural or supernatural, it makes no difference. Whatever exists has always existed in some fundamental form.

I may possibly go a bit further to say that we are necessarily the thing that has always existed. For what else could we be?

Yes, but I have to ask, when you refer to 'we' are you talking about us collectively as a race, or about each of us as individuals?

Tho' I would like to believe otherwise, when my heart stops beating, when it ceases to pump oxygen and other nutrients to my brain, my brain will begin its transformation into dirt. I will no longer exist. My mind will be gone. The storage facility I think of as memory, the racks and stacks of information I've absorbed and made part of me over the years will be gone. The framework that holds the individual units, along with the parts, the cells, will be gone. What is left will be food for worms. To the extent I continue it will be only in the memory of others or in whatever words I have published. I have no illusion that "I" will remain. My consciousness of myself will have dissolved.

In the meantime, I'm not going to give death more than a passing thought. I'm going to enjoy the moment. Life is a good thing. It passes. For me it will end. For others it will begin, then continue until they pass it on before it ends for them as well. The blessed thing in this process is that we will not be here to mourn our own passing. In death there can be no regret.

[instantc]

My central postulate is that this 'eternity principle' or whatever you want to call it, is at least as justifiable for what we know is here [the universe] as it is for some speculative 'ground of being' + personality called 'God.'

Hilbert's Hotel (the idea that an infinite regress of time involves a logical contradiction) applies to the universe that we observe but not necessarily to whatever caused the universe into existence, does it not? That's the justification for saying that God may be eternal but our universe cannot.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 589 by instantc]

Hilbert's hotel isn't "the idea that an infinite regress of time involves a logical contradiction".

Hilbert's hotel is a paradox - specifically a veridical paradox (meaning it isn't demonstrated to have a contradiction - the conclusion is valid albeit seemingly absurd) referring to operations on infinite sets.

For the definition of paradox: "a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true."

Not only that, but it in no way maps to time. Whatsoever. Nor any other dimension.

Nor would it explain why God could be eternal.