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]

There are quite a few stories of people who claim to have heard God talk. Most people imagine that He sounds a bit like Morgan Freeman.

I always imagined he'd sound more like George Burns.

What you and Artie and others are doing is presenting alternate possibilities, and used that possible alternative as proof that any other explanation is false.

I was taking it as they are showing alternatives that are better/more likely an explanation than the god explanation. And that is a justification to believe that gods do not exist (not prove). And that is what this thread is about.

Sorry, but that is not proof.

Don't need proof for this thread, just a justification.

Shoot, that's not even decent logic.

Altruism, compassion, sharing, familial bonds are all exhibited in nature, and it is very logical to assume that we derive ours in the same manner. That seems to me to be decent logic. An unexplained, unproven, baseless, extra-dimensional, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being as a Cause is a logical explanation?

-All the best

Actually, I rather thought this thread was about justifying the belief that gods do not exist. Not "justify the belief that there is insufficient evidence for deity," but a rather positive claim; No gods exist. Period.

That's a slightly different thing, it seems to me

From the original post:

“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.�

So, perhaps Wiploc can clarify, but given the above, I’m pretty sure he was just looking for justifications and then discussing how “sound� they are.

You can interpret it that way if you wish, of course.

One CAN justify the belief that there's no compelling evidence for deity. I believe that about every description of deity but mine.

Why not go one god further?

Please justify the belief that there are no gods. Not 'I see no sufficient evidence for deity, but acknowledge the possibility, however dim and unlikely, that someone might come up with evidence that shows the influence/existence of one," but "There ain't none, never was one, and it is utterly impossible for a god or gods to exist, and no evidence will be found to support the existence of one because there ain't so such animal."

Justifying the belief that gods do not exist by providing evidence and/or reasons is a far cry from saying there cannot be one (or there ain’t no such animal – as you so wittily asserted).

I can (and have many pages ago) supported my reasons, as have many here. I believe the thread was intended to debate those reasons.

There have been a WHOLE bunch of pages that have dodged this; same old/same old attacks upon theism...which, no matter how many descriptions of god might get debunked, does not disprove the possible existence of any sort of deity of any description.

Moving the goal posts....

The goalposts were not moved, I just don’t think we’re all playing on the same field.

But, unless wiploc miswrote (and that's possible) and really meant to get people to justify the belief that gods probably do not exist, or to justify the belief that there's no evidence at the moment to support one, I'm reading it as written: justify the belief that gods do not exist.

He never said “probably�. He said to make a list of arguments (not proofs) and/or reasons why theism is false.

Also, if you’re going to highlight via italics, why not highlight the whole sentence including the words "justify the belief�? Note he never says prove.

The post clearly says:

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.

Justify that.

I did : )

[KenRU]

I was taking it as they are showing alternatives that are better/more likely an explanation than the god explanation. And that is a justification to believe that gods do not exist (not prove). And that is what this thread is about.

Well stated.

Sorry, but that is not proof.

Don't need proof for this thread, just a justification.

I've started another thread about "proof". http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

Thanks. Interesting challenge. I'm most curious to see if dianaiad and/or other theists can meet there own criteria.

-All the best,

[otseng]

The rest would be that if something exists without beginning, then it must have a cause too.

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

[wiploc]

Actually, I rather thought this thread was about justifying the belief that gods do not exist. Not "justify the belief that there is insufficient evidence for deity," but a rather positive claim; No gods exist. Period.

Rational people can believe things on less than absolute proof.

...
One CAN justify the belief that there's no compelling evidence for deity. I believe that about every description of deity but mine.

Do you have absolute proof that your deity exists? If not, why do you think we should have absolute proof that your deity does not exist?

However, that's not how the challenge was worded, and that's how I'm taking it, here, if nowhere else.

Please justify the belief that there are no gods. Not 'I see no sufficient evidence for deity, but acknowledge the possibility, however dim and unlikely, that someone might come up with evidence that shows the influence/existence of one," but "There ain't none, never was one, and it is utterly impossible for a god or gods to exist, and no evidence will be found to support the existence of one because there ain't so such animal."

Now that is a strawman. Not all rational beliefs are based on the utter impossibility of the contrary.

There have been a WHOLE bunch of pages that have dodged this; same old/same old attacks upon theism...which, no matter how many descriptions of god might get debunked, does not disprove the possible existence of any sort of deity of any description.

But we're not after proving that gods aren't possible. We're only showing why they seem so unlikely or implausible that it is reasonable to believe that they do not exist.

Some, of course, are impossible. But others can be reasonably dismissed as improbable.

Moving the goal posts....

Uh, uh. I wrote the goal in the title and OP, and it hasn't changed.

But, unless wiploc miswrote (and that's possible)

I deny miswriting. I ratify what I put in the title and OP.

and really meant to get people to justify the belief that gods probably do not exist, or to justify the belief that there's no evidence at the moment to support one, I'm reading it as written: justify the belief that gods do not exist.

You don't need absolute proof that something is impossible in order to believe that it isn't true. You believe things without absolute proof. Everybody does. And that includes reasonable people: All reasonable people believe things on less than absolute proof.

That's not a refusal to believe the claims of others. THAT, in my opinion, anyway, is a direct and very positive claim in and of itself.

"Gods do not exist."

Period.

Justify that.

Now who's moving the goal posts?

[wiploc]

The rest would be that if something exists without beginning, then it must have a cause too.

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

Who made that rule?

Isn't it transparently self-serving?

What if I said that everything that isn't blue needs a cause, but that blue things don't? Wouldn't you suspect that I was about to argue for something like a Smurf creator?

Either things need causes or they don't. You don't get to just make up rules and expect everybody to fall in line.

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

Yes, that's the same quote. It turns out that I have another response to it:

Let's assume, as Christian apologists keep telling us to do, that when we say "universe" we are referring only to matter, energy, space, and time. That is, the beginning of the universe is the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time.

If that's the case (the beginning of the universe is the beginning of time) then there can be no prior to the universe. (Notice that I dropped your quote marks on "prior," because this is literally true: nothing can be prior to time.)

Since nothing can be prior to the universe, and since the universe always existed (that is, it existed at all times), then it follows---according to your own logic---that the universe would not need a cause.

[Artie]

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

There are only two possibilities:

1. Something from nothing.
2. Something from something that previously existed.

Hence the only way to avoid something from nothing is that something has always existed and just keeps changing into something different.

[Artie]

Since nothing can be prior to the universe, and since the universe always existed (that is, it existed at all times), then it follows---according to your own logic---that the universe would not need a cause.

The Block Universe. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... iverse.asp Since time only exists "in the block" the block just is. Nothing could have "created" the block since there is no time in which the block didn't exist. There is no outside of the block, and from the inside we can see very far but only to where the block stops. Inside the block time is relative.

[otseng]

The rest would be that if something exists without beginning, then it must have a cause too.

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

Who made that rule?

Isn't it transparently self-serving?

Not sure who made that rule, but it's sounds logical to me.

You mean self-serving because it is consistent with the properties of God and not with the properties of the universe? Well, you can't dismiss it just because of what it favors and what it does not favor.

Since nothing can be prior to the universe, and since the universe always existed (that is, it existed at all times), then it follows---according to your own logic---that the universe would not need a cause.

But, I don't believe I've ever claimed that there was a prior to our universe. Please point that out and I'll correct that.

[wiploc]

The rest would be that if something exists without beginning, then it must have a cause too.

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

Who made that rule?

Isn't it transparently self-serving?

Not sure who made that rule, but it's sounds logical to me.

Not to me. It sounds completely arbitrary, made-up.

You mean self-serving because it is consistent with the properties of God and not with the properties of the universe?

Gods' properties seem to be based on caprice only. That is, they change all the time, depending only on which argument theists are employing at the moment. If, for instance, we're doing the modal cosmological argument, then---poof!---god suddenly has the property of maximal greatness.

And the universe does seem to have causeless particles.

So I don't see that the rule is either consistent with a god's properties or inconsistent with the universe's properties.

Well, you can't dismiss it just because of what it favors and what it does not favor.

That's right. I dismiss it because it is special pleading.

Since nothing can be prior to the universe, and since the universe always existed (that is, it existed at all times), then it follows---according to your own logic---that the universe would not need a cause.

But, I don't believe I've ever claimed that there was a prior to our universe. Please point that out and I'll correct that.

I don't believe that you did claim something was prior to the universe. What I think you claimed is that if there is nothing prior to X, then X doesn't need a cause. But if Jehovah meets that requirement, then the rest of the universe does too.

So, according to your own test, if Jehovah doesn't need a cause, then the rest of the universe doesn't need a cause either.

[atheist buddy]

The rest would be that if something exists without beginning, then it must have a cause too.

If something has existed eternally in the past, there could be nothing "prior" to it. It would not need a cause because it has always existed.

Who made that rule?

Isn't it transparently self-serving?

Not sure who made that rule, but it's sounds logical to me.

You mean self-serving because it is consistent with the properties of God and not with the properties of the universe? Well, you can't dismiss it just because of what it favors and what it does not favor.

If we assume linear time, then an eternal God is logically impossible.

If we assume a concept of time which includes Einstenian relativity and the warping of space-time by intense gravitational fields (a fully demonstrated fact), then the concept of an eternal God is unnecessary.

Since nothing can be prior to the universe, and since the universe always existed (that is, it existed at all times), then it follows---according to your own logic---that the universe would not need a cause.

But, I don't believe I've ever claimed that there was a prior to our universe. Please point that out and I'll correct that.

A cause can only cause an effect prior to the effect manifesting itself. Unless you wish to infer that whatever caused the universe to begin existing did so before the universe began to exist, then you're admitting that nothing caused the universe.

If there was no "prior to the universe" then the universe did not have a cause.