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.

[wiploc]

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

That's true by definition.

Unless you want to posit that causes do not precede effects. But to do that is to defeat the entire point of the "first cause" argument. If causes didn't precede effects, then the cause of the universe might not have happened yet.

[otseng]

And the universe does seem to have causeless particles.

Such as?

I dismiss it because it is special pleading.

How is it special pleading?

But if Jehovah meets that requirement, then the rest of the universe does too.

Do you agree that whatever began to exist must have a cause?

BTW, did you ever address the questions I posed in post 706?

"OK, then what is the natural world? Is it something other than our universe? On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists? How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?"

[otseng]

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.

I'm not following you. How does linear time show God is logically impossible? What does God have to do with the warping of space-time?

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

So, the universe just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without any cause?

[Danmark]

"OK, then what is the natural world? Is it something other than our universe? On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists? How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?"

These are good questions. Let's assume the natural world is our universe. There does not appear to be any reason to assume there is something outside of it. If there were we would simply expand our definition of 'universe' to include it. Things outside our universe therefore do not exist. There is nothing outside the universe, by definition. So what is the basis for supposing these speculative 'outside "things"' should be observable?

[otseng]

These are good questions. Let's assume the natural world is our universe. There does not appear to be any reason to assume there is something outside of it. If there were we would simply expand our definition of 'universe' to include it. Things outside our universe therefore do not exist. There is nothing outside the universe, by definition. So what is the basis for supposing these speculative 'outside "things"' should be observable?

Could God be included in this "expanded" universe?

Let me define our universe as all the material things that reside in our space-time. Would you agree that there would be no way to observe things outside our space-time?

[wiploc]

And the universe does seem to have causeless particles.

Such as?

Virtual particles.

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.

I dismiss [that] because it is special pleading.

How is it special pleading?

I'm going to answer that. I am.

Because you asked.

But I'm going to ask you to exchange information with me. Because it seems like you're always asking me questions but not answering mine. Like pulling teeth, trying to get information from you is.

You claim that objective morality can't exist without god. By implication, you're claiming that it can exist with god. (Do I have that right?)

So I asked why you make that claim. What is your justification? And you tell me we have to agree on definitions before you'll answer. And you say that an objective moral rule is one with all the exceptions written into the original rule.

So, if that's all that I have to know about objective morality, I'd like you to tell me now why objective morality depends on a god. Or, if that's not all there is to objective morality, I'd like you to tell me the rest of your definition, so that then you can tell me why objective morality depends on a god.

Will you do that for me?

-

One other thing: I'd like you to start putting blanklines between your work and mine.

And not just me, but anybody. It's nice to be able to see at a glance, when responding to a post, which parts I wrote and which parts the other person wrote.

Note that this is always easy to see when you're responding to me, because I put blanklines after each place I write something. But if you click REPLY to one of your own messages to me, you'll see that a block of text will be mine at the top and yours at the bottom. To respond to it, I have to find the quote tags in that block of text. It's easier if there's a blankline.

This isn't a deal-breaker or anything. Just a netiquette tip. Try to do it when you think of it, if you will.

-

Okay, the answer to your question. Special pleading is when you apply a rule to other people that you don't apply to yourself.

If you say, "Everything that exists needs a cause---except not my god, because he's special," that's special pleading.

"But," you may say, "I told you how my god is special: he didn't have a beginning. Everything else had a beginning, but god didn't. So therefore god doesn't need a cause, but everything else does."

Every single bit of that is problematic.

- The rule about unbegun things not needing causes seems to me completely arbitrary. Suppose I said that the world must have been made by a tricycle, since everything that doesn't have three wheels has a cause. That would be arbitrary. There is no apparent justification for the exception I'm carving out for tricycles, just as there is no apparent justification for the exception you carve out for gods.

- I don't know why you say that your god didn't begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.

- I don't know why you say the rest of the universe did begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.

- But since you do say the universe began, why doesn't that mean that your god began along with everything else?

- Generally, theists deal with this issue by equivocation. They use one definition of "begin" when they want to show that their god did not begin, and another definition to show that the rest of the universe did begin. In other words, their claim that god is a special case depends entirely on special pleading.

I'm not saying that you'll do this. And I'm not saying that theists are generally conscious of performing this sleight of mouth. I am saying that---once I point out the equivocation---I have never seen a theist manage manage a plausible defense of the claim that god didn't begin but the rest of the world did.

So, if there really is a way to justify that claim, I really want to see it.

But if Jehovah meets that requirement, then the rest of the universe does too.

Do you agree that whatever began to exist must have a cause?

No. Given that most cosmologists believe that some things happen uncaused, I don't see how I can go against the weight of expert opinion.

But, I'd be willing to stipulate that everything that happens has a cause, if that would help you state your case. But I'm not willing to make that stipulation with an arbitrary exception for your god.

BTW, did you ever address the questions I posed in post 706?

I believe I dealt with some of them, but I can't locate the post right now.

"OK, then what is the natural world?

Since I don't believe in magic: Everything that exists.

Is it something other than our universe?

The normal definition of "universe" is "everything that exists." For the purpose of the first cause argument, theists try to define it as "some things, but not other things," which---it seems to me---cuts the heart out of the first cause argument, which is supposed to explain where everything came from.

If the question is merely, "Where did some stuff come from?" then the answer can be as simple and unenlightening as "Amazon.com."

So, if we go with my preferred definition (universe = everything) then, no there is nothing other than the universe. If, on the other hand, we use an alternative definition (universe = just some stuff) then there could easily be other things.

Sometimes we talk about "pocket universes," or use other language to make it clear that we're using "universe" in a special less-than-everything way. You may be intending that when you talk about "our universe." If so, then there could things outside "our universe," but I don't know what those things are, in part because I don't know what "our universe" is.

When Plantinga does the cosmological argument, he wraps up everything except god in "universe." That is, any pocket universes, bubble universes, our universes, and so on are all all included in the universe. Except for the fact that he arbitrarily excludes gods, I'm with Plantinga.

On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists?

I'm not making any claim like that. If you don't count gods as part of our universe, then, right back at you: On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exist?

How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?"

I've never said they do.

If things inside our universe require causes, why don't things outside our universe require causes? If you get to make up the one rule for one place, why do you get to make up the other rule for the other place? Isn't that just special pleading?

[otseng]

And the universe does seem to have causeless particles.

Such as?

Virtual particles.

I'm not sure if it's actually "causeless". Virtual particle pairs are a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Because it seems like you're always asking me questions but not answering mine.

Uh, where have I not answered your questions? I've tried to be fairly methodical in this thread and follow posts addressed to me. I might not have answered to your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean I have not answered them. I might have also postponed addressing them, but I can't address all questions at one time and have said I'll eventually address them (eg, the problem of evil).

You claim that objective morality can't exist without god. By implication, you're claiming that it can exist with god. (Do I have that right?)

Yes. Of course, I'm not the only one that has claimed this. As you know, Divine Insight also agrees that objective morality doesn't exist in an atheistic world.

And you tell me we have to agree on definitions before you'll answer.

Yes, because I had asked you, "Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil?" Then you asked for me to provide a definition of the terms. Which I did so in post 414.

BTW, I don't recall if you ever acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil.

I'd like you to tell me now why objective morality depends on a god.

Let's assume that "the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it."

The question is where does this "ought" come from? It cannot come from themselves, since it doesn't matter what they think about it.

So, what or who defines what people ought to do? It would have to come from some authority that defines what people ought to do. This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history. The authority that best fits this would be a god.

One other thing: I'd like you to start putting blanklines between your work and mine.

And not just me, but anybody. It's nice to be able to see at a glance, when responding to a post, which parts I wrote and which parts the other person wrote.

You mean a blank line after the quote block? This is the first I've heard that this is netiquette to do this.

Special pleading is when you apply a rule to other people that you don't apply to yourself.

Special pleading is when an arbitrary exception is made to a standard/rule/principle to a particular class of things. For example, suppose there is a rule that says all people must stand in line. But suppose I then say I don't have to stand in line and can go immediately to the front. That would be special pleading. However, if there is a rule that handicapped people can bypass the line and if I show that I'm in a wheelchair, then it would not be special pleading.

I'm not arguing that "Everything that exists needs a cause---except not my god, because he's special." What I am arguing is that everything that began to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause. However, God is in a different class because God did not begin to exist. So, it's not special pleading.

- I don't know why you say that your god didn't begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.

This is standard Christian doctrine. This is not something I just happened to arbitrarily make up.

- I don't know why you say the rest of the universe did begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.

How can one accept the Big Bang and say that universe did not begin to exist?

- But since you do say the universe began, why doesn't that mean that your god began along with everything else?

Because if God created the universe, God could not have also began with the universe.

- Generally, theists deal with this issue by equivocation. They use one definition of "begin" when they want to show that their god did not begin, and another definition to show that the rest of the universe did begin. In other words, their claim that god is a special case depends entirely on special pleading.

There's no equivocation. I'm using the term "begin" the same way in both instances.

I'm not saying that you'll do this. And I'm not saying that theists are generally conscious of performing this sleight of mouth. I am saying that---once I point out the equivocation---I have never seen a theist manage manage a plausible defense of the claim that god didn't begin but the rest of the world did.

So, if there really is a way to justify that claim, I really want to see it.

Would you agree that something must not have a beginning? Otherwise we have an infinite regress?

But if Jehovah meets that requirement, then the rest of the universe does too.

Do you agree that whatever began to exist must have a cause?

No. Given that most cosmologists believe that some things happen uncaused, I don't see how I can go against the weight of expert opinion.

If something is truly causeless, then it would be beyond science (and cosmology). One of the major purposes of science is to find causes. If something was truly causeless (there was no law, no principle, no force, no agent), would it even fall in the realm of science?

But, I'd be willing to stipulate that everything that happens has a cause, if that would help you state your case. But I'm not willing to make that stipulation with an arbitrary exception for your god.

I don't see it as an exception. But, I'm even willing to go with your stipulation. Let's suppose that God did have a cause. It still would not refute the existence of God.

"OK, then what is the natural world?

Since I don't believe in magic: Everything that exists.

Hypothetically speaking, if God does exist, would the natural world then include God?

So, if we go with my preferred definition (universe = everything) then, no there is nothing other than the universe.

If you mean universe is "all of reality", I would say that's an arbitrary definition for universe.

Sometimes we talk about "pocket universes," or use other language to make it clear that we're using "universe" in a special less-than-everything way. You may be intending that when you talk about "our universe."

Yes, I'm talking about "our universe". Do you believe other universes exist?

but I don't know what those things are, in part because I don't know what "our universe" is.

"Our universe" is everything that resulted from the Big Bang.

Except for the fact that he arbitrarily excludes gods, I'm with Plantinga.

Not sure what you mean. Does that mean you DO include gods in the universe?

On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists?

I'm not making any claim like that.

But, you still use language that implies things outside "our universe" exists. If you have to qualify our universe, you imply that there are other universes.

If you don't count gods as part of our universe, then, right back at you: On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exist?

There are many reasons. For one, it can account for the origin of our universe. For another, it can account for objective morality.

How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?"

I've never said they do.

OK.

If things inside our universe require causes, why don't things outside our universe require causes? If you get to make up the one rule for one place, why do you get to make up the other rule for the other place? Isn't that just special pleading?

Another reason it's not special pleading is because if our universe is eternal, then there would not be a cause for it. It's not just that God is an exception. It's that anything that does not begin to exist would not need a cause, including an eternal universe or an eternal God.

[Artie]

So, the universe just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without any cause?

The Block Universe explains this from the perspective of the Theory of Relativity. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... iverse.asp It's really quite simple. We are watching from inside the universe. There's no such place as "outside" the universe where there already was/is space and time and from where you first could see nothing and then see the universe coming into existence. Space and time came into existence with the universe.

[Artie]

So, the universe just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without any cause?

The Block Universe explains this from the perspective of the Theory of Relativity. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... iverse.asp It's really quite simple. We are watching from inside the universe. There's no such place as "outside" the universe where there already was/is space and time and from where you first could see nothing and then see the universe coming into existence. Space and time came into existence with the universe. From within the universe we can look back to the Big Bang but no further simply because there is no further. That's where time and space "starts".

[Danmark]

These are good questions. Let's assume the natural world is our universe. There does not appear to be any reason to assume there is something outside of it. If there were we would simply expand our definition of 'universe' to include it. Things outside our universe therefore do not exist. There is nothing outside the universe, by definition. So what is the basis for supposing these speculative 'outside "things"' should be observable?

Could God be included in this "expanded" universe?

Let me define our universe as all the material things that reside in our space-time. Would you agree that there would be no way to observe things outside our space-time?

Yes, tho' I confess that when it comes to cosmological questions, quantum physics, the theory of relativity and, sadly, much more, I quickly find myself out of my depth.