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]

Causality is a human concept that does not necessarily apply, it is descriptive and not prescriptive.

You mean causality is just a human concept and has no part of actual reality?

Hence, the beginning of time CANNOT be caused, as the beginning of time cannot be preceded.

Sure, it cannot be caused in regards to the universe originating in our space-time. Our space-time and the universe would have arisen simultaneously.

Please give your own precise definition of objective morality, and explain why a God has anything to do with the matter at all.

I've already addressed these. The discussion started here.

Secondly, even if you couldn't have objective morality, so what?

I would then agree with Divine Insight that "Morality is nothing more than a subjective opinion."

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 841 by otseng]

No, I'm saying that applying causality to theoretical physics and quantum mechanics is like applying SUVAT equations to orbital mechanics. It's out of its element, and has no place there. Causality is a product of the 2nd law - a law that deals with change over time has no place being applied to a singular moment or the 'first' time.

Separating the Universe and our space time does nothing.
If space-time didn't begin, you don't need God, if space time did begin, cause can't precede effect in this instance... therefore assuming a cause means assuming cause doesn't need to precede effect... and again, you no longer need a God.



Your posts on morality must be fairly scattered, so I'll go with what I find in the last 5 pages.

If the "ought" exists, then it must come from somewhere.

This is an unjustified claim. Not to mention that it's dangerously close to "laws therefore lawgiver" arguments.

Objective morality would not depend on providing reasons why one should do X.

Are you saying your morality is fundamentally unreasonable?

This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history.

Authority is given, not intrinsically possessed.
What authority does God have, and where does it come from?

Ultimately, we should do what is right simply because that is what we are expected to do.

You could substitute any moral rules or values whatsoever into this kind of system and still count that as a justification.
Not to mention that we are expected to do some things because they are thought to be right, not the other way around.

Any creator has rights over its creation.

I'm the owner and creator of this forum. It is within my right to create the rules and to tell people what to do on this forum. I also don't need to tell anyone why the rules are there or what benefit they will have if they follow the rules. People need to follow the rules just because I say so.

You have a kind of property rights over the forum.
You don't have property rights over your children.
God doesn't get property rights over people.
Rights are literally decided by international law.
God's rights are decided by international law - he doesn't have any yet.

Just because God made the Universe doesn't mean he can do what he likes with it.
Certainly doesn't make it moral.

Because God created the universe, God has authority over the universe.

That's not how authority works. In fact, founders lose authority over the things they've founded all the time.

All I'm saying is that God can account for objective morality. I'm not stating (for now at least) that the Bible is the source of objective morality (which is what Divine Insight was driving at).

You're assuming that God can account for objective morality by assuming he has 'moral authority' over everyone. I wasn't aware morality and authority were even believed to be in relation.

If the Bible alone is the source, then God's plan probably didn't involve convincing the world to be objectively moral. There are well over ten thousand Christian denominations, pretty much all of them considering the Bible to include moral guidelines, and all disagreeing.

You implied that we don't need God for objective morality. So I ask you where it should then come from if not God.

I don't see how it could come from a God at all, or the relevance of a God, but besides that, morality can be the ideal way to maximise happiness, through a mix of empathy, survival instinct and individual's concepts of happiness (substitute happiness with 'personal desirability of current state' or something). You can get shared and universal morality, whether or not you consider it objective is up to you.

I'm just applying what is objective to human morality. If human morality is "true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings", then what can account for it?

This doesn't actually address what morality is.
For instance, 2+2=4 is true independent of any individual, but is not moral (at least I don't consider it to be).
And to mention it again, something like concepts (including the number 2) cannot exist independent of all subjects, but exist shared across many subjects. Similarly, morality could be shared across almost all or all subjects.

Of course. I would even go further. In a secular world, there is no concept of objective evil.

Evil is a vague term - do you mean acting intentionally immorally despite knowledge of morality? Do you just mean profoundly bad consequences of actions?

[KenRU]

I don't see this as a difficult problem. We've evolved as a species that has survived because of its social quality; that is, cooperation for productivity and ultimately survival. We even see this in other social animals.

Are you implying that other social animals have a moral system? Is there any morality involved when one animal kills another? Is morality involved when animals do not cooperate? Do animals even have a concept of good or evil?

There is ample evidence in nature where animals show altruistic behavior towards other creatures (related, non-related and even different species).

This behavior is even done at the risk of the creatures own survival.

If anyone's interested in examples, I recommend The Parrot's Lament by Eugene Linden.

Would you call selfless, altruistic behavior (actions done at the risk of a creature's own safety or survival) moral? If you consider that moral behavior, then you have just ascribed moral behavior to animals.

[otseng]

Cause and effect require time. Time exists as far as we know only within the universe. This is the "generally accepted rule, principle, etc." Can you justify time existed "before" or "outside" the universe?

I'm not saying our space-time existed before our universe originated or it exists outside our universe.

But, if one is going to throw out causality for the origin of the universe, one has to also throw out any possible naturalistic explanations (multiverse, quantum fluctuation, etc).

[otseng]

Causality is a product of the 2nd law - a law that deals with change over time has no place being applied to a singular moment or the 'first' time.

I wouldn't go that far. Causality and the second law of thermo are intertwined, but I wouldn't say causality is a product of the second law.

If the "ought" exists, then it must come from somewhere.

This is an unjustified claim. Not to mention that it's dangerously close to "laws therefore lawgiver" arguments.

I'm not saying here that it has to come from God. I'm simply saying that it has to come from somewhere.

Objective morality would not depend on providing reasons why one should do X.

Are you saying your morality is fundamentally unreasonable?

What do you mean by "your morality"? You mean "objective morality"?

This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history.

Authority is given, not intrinsically possessed.

Authority can be given. It can also be intrinsic.

I already gave the example of my kids. Nobody "gave" me authority over my kids. I intrinsically have authority over them because I am their father.

You have a kind of property rights over the forum.

Why do I have property rights over this forum?

You don't have property rights over your children.

Never said I did.

If the Bible alone is the source, then God's plan probably didn't involve convincing the world to be objectively moral.

I'm not saying the Bible is the source for morality at this point.

And to mention it again, something like concepts (including the number 2) cannot exist independent of all subjects, but exist shared across many subjects.

Concepts do exist in our mind. But, concepts also must have some correspondence with reality. We can think the number 2, but 2 has some correspondence with reality.

Evil is a vague term - do you mean acting intentionally immorally despite knowledge of morality? Do you just mean profoundly bad consequences of actions?

"Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; malevolent, sinister, demonic, devilish, diabolical, fiendish, dark; monstrous, shocking, despicable, atrocious, heinous, odious, contemptible, horrible, execrable
informal lowdown, dirty"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... glish/evil

[otseng]

Would you call selfless, altruistic behavior (actions done at the risk of a creature's own safety or survival) moral? If you consider that moral behavior, then you have just ascribed moral behavior to animals.

Do they consider themselves "good" for being selfless? Do they even have the ability to make a conscious decision to be selfless or selfish? If they are selfish and not altruistic, would they be considered immoral?

[Haven]

Then the principle of causality is not important?

The principle of causality only holds at our scale (within the macro [non-quantum] universe) and on our apparent timeline. Extrapolating it to other scales and timelines is not justified.

That sounds like special pleading to me.

It's not special pleading, but a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence and abductive reasoning. First, scientists have observed that events occur at the quantum level that cannot be tied to causes (quantum particles coming into and out of existence). In addition, since we have absolutely zero data on anything outside the universe (if such a concept is even coherent), it is unjustified to draw any conclusions about what principles may hold in this region of reality.

[Jashwell]

Causality is a product of the 2nd law - a law that deals with change over time has no place being applied to a singular moment or the 'first' time.

I wouldn't go that far. Causality and the second law of thermo are intertwined, but I wouldn't say causality is a product of the second law.

Causality is an expression of a relationship that is a form of the second law's interactions, i.e. entropy.
If the 2nd law were backwards, the arrow of time would be backwards.
If there weren't a second law, there wouldn't be causality.

Not only can causality be literally demonstrated to be more than a model, not only is it a bad match in quantum mechanics and things like fluid dynamics, but it's a bad match for some typical scenarios with small changes in entropy, like a ball bouncing. A close-to time-reversible phenomena, like dropping a ball vs catching it in the same form.

If the "ought" exists, then it must come from somewhere.

This is an unjustified claim. Not to mention that it's dangerously close to "laws therefore lawgiver" arguments.

I'm not saying here that it has to come from God. I'm simply saying that it has to come from somewhere.

Why does it need to come from somewhere?
Surely objective morality could only be contingent on things that are necessary? (so that it still is necessary)

Premise 1) Killing is bad
Premise 2) Murder involves killing
Conclusion) You ought not murder

This is begging the question, but there's no reason to think either premise would need to "come" from anywhere (the second is a tautology anyway).
Your assertion that an ought would is unfounded, unless you mean come in some other sense that isn't relevant to a God or real entity at all.

Objective morality would not depend on providing reasons why one should do X.

Are you saying your morality is fundamentally unreasonable?

What do you mean by "your morality"? You mean "objective morality"?

I mean your system of morality that you believe to be objective.
Is it fundamentally unreasonable?

This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history.

Authority is given, not intrinsically possessed.

Authority can be given. It can also be intrinsic.

I already gave the example of my kids. Nobody "gave" me authority over my kids. I intrinsically have authority over them because I am their father.

Society gave you authority over your kids.
Your kids' might give you authority over them.
The law gives you authority over your kids.

And you don't get all authority over them.

You have a kind of property rights over the forum.

Why do I have property rights over this forum?

Because the law says so.

You don't have property rights over your children.

Never said I did.

But supposedly God has ALL authority (including property rights) over us.

And to mention it again, something like concepts (including the number 2) cannot exist independent of all subjects, but exist shared across many subjects.

Concepts do exist in our mind. But, concepts also must have some correspondence with reality. We can think the number 2, but 2 has some correspondence with reality.

It's descriptive of a pattern we see in reality.
Are there two balls, or are there billions of particles?
Are there two glasses of water, or are there two glasses AND two separate volumes of water?
Are there 2 socks, or 1 pair of socks?

They all mean the same thing, and they're all subjective but in a universal sense.
Do negative numbers exist? Zero? Fractions? Irrational numbers? Imaginary and non-real complex numbers?

Evil is a vague term - do you mean acting intentionally immorally despite knowledge of morality? Do you just mean profoundly bad consequences of actions?

"Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; malevolent, sinister, demonic, devilish, diabolical, fiendish, dark; monstrous, shocking, despicable, atrocious, heinous, odious, contemptible, horrible, execrable
informal lowdown, dirty"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... glish/evil

A lot of those mean different things.
MANY of those are not dependant on objectivity whatsoever.
The only one of those that can't exist in a secular world is 'sinful'.

[KenRU]

Would you call selfless, altruistic behavior (actions done at the risk of a creature's own safety or survival) moral? If you consider that moral behavior, then you have just ascribed moral behavior to animals.

Do they consider themselves "good" for being selfless?

I would wager they are acting out of empathy for another creature. How do you account for it?

Do they even have the ability to make a conscious decision to be selfless or selfish?

They make a decision, that is not even debatable "especially considering the altruistic behavior is shown towards creatures of different species.

Again, how do you account for it?

If they are selfish and not altruistic, would they be considered immoral?

By whom?

The bottom line, if altruistic behavior is evidenced in nature, why shouldnt humans be expected to exhibit similar behavior? Why the need for another cause?

[wiploc]

I'm back! Africa is beautiful, with tons of amazing animals.

I'll have pictures.

And if there is supposedly some "objective morality" exactly WHERE are we supposed to find this objective morality?

I'm not specifying where it should come from.

Then why were you asking me where it comes from?

All I'm saying is that God can account for objective morality.

Fine, I'm not specifying where it comes from either. (In fact, I don't understand your "comes from" concept.

You implied that we don't need God for objective morality. So I ask you where it should then come from if not God.

Like you, I don't specify that.