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]

Perhaps an example would help. If the bear charges, you ought to go back inside and shut the door. Where did that ought "come from"?

That wouldn't be a good example. Moral goodness or evil wouldn't apply here.

And therefore you don't want to use it to explain your "comes from" concept?

My question is why ought we comply with a morality that does not have any benefit. You can't answer that question by saying that this non-beneficial morality just happens to be beneficial after all.

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

I'm going to ignore your "expected to do" language, since you think I focus on the wrong stuff when I actually read what you write. So I'll assume you mean that we should do what is right merely because it is right.

My question remains: How can it be right if there isn't anything right about it?

Or, we can rephrase it: What is it that makes something right? What is the difference between right and wrong?

Your position seems to be that there is no difference, no benefit to doing what's right, no other reason to try to do what's right.

If that were really the case, then why should anyone want to be "right"? Wouldn't "wrong" be just as good?

If there is no reason to be right, what is the point? Doesn't this defeat your claim that we should do right merely because it is right?

You should do it even though there is no reason to do it. You should do it for no reason. There is no reason you should do it.

I never said there is no reason to do it. I said it's not necessary to provide a reason for people to do what is morally right.

There's a reason, but it is unprovided? As far as we know, there is no reason to do right? But there may be a secret reason that we don't know? Mightn't there also be unknown reasons for doing wrong?

How does a god get the right to tell us what to do? Where would such a right "come from"?

Any creator has rights over its creation.

Who made that rule? Where did it come from?

I don't believe it for a moment. In fact, I posit the existence of possible worlds in which creators do not have rights over their creations. You can't show any logical contradiction implicit in those worlds; it follows that I'm right.

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.

So might makes right is the basis for morality?

And, as near as I can tell, you're saying that objective morality is the kind that there is no reason to go along with, no reason to comply with. As near as I can tell, that's the same as saying it doesn't exist.

Never said that.

Then what is the reason for being good or right?

To elaborate on the forum example. The forum rules are like the objective morality. It doesn't matter what people think the rules should be. (As a matter of fact, some seem to think that they can just abide by their own rules here.) I have my own reasons for the rules, but I don't need to give reasons why people need to follow the rules. People are expected to do the right thing and follow the rules.

A counterexample is YouTube. There are no rules on how people should act when people post comments. People have their own opinions, but it would be subjective. One cannot enforce another to abide by their own rules.

"Cannot enforce." So it is a might-makes-right thing?

Why can't there be possible worlds where creators don't have might? Maybe they are exhausted after the work of creation.

What is it about being a god that gives you authority?

Because I created this forum, I have authority here. Because God created the universe, God has authority over the universe.

That seems made up. There's no reason to believe it. Do you know of a reason? if it turns out that Satan---rather than Jehovah---is the real creator, are we supposed to do what Satan wants?

But since you're saying that objective rules have all their exceptions baked in, then, yes.

Depends on what you mean by exceptions.

The rules on this forum applies to a special class of people - those who participate on this forum. Does that mean the exception is built-in so that it doesn't apply to members of another forum?

That's not for me to say. You made a claim. I asked for a justification. You say you won't provide that justification until I agree to your definitions. Now you're asking me to provide the definitions. I just want you to justify your original claim.

Unless you're going to assume that all scientific opinion results from bias.

Believe it or not, scientists can be biased.

Of course they can. That doesn't explain why we're supposed to believe in a finite universe if we believe in the big bang.

Now that you're dismissing science, do you have any other reason, any other justification, for your belief?

You argued like you were going to get your justification from science, but when science doesn't agree with you, you dismiss it as biased.

Nobody is totally correct in all things. One needs to decide for themselves based on reasoning and evidence what is correct.

So you decided for yourself that if the big bang happened then the universe is finite. Will you share your reasoning? Will you justify your claim? Or are you now saying that the justification for your belief is entirely subjective and not able to be communicated?

You made the claim; why won't you either defend it or withdraw it?

That still doesn't explain why you believe that people who believe in the big bang should believe in a finite universe.

Do you have a justification for that claim?

I believe there's more justification for this than an infinite universe.

Is it a secret justification, or can you share it with us?

If god was bound by our space-time, yes. But nobody is saying that god is bound by our space-time. Rather, what is claimed is that god created space-time.

You said you know of a single definition of "begun" that has god unbegun but the rest of the universe begun. Simply refusing to apply the definition to your god doesn't suffice.

If God created space-time, there is no "begun" for God, unless one posits God living in a different space-time.

Who made that rule? Where did it come from? What do you mean by "begun" if something has an earliest moment but not a beginning? Why are you making this inexplicable claim?

If theists have no problem with a beginning of the universe, they aren't paying attention.

OK, then, I'm listening go on.

In third grade, a kid came up to me and asked whether the universe was infinite. He said that if it wasn't infinite, maybe it ended at a brick wall? If so, he asked, "What's behind the brick wall?"

One can ask similar questions about time instead of space.

You defined "our universe" as only extending back to the big bang. I don't know what happened before the big bang; so therefore I don't know whether---if anything happened at all---it was natural.

If you don't know if there's other universes, then wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that no other universe exist?

Why would you take a position when you don't know whether that position is true? Do you assume, say, that Michelle Bachmann is the anti-Christ simply because you don't know that she's not?

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?

No. I don't have an opinion. Bertrand Russell wrote that when the experts don't agree on a topic, the layman does well to not have an opinion.

Oh, come now, it's OK to have an opinion, even when experts don't agree.

Stipulated: It's okay to have an opinion.

But I don't have one anyway. I have no information about the topic, no information to base an opinion on, and therefore no opinion.

Then why even bring up "pocket universes" or saying that my intention was talking about "our" universe?

If I remember correctly, I used "universe" in what I consider to be the regular way: everything that exists. You wanted a different meaning, for which you applied the name "our universe."

I probably brought up pocket universes as a way of granting that there are other usages than the one I consider normal. I probably also said that these are generally tagged to indicate that they aren't the main usage, by talking about "pocket universes" or "other universes," or giving other indicators. I do not intend to cause a conversation about pocket universes.

I still don't get it. Why wouldn't something need a cause just because it didn't have a beginning? That seems to me an absolutely arbitrary claim. As such, it doesn't disprove anything.

It's not an arbitrary claim. Cosmologists used to believe that the universe was eternal just so they wouldn't have to have a cause for the universe.

Color me skeptical.

-

NOTE: Toward the end of your post, you quit using blanklines to separate your text from mine. It got difficult for me to respond. I had to open a separate window of the post I was responding to in order to navigate my way around and figure out what parts I should be responding to.

Therefore, so you'll understand the problem, I have sucked the blanklines out of the latter part of this post. I apologize for the inconvenience, but I want you to understand why this is confusing.

[myth-one.com]

You have to have at least wacko powers to be a god. If you behave normally, then you are a normal person; you do not deserve the title "god." Well, actually, as Clint Eastwood said to Gene Hackman in Unforgiven: deserving doesn't come into it. If you don't have wacko powers, you simply aren't what we mean by the word: you aren't a god.

So there is a continuum, a variety of things-that-might-be-called-gods that range from the mundane to the impossible, from the non-god-like to the non-existent. What generalization can we make about this entire smorgasbord of divinity?

We see these generalizations:

1. The more likely that something exists, the less likely that it is a god.
2. The more likely that something is a god, the less likely that it exists.

In short, anything weird enough to be a god is presumptively non-existent.

The book called the "Bible" pretty much explains it exactly like you.

It says that mankind can only understand something within the world in which mankind lives -- the natural physical world.

And that is where your continuum resides.

But can there be another world?

There cannot on your continuum -- as it would appear wacko in your world and therefore "non-existant."

Under those generalizations, no one will ever find a God.

[parsivalshorse]

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.

Can't help but think there is a mistake in there.

Not believing theism is true is not the same as believing it is false.
Rejecting a claim is not the same as claiming the opposite.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can't help but think there is a mistake in there.

Not believing theism is true is not the same as believing it is false.
Rejecting a claim is not the same as claiming the opposite.

It is surprising how often that mistake in simple logic is made -- particularly by those heavily emotionally invested in a belief.

Perhaps that mistake derives from the simplistic "Those who are not with us are against us" -- a failure to recognize a false dichotomy -- black-and-white thinking that some never go beyond to understand that gradations exist in many instances.

Critical / analytical thinking should be taught in high school (but often isn't).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

First of all, it's not the belief that gods do not exist. It's the LACK of belief that god's exist. That is a significant difference. As an example, I do NOT believe that there is no Santa Claus. I simply give no credibility to the possible existence of Santa Claus.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]

As a scientific rationalist (with a atheistic positions towards a personal God being a subset of that world view) allow me to add to this....

"Working models of consistency and predictability within reality as a result of the scientific method."

How would that apply here?

Simple.....drive down the road in some remote forest location at night and you get a flat tire.

You are stranded in the cold dark forest and hear much wildlife around you. So it is of immediate concern to fix the tire and move on quickly.

The scientific method has provided us the discoveries of leverage and torque which can be designed in tools to lift a car and loosen the lug nuts to change the wheel and replace it with a spare..............we know that process will work because it has been demonstrated countless times before as both a consistent and predictable working model in reality to change a flat tire.

Or............pray to God that the tire will be regenerated to its prior state before the flat in the belief that if your faith is strong enough it will be fulfilled through a miraculous intervention to defy the laws of time/entropy of the tire's wear and punctured state to regenerate it back to full function.

Okay, Which one will provide you the resolution to the issue you face in reality?

Once again if there is no consistent or predictable model in reality that a God interacts with humans or its "creation" then its reasonable to assume there is no God.

If I claim I have a live house cat and put a dish of cat food out everyday and you never see a cat..........and know that I have never refilled the bowl but nothing is ever eaten out of the bowl, then you have reason to believe that I don't have a cat living in my house...........if seeing the food disappear over time would happen in my claim then it could mean I have a cat but there could be other causes as well...... however, you could at least consider the possibility that I could have a cat at that point in the investigation.

But you can't even get to the point of the bowl showing signs of food being eaten (God manipulating reality) by those claiming a personal God in reality. The bowl (reality) is still full of food (natural laws working consistently and in a predictive manner) and nothing ever happens to lead you to believe that there is a cat (a God) in the house (reality).

[parsivalshorse]

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.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

[Zzyzx]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

[parsivalshorse]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is not the definition in question.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

Again, tbat is not the definition in question.

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

It infers the exception of monotheism.

[Danmark]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is not the definition in question.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

Again, tbat is not the definition in question.

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

It infers the exception of monotheism.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."


__________________________

"Let us have argument, not sophomoric pedantry"