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.

[Fundagelico]

An omnipotent entity is about the only sort of entity I would consider capable of existing forever.

So, a more fantastic explanation becomes more reasonable?

Not exactly. Keep in mind, the question here is which of the two claims is more extraordinary. To assert that an eternally self-existent creator is more fantastic than an eternally self-existent universe begs that question (by ascribing to the universe properties it does not appear to have). Evidently theists are not alone in believing extraordinary claims.

Again, a more fantastic explanation becomes more believable. Rather than admitting we dont know, we should create a more complex answer?

Again, the assertion that theism is more fantastic or more complex than naturalism (materialism, physicalism, whatever) only begs the question. Now if we really don't know which claim is more complex or more fantastic, we clearly have no basis for making authoritative pronouncements that one is more complex or fantastic than the other. Meanwhile we have a long history of empirical research demonstrating that living organisms do not in fact emerge unaided from non-living matter " dust or otherwise.

Gentic similarity notwithstanding, right?

Right. Evolution of humans implies not merely that humans have a closer genetic similarity to some organisms than to others (a fact which should surprise no one), but that humans are currently evolving (presumably into something non-human). The latter seems to me a far more extraordinary claim.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 483 by Fundagelico]

No, we have <300 years of no examples of life coming from non life in the modern environment.
Even though the environment was completely different billions of years ago.
And we don't observe every environment.
And we might even miss an early stage of life if we did see it. Vesicles can form naturally and may have been key in abiogenesis.

That's like claiming that since a volcano hasn't formed in your back yard, they must be formed magically.

As for naturalism - one wonders what would actually miss the definition of natural.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 483:

Meanwhile we have a long history of empirical research demonstrating that living organisms do not in fact emerge unaided from non-living matter " dust or otherwise.

All living matter is composed of atoms, a non-living bit of matter.

[Zzyzx]

.

Still waiting.

Moderator Comment

This is a prime example of a non-contributing one-line post. "Prodding" someone is not advised and is not justification for rule violations.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

So are you suggesting that Jesus and God were totally unaware that thing things were supposed to withstand the test of time and speak to cultures that would exist thousands of years later?

Actually, it has withstood the test of time and do speak to cultures, even to those that exist now.

By the way, I'm not saying that I would necessarily believe those writings anyway.

Well, then, it would have made no difference to you anyways, so why is it even important?

Hmm, do other animals go through pain and suffering during delivery?

Yes, I'm certain that they do.

They might feel pain. But I'm talking about to the extent that women experience.

If you daughter was innocently beguiled by a psychopath would you be mean and cruel to your daughter over it?

This is a loaded question. I wouldn't be "mean and cruel" to my daughter. But, if I warned my daughter to not do something and told her there would be consequences to it, and she does it, then it's not inappropriate for consequences to occur.

[otseng]

Please either retract your claim that the universe's beginning is evidence that Christianity is true, or accept that science saying stars existed before the earth is evidence that Christianity is false.

You mean you don't want to hear my argument of why I believe the earth existed before the stars did?

On the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

The argument starts with refuting the mediocrity principle. I created a separate thread here to discuss it:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=26442

I'll probably weigh in in the other thread, but I don't see how refuting the principle of mediocrity makes the the stars any younger (or the earth any older) than today's science tells us. All it would imply is that the earth is "special"- whatever that means.

So your problem remains. You need to justify taking science as authoritative regarding the universe's beginning, while simultaneously taking it as non-authoritative regarding the relative ages of the earth and stars.

Or you could always just retract your claim that Christianity is supported by how today's science tells us the universe had a beginning.

Let's discuss that in the other thread. This thread is already discussing too many unrelated issues to the OP.

[otseng]

Can the problem be that I didn't use the subjunctive properly? Should I have asked, "IF it WERE objectively evil for a man to kill, then WOULD it be objectively evil for a god to kill?

Yes.

For instance, you might tell me whether, if slavery WERE objectively evil now, WOULD it follow that slavery was objectively evil in biblical times?

Yes.

If I were defining terms, I'd say 2+2=4 is absolute because it is always true everywhere and for every person. I'd say it is objective because it is true regardless of what you think.

Right. This is what is being meant by objective evil.

But you could have objective things that aren't absolute. Mars is objectively red without being absolutely red.

I don't think color would be a good example. Color would always be relative to the individual and be subjective. However, if you are talking about frequency, that would be objective.

A rule that only applies on Sundays is objective, but a rule that only applies to the Old Testament is Subjective?

If a specific time is mentioned in the rule, then you can only apply it to that time period. If no time period is mentioned, then it can apply at anytime.

[Danmark]

But you seem stubbornly cryptic on the subject. It's like you don't want me to understand.

Moderator Comment
It is better to stick to the argument itself rather than to project personal motives onto your fellow debaters.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

Post 381 made me think this was your reasoning:
I'm not assuming it. It's still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.

Thats why I said in essence. You believe that none will be found, correct? Was I wrong?

Yes, I did say that. But, I'm not saying that lack of evidence is evidence for belief in the supernatural.

My apologies. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully, Im doing this right : )

Yes, looks good. Thanks.

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?

You were the one to bring it up.

So, youre arguing that science has not proven any properties of god false, therefore it can not be a god of the gaps belief? If youre not saying this, then by definition, it is indeed just that.

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm just asking what properties of god are proven to be false by science.

Not having an answer is a far smaller leap of logic then the leap to an supernatural entity or origin.

If arguments for God just rested solely on the cosmological argument, I can somewhat agree with you. But, there are other independent arguments that also support the idea of God. So, it's not that much of a leap as you suggest.

My only point in bringing up the origin of the universe was challenging the claim that there was zero evidence for God. I'm not going to get into any of the other arguments since that is not the point of this thread. And speaking of which, if anybody does have arguments and evidence to support the belief that gods do not exist, please present them. It's been awhile since any has been presented.

If the properties of god (what he has been attributed to have done or is currently doing) are explained by science, then it is a God of the Gaps belief system.

I'd agree with that.

Science also has many models that account for how it began - without the need for a Cause.

Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.

And how is god not: at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support it?

Because there exist many other independent arguments and evidence to support God, besides the origin of the universe.

[Danmark]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]
Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

I haven't followed this thread, so I'll start at the beginning, since a recent post of Osteng's reminded me of this point.

I agree with his position about the shifting of burdens. The OP takes this on by asking debaters to prove a negative, that 'gods do not exist.' This is a high burden indeed. I confess that it is too high. It cannot be surmounted, at least not by me [I hope to prove myself wrong , but that is what my intuition tells me].

The non theist can take the predictable approach:

"You can't prove that leprechauns, goblins, fairies, angels, demons, ad nauseum do not exist." This approach is annoying, but valid. The problem is, the OP invites this challenge. I confess I cannot meet the challenge. Perhaps the best that can be done is to say there is no need to invent the concept of a 'gremlin' to explain the failure of a mechanical or electrical device; therefore, 'gremlin' is an unnecessary invention. The analogy is obvious: We do not need 'God' to explain nature; therefore, 'God' is an unnecessary invention.