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.

[instantc]

Therefore it's perfectly natural to respond to that explanation, by pointing out that any intelligent designer who created the universe would necessarily need to be far more intelligently designed, and therefore this explanation must necessarily apply to that intelligent designer as well.

I don't care whether you are arguing for a God or against a God, your claim that this objection doesn't naturally follow is simply wrong.

But, how is that an objection to begin with? As far as I can see, the claim that there needs to be a creator of the creator is perfectly consistent with the claim that there needs to be a creator.

[Divine Insight]

Therefore it's perfectly natural to respond to that explanation, by pointing out that any intelligent designer who created the universe would necessarily need to be far more intelligently designed, and therefore this explanation must necessarily apply to that intelligent designer as well.

I don't care whether you are arguing for a God or against a God, your claim that this objection doesn't naturally follow is simply wrong.

But, how is that an objection to begin with? As far as I can see, the claim that there needs to be a creator of the creator is perfectly consistent with the claim that there needs to be a creator.

So now you're agreeing with me?

How does this support your previous claims:

For your information, I am by no means a believer in God. I am interested in the arguments on both sides though, and I pointed out the irrelevancy of your 'who created God' objection in order to make room for better conversation in these threads.

In this quote you are claiming that my 'Who created God' objection is irrelevant. Yet in your quote above this one you're agreeing with me that this is perfectly consistent with the claim that there needs to be a creator.

It appears to me that you've just made a complete turn around. Now you are agreeing with me that this objection is perfectly consistent, and therefore not irrelevant at all.

[wiploc]

If the universe existed eternally in the past, I'd agree with you. But since the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past, it had an origin.

Asimov said the universe began with the big bang. But then he hedged, said something like, "At least we can say it began then, since we don't know what happened before that."

Hawking did the same thing in A Brief History of Time.

There may be cosmologists who believe that time really started then, but I haven't run across them.

I was confused enough on this topic that I went on to campus to find one and ask him. He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang! Nobody knows what happened before the big bang! Nobody knows what happened before the big bang!"

My impression, then, is that science does not support your claim that "the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past."

Bertrand Russell wrote something like, "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the contrary opinion. When the experts are not agreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion."

With that in mind, I am content not to have an opinion on the subject of whether the universe began.

Yet you claim to know that it did.

Such a claim should be based on either your personal knowledge or a consensus of the experts.

How do you justify your claim?

[wiploc]

Would you agree that evidence is not the same thing as an argument?

Yes.

Good. Then what evidence is there that gods do not exist?

Fine.

The evidence: the gods who would produce evidence if they existed do not in fact produce evidence.

The argument:
a) The gods who would produce evidence if they existed do not in fact produce evidence. Therefore they are reasonably believed not to exist.
b) The gods who would not produce evidence even if they did exist are also (because of occam's razor) reasonably believed not to exist.
Therefore, gods in general are reasonably believed not to exist.

But there turns out not to be any reason to think that such gods exist.

So, your argument boils down to that theists have not presented any evidence for theism so atheism is true?

I think that's unfair, a misrepresentation.

I'm willing to be corrected.

You stated:
“Thus, once again, we find ourselves dealing with extraordinary claims and no evidence.�

You also mentioned the problem of evil, but that only deals with the Christian God. It does not address the general claim that no gods exist.

You had summarized the arguments early on in post 6:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 594#672594

Arguments 1-3 in effect are claiming that theists have no good justification for theism.
Argument 4 is attacking the Bible (which I’ll address later) and not addressing atheism in general.

So, why would my analysis be a misrepresentation?

My argument is that where evidence would be expected if gods existed, there is no evidence; and where no evidence would be expected even if gods existed, then rationality have us believe that those gods do not exist either.

I don't know how many times you want me to write this.

[wiploc]

Be careful with reading.

Be careful with baldfaced misstatements like your next sentence.

Nobody has ever said that everything needs to have a cause.

Not true. In fact, I've quoted one such claim in this very thread.

Some apologists assert that the universe needs to have a cause, not everything.

True, but that distinction is arbitrary (like if I "proved" that god is the color blue by claiming that everything that isn't blue has a cause). If you don't find my blue-argument persuasive, then you shouldn't find the first cause argument persuasive.

Whether or not the same logic would apply to the said creator is irrelevant to the argument. We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

If an explanation contradicts itself, or depends on arbitrary assumptions, or otherwise entails more difficulties than it solves, then it can hardly be called the "best explanation." Why is it so difficult to recognize that?

[instantc]

Whether or not the same logic would apply to the said creator is irrelevant to the argument. We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

If an explanation ... entails more difficulties than it solves, then it can hardly be called the "best explanation." Why is it so difficult to recognize that?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but that seems like a very odd assertion indeed. Did the foundation of quantum physics not raise more questions than it answered? Did the discovery of general relativity not raise more questions than it solved? What possible reason is there to reject an explanation simply because it raises new questions, is that not how science works?

[instantc]

Therefore it's perfectly natural to respond to that explanation, by pointing out that any intelligent designer who created the universe would necessarily need to be far more intelligently designed, and therefore this explanation must necessarily apply to that intelligent designer as well.

I don't care whether you are arguing for a God or against a God, your claim that this objection doesn't naturally follow is simply wrong.

But, how is that an objection to begin with? As far as I can see, the claim that there needs to be a creator of the creator is perfectly consistent with the claim that there needs to be a creator.

So now you're agreeing with me?

How does this support your previous claims:

For your information, I am by no means a believer in God. I am interested in the arguments on both sides though, and I pointed out the irrelevancy of your 'who created God' objection in order to make room for better conversation in these threads.

In this quote you are claiming that my 'Who created God' objection is irrelevant. Yet in your quote above this one you're agreeing with me that this is perfectly consistent with the claim that there needs to be a creator.

It appears to me that you've just made a complete turn around. Now you are agreeing with me that this objection is perfectly consistent, and therefore not irrelevant at all.

Your objection is consistent with the claim and and therefore irrelevant. For example, if you tell me that you are poor, and I object by saying that you just bought yourself a carton of milk, my objection is consistent with your claim, as one can be poor and still be able to afford one carton of milk. Therefore my objection is irrelevant.

Let me explain further. The 'who created God' question is no doubt a natural question to ask, but it is still irrelevant to the question whether or not God created the universe, whether or not we accept God as the best explanation is not dependent on whether or not we can explain God. It is natural for us to look for an explanation of an explanation, but we don't need to have such explanation of an explanation in order to recognize something as the best explanation. Do you disagree with this general principle or its application to the present issue?

[wiploc]

I can't post more now, but I'll be back with an explanation of the PoE.

You have already stated a totally "non-theological" PoE earlier in this thread. You had stated some purely philosophical form of the problem concerning logical contradictions. That is not what theologians mean by their "Problem of Evil". Their problem of evil has to do precisely with their religious believe, and does not exist outside of that domain,

I've already pointed this out:

From Wikipedia:

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.

Now even if you try to move into a purely logical discussion of this problem, you'll note that all of these arguments are arguments that try to justify a God in a world that contains evil. So this is still a problem in theology.

Here's a site that covers these thoughts:

Logical Problem of Evil

This is still all being done in defense of a supposedly beneovlent God that has allowed evil in the world. It's still a religious problem

There is no such thing as a purely "Secular Problem of Evil". It simply doesn't exist.

There is no reason for a secularist to question why the world should not be perfect. A secularist would absolutely expect the world to be quite imperfect, and alas it is. It's not Problem for secularism at all.

I mean, an individual secularist might personally feel that living in an imperfect world is personally a problem. But this is not a problem for secularism as a philosophy.

You're right, we've already discussed this.

It's probably hopeless, but I'll take one more shot at it.

The problem of evil (PoE) is a proof that evil cannot coexist with a tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) god.

The PoE is bulletproof. It is true regardless of how you define evil, and regardless of whether you believe in gods.

The five relevant responses are:
1. God is not omnipotent.
2. God is not omniscient.
3. God is not omnibenevolent.
4. Evil doesn't exist.
5. Rationality sucks. I'll believe what I want without being pushed around by logic.

Note that none of these responses contradicts or undermines the PoE. Maybe there is a punk (not omnipotent) god, but that doesn't mean that evil could coexist with a tri-omni god. Maybe there is a god who doesn't know the future (he was only guessing when he decided that cutting off the ends of their dicks would make the Jews happy), but that doesn't mean that evil could coexist with a tri-omni god. Maybe there is a god who really doesn't care whether humans are happy (he's got more important things to attend to, like getting worshiped), but that doesn't mean that evil could coexist with a tri-omni god. Maybe evil (for some value of "evil") doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that evil could coexist with a tri-omni god. Maybe somebody doesn't give a fig for rationality, but that doesn't mean that evil could logically coexist with a tri-omni god.

Christians raise these arguments ("I don't believe in a god who knows the future") and think that they have refuted the PoE. But the PoE is always true; it is always true that evil cannot coexist with a tri-omni god.

It doesn't matter which gods you believe in, or whether you believe in gods at all, it is inescapably true that evil cannot coexist with a tri-omni god.

The PoE is not an option. You can't refute the law of gravity by floating weightless in space, and you can't refute the PoE by not believing in gods.

So, the fact that you don't personally have a problem with the existence of evil, that doesn't mean that the PoE isn't bulletproof.

The PoE is the relationship between evil, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

You're not helping the cause if you muddy the waters by saying things like, "The PoE isn't true for atheists." It's true for everybody, just like 2+2=4 is true even for non-mathematicians.

[wiploc]

Whether or not the same logic would apply to the said creator is irrelevant to the argument. We don't need to have an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be the best explanation, why is it so difficult to recognize that?

If an explanation ... entails more difficulties than it solves, then it can hardly be called the "best explanation." Why is it so difficult to recognize that?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but that seems like a very odd assertion indeed. Did the foundation of quantum physics not raise more questions than it answered? Did the discovery of general relativity not raise more questions than it solved? What possible reason is there to reject an explanation simply because it raises new questions, is that not how science works?

I'm not going to research what your proof of god was, so I'll just say that you have made a plausible point.

Edited to add: Dad gum it, that was a one-liner. When I concede a point, I tend to get chastised. So, to avoid that, I'll ungraciously add that I don't believe you have a case. I assume you're working some cosmological argument where you claim on the one hand that infinite regresses can't happen, and on the other hand that everything (except maybe for some arbitrary and self-serving exception) must have a cause. And, out of that contradiction, you claim to have proven what ever you like.

My parody is the bicycle argument:
P1: The sun will rise tomorrow.
P2: The sun will not rise tomorrow.
C: Therefore, you must buy me a bicycle.

In the typical cosmological argument the premises contradict each other, and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

So I don't think you have a case.

But your last post definitely trumped my post that you were responding to. Good job.

[Divine Insight]

Let me explain further. The 'who created God' question is no doubt a natural question to ask, but it is still irrelevant to the question whether or not God created the universe, whether or not we accept God as the best explanation is not dependent on whether or not we can explain God. It is natural for us to look for an explanation of an explanation, but we don't need to have such explanation of an explanation in order to recognize something as the best explanation. Do you disagree with this general principle or its application to the present issue?

Yes, I absolutely disagree.

To begin with, a God that you can't explain is not an explanation.

Also, how would that be any different from saying "Faeries did it is the best explanation"? Now, all of a sudden you have faeries being the "best explanation".

Also if someone else thinks that the "best explanation" from their perceptive is that some sort of stuff just arose on its own and became the universe. Who are you to argue with them over what they feel is the "best explanation"?

In fact, this entire approach is pathetically wrong from all points of view.

None of these are "explanations" at all.

What is far more truthful is that none of these things make logical sense. A purely secular universe makes no sense. A universe created by a creator God makes no sense. A universe made by faeries makes no sense. A universe that is a manifestation of a magical being itself makes no sense.

None of these ideas make any sense. And none of them are an "explanation" for why reality is the way it is.

I personally favor the last idea on the list. But I favor it as a guess not as an explanation because I cannot explain how a magical being exists in the first place. In fact, this is why this particular idea is called Mysticism. It's an open confession that it is indeed a mystery and not an explanation.

So no. Postulating the existence of a Creator God is not an explanation. It's merely a faith based guess that is every bit as mysterious if there is no God at all.

Postulating the existence of a God doesn't make anything any less mysterious. It doesn't amount to an explanation for anything. It merely passes the buck of mystery from the universe itself onto some imagined God.

It didn't solve anything. It didn't explain anything. All it did was pass the buck from one known mystery onto another totally imagined and unknown mystery.

How does that amount to an 'explanation'?