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.

[McCulloch]

…

Which is why this thread is so fun. It is aimed at those who claim, outright, that 'there are no gods." It is demanding that those who make such a claim support it, since in that case, it is they who are actually making the claim.

This thread is a whole lot of fun from the ignostic corner of the room as well. How absurd it is to claim categorically that there are no gods when there is no agreed upon coherent definition of the meaning of the word god!

From the same link: "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable."

This reasoning is fallacious. I can prove the nonexistence of at least a few things without perfect knowledge. I can easily demonstrate the nonexistence of rational square roots (cubed roots and even higher orders, if you like) of any prime number. I can prove the nonexistence of the greatest prime number. I can prove the nonexistence of fifth century English novels.

[wiploc]

Conversation can be simplified by using certain touchstones.

When we discuss moral realism, we usually don't use working on the Sabbath as an example of something morally wrong, because some among us won't think that is wrong. That example would likely hijack the thread into a discussion of whether working on the Sabbath is really wrong.

So we pick an example that we expect to be agreed on. Hitler killing the Jews was wrong. Rape is wrong. Torturing babies for fun is wrong. These are standard examples because there is a strong tendency to agree on them.

On other topics, there is the endlessly popular (though unfortunate) example of whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. People bring that up because they expect agreement rather than dispute.

And that's why the Easter bunny comes up. We expect all parties to a discussion to agree that the Easter bunny isn't real.

This is a rhetorical convenience, not a fallacy.

[Artie]

From the same link: "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable."

So, do you agree then that the claim that God does not exist is therefore unjustifiable?

No, this just says that it is practically impossible for a person to search absolutely everywhere and then declare that something doesn't exist because he hasn't found it. We know square circles or married bachelors don't exist either even though we have never searched the whole universe for them and never found them. There are many ways to prove existence/non-existence.

[dianaiad]

…

Which is why this thread is so fun. It is aimed at those who claim, outright, that 'there are no gods." It is demanding that those who make such a claim support it, since in that case, it is they who are actually making the claim.

This thread is a whole lot of fun from the ignostic corner of the room as well. How absurd it is to claim categorically that there are no gods when there is no agreed upon coherent definition of the meaning of the word god!

From the same link: "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable."

This reasoning is fallacious. I can prove the nonexistence of at least a few things without perfect knowledge. I can easily demonstrate the nonexistence of rational square roots (cubed roots and even higher orders, if you like) of any prime number. I can prove the nonexistence of the greatest prime number. I can prove the nonexistence of fifth century English novels.

Indeed you can...because England, in the fifth century, wasn't England. It was 'the Kingdom of Kent" and "The Kingdom of Sussex," and people begging the Romans to come back, aand Hengest defeating the Britons, and Horst falling in battle, and...even Beowulf didn't show up for another four centuries or so, and the first English novels seem to be Robinson Crusoe and Moll Flanders.

In other words, you can prove the non-existence of fifth century English novels because you can prove that there was something else there instead, that precludes the existence of England...or novels. Novels were not written then because something else was. England didn't exist because something else did...and I'm not going anywhere near math.

The point is sometimes made here that theists are atheists to every god but their own, and should understand the mind set. The problem with that one is....one cannot believe in Zeus if one believes in Odin. The two cannot exist together.

So I, who believe in my own description of deity, do not believe in any other; not so much because I cannot believe in them, as because I do believe in one that, if he exists, makes the existence of those others impossible.

Those who claim that 'there are no gods' can't do that.


Let's take that Easter bunny thing. As far as I'm aware, nobody believes that the bunny actually lays the eggs (just to get that one out of the way) he is supposed to deliver them.

However, for those who might think so anyway, we don't believe that rabbits lay eggs because rabbits have live kits. They do something ELSE, in other words, that makes the egg laying thing impossible. Since most families have a grand old time boiling and coloring the eggs themselves, with fancy food coloring kits that their kids demanded they buy from the store, we know that the Easter bunny doesn't lay (or deliver) fancy colored eggs.

Candy and gifts, though....well, we all grow out of that one when we realize that Mom and Dad are the basket stuffers there.

In other words, we don't believe in the Easter bunny because we know how all this stuff is done, INSTEAD.

Those who claim 'there are no gods' have nothing to put in place of the gods. They can, in the face of miracle claims, show how that event 'really' happened so that an individual deity can no longer be responsible for it, but for the set of 'all gods, what and howsoever described?"

They have to come up with something else.

And I'm still waiting for that something else.

[Divine Insight]

…

Which is why this thread is so fun. It is aimed at those who claim, outright, that 'there are no gods." It is demanding that those who make such a claim support it, since in that case, it is they who are actually making the claim.

This thread is a whole lot of fun from the ignostic corner of the room as well. How absurd it is to claim categorically that there are no gods when there is no agreed upon coherent definition of the meaning of the word god!

The thing that upsets me about these types of debates is that they are often used by Christians when debating Christianity. For example, this thread is in Christianity and Apologetics, when it reality it should be in philosophy since it's attempting to get at a much broader claim. And I agree with McCulloch that these types of debates are meaningless when there is no coherent definition for the meaning of the word "god".

People like Dr. William Lane Craig are masters of pulling these kinds of stunts. He is very good at trying to lure those who debate against Christianity into these kinds of arguments. This is very much in his favor because debating something this broads relieves Dr. Craig from even needed to defend the absurdities of the Bible.

Although, in truth, I can't place on the blame on the Christians for sure. I've made the same complaint about popular atheists as well. They often do argue against the idea of any type of gods, which is indeed absurd for the reasons McCulloch has pointed out. They can't claim to rule out "gods" that don't intervene in reality.

In other words, if there is a god or gods who created the universe via the big bang and designed it so that it would evolved just as it has, and they don't intervene with that evolution, then it would be impossible to demonstrate that they don't or can't exist.

So claiming that "no possible gods can exist" is indeed an absurd claim.

But like I say, the Christians love these kinds of arguments because they know these types of claims are absurd and therefore they can take an easy stand in these types of debates, and then walk away from them acting like they just won a victory for Christianity, which is equally absurd.

Winning a debate like against the topic of this thread in general does nothing to support Christianity. Christianity is not dependent upon nullifying this claim. On the contrary Christianity claims that there is only ONE God and that the Bible describes him with infallible accuracy.

So that's the argument they need to make. And if they allow that the Bible is fallible, then they're done anyway. To claim that the Bible is fallible in order to win an argument that the God of the Bible can't be disproved, only end in the result that nothing in the Bible can be trusted precisely because it is fallible. If it's fallible then which parts do you believe came from God, and which parts should you chalk up to being false?

So this thread, shouldn't even be in "Christianity and Apologetics". It should be in philosophy in general. And then McCulloch's point should end it anyway. If you can't define what "all-gods" mean, then it's a meaningless debate.

To give some credit to the atheists, I think when they say that it's justified to believe that no gods exist, what they really mean is that no intervening gods exist.

I think there is a good case to make for that argument. Even though it would be impossible to prove that no divine intervention ever took place in all of history, I think it is justified to conclude from known history that if there exists an intervening God it must be intervening in truly trivial and petty ways whilst ignoring the real problems. And that's a sound argument against an intervening God.

A God who can't intervene is inept, why call it "God"?
A God who can intervene in atrocities but doesn't is is malicious.

So even if an intervening God did exist his morality would be highly questionable anyway.

[dianaiad]

…

Which is why this thread is so fun. It is aimed at those who claim, outright, that 'there are no gods." It is demanding that those who make such a claim support it, since in that case, it is they who are actually making the claim.

This thread is a whole lot of fun from the ignostic corner of the room as well. How absurd it is to claim categorically that there are no gods when there is no agreed upon coherent definition of the meaning of the word god!

The thing that upsets me about these types of debates is that they are often used by Christians when debating Christianity. For example, this thread is in Christianity and Apologetics, when it reality it should be in philosophy since it's attempting to get at a much broader claim. And I agree with McCulloch that these types of debates are meaningless when there is no coherent definition for the meaning of the word "god".

People like Dr. William Lane Craig are masters of pulling these kinds of stunts. He is very good at trying to lure those who debate against Christianity into these kinds of arguments. This is very much in his favor because debating something this broads relieves Dr. Craig from even needed to defend the absurdities of the Bible.

Although, in truth, I can't place on the blame on the Christians for sure. I've made the same complaint about popular atheists as well. They often do argue against the idea of any type of gods, which is indeed absurd for the reasons McCulloch has pointed out. They can't claim to rule out "gods" that don't intervene in reality.

<snip to end>

Awww, DI, nobody here is attempting to use an inability to prove a negative as somehow proving that the Christian description of God is 'true.'

Can't you just acknowledge that the claim 'there are no gods' is unprovable without taking a swipe at those who believe in one?


It's just this one thread, after all.

[Divine Insight]

<snip to end>

Awww, DI, nobody here is attempting to use an inability to prove a negative as somehow proving that the Christian description of God is 'true.'

Why not move the thread to philosophy, or some more appropriate forum then?

Besides, it's actually false to say that it is impossible to prove a negative. A McCulloch and I have both pointed out, proving negatives is done all the time in mathematics. Non-existence theorems are quite common in mathematics. (i.e. there is no natural number that can be the square root of 2). The proof that such a natural number does not exist it actually quite easy.

Although I must confess that many atheists don't even seem to be aware of this since I see many of them conceding that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is total baloney.

Can't you just acknowledge that the claim 'there are no gods' is unprovable without taking a swipe at those who believe in one?

I agree with McCulloch. It's not that it's unprovable but rather that it's not even a coherent claim without defining precisely what is mean by "god". Only after that has been well-established can you move forward to attempt to determine whether or not that particular definition can be proved, disproved, or unknowable.

It's just this one thread, after all.

Fine. I'm still in agreement with McCulloch. Until the term "god" is well-defined then asking whether a belief that gods do not exist is justifiable is meaningless.

So that's my answer in this one thread. The question is meaningless until the term god is well-defined.

[dianaiad]

<snip to end>

Awww, DI, nobody here is attempting to use an inability to prove a negative as somehow proving that the Christian description of God is 'true.'

Why not move the thread to philosophy, or some more appropriate forum then?

Besides, it's actually false to say that it is impossible to prove a negative. A McCulloch and I have both pointed out, proving negatives is done all the time in mathematics. Non-existence theorems are quite common in mathematics. (i.e. there is no natural number that can be the square root of 2). The proof that such a natural number does not exist it actually quite easy.

Although I must confess that many atheists don't even seem to be aware of this since I see many of them conceding that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is total baloney.

Can't you just acknowledge that the claim 'there are no gods' is unprovable without taking a swipe at those who believe in one?

I agree with McCulloch. It's not that it's unprovable but rather that it's not even a coherent claim without defining precisely what is mean by "god". Only after that has been well-established can you move forward to attempt to determine whether or not that particular definition can be proved, disproved, or unknowable.

It's just this one thread, after all.

Fine. I'm still in agreement with McCulloch. Until the term "god" is well-defined then asking whether a belief that gods do not exist is justifiable is meaningless.

So that's my answer in this one thread. The question is meaningless until the term god is well-defined.

I cannot argue about math. I'm discalculaic. However, if you claim to be able to prove a negative in mathematical terms, how about using it to prove that no gods exist?

As to defining god...I think that the definition of 'god' would be whatever YOU think would make some being qualify for the title. Whatever that is.

Creator God, or 'god' (little 'g') or whatever you want to apply.

[McCulloch]

Definitions are important. If the definition of god involves omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence the the problem of evil precludes god from coexisting with a universe containing evil.

[Divine Insight]

I cannot argue about math. I'm discalculaic. However, if you claim to be able to prove a negative in mathematical terms, how about using it to prove that no gods exist?

You can. But you need to have a specific god in mind. Just like proving that there is no rational number that when squared equals 2. That a very specific case.

You can obviously have a rational number (or even a whole number) than when squared equals 4. So the proof that there cannot be a rational square root of the number 2 does not mean that no number can have a rational square root.

As to defining god...I think that the definition of 'god' would be whatever YOU think would make some being qualify for the title. Whatever that is.

Creator God, or 'god' (little 'g') or whatever you want to apply.

I can imagine gods that I can easily disprove. And I can also imagine gods that I cannot disprove.

So in answer to the question of the thread, "Justify the belief that gods do not exist."

For some gods I can justify this belief.

For others I cannot.

This is why I remain agnostic in the most general sense of the concept.

But it's also why I can be a very strong atheist (even a gnostic atheist) in the case of certain specific gods.

The God of the Bible is like the square root of two. I clearly does not exist, IMHO.

At least not as defined literally verbatim by the Bible.

On the other hand, if someone wants to claim that a God might exist that does not satisfy a literal verbatim description of the Biblical God, then I may not be able to disprove their imagined God.

But this would be like someone in mathematics proclaiming that they believe in a "square root of 2" that doesn't fit the literal verbatim definition of what the square root of 2 means.

How can you argue with that? They can argue that the square root of 2 does not need to be rational. Well duh? We already know that. In fact, that's what we have actually proved must be the case.

In other words, if a person is free to redefine the Biblical God so that it no longer fits the literal verbatim description of the Biblical God, then they can evade the proof that it can't exist. But would that truly be a fair argument?