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]

OK, what do you consider acceptable evidence?

Whatever would be persuasive on another topic. That is, no special pleading.

Can you be more specific? No special pleading would be one criteria. Are there others?

Santa and the Easter bunny are extraordinary. That is, it would take amazing evidence to justify the claim that these amazing things really exist. And we don't have any evidence that they exist that isn't better accounted for by alternative explanations.

Sure, they are extraordinary, but your illustration fails because nobody really believes that they are real. Whereas there exists a great deal of people who believe that a god exists (Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Shiva, Vishnu, etc). If you want to attack what people actually believe, you'll need to attack these, not the Easter bunny or Santa Claus.

[dianaiad]

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

Not commensurable with the rational numbers.

That doesn't help me, since I can't remember what a 'rational' number is.

Here's the thing: I struggled all the way through trigonometry...and had to drop out of ALL my other courses to concentrate completely on that. I"ve never studied anything so hard in my life, and was grateful to get a 'C' in it.

Really messed up my GPA.

Oddly enough, I had no problems with the science classes, and statistics was a breeze. I just can't make numbers behave.

[otseng]

If we agree that a miracle is a supernatural event, akin to having the laws of nature superseded, then we can easily agree what constitutes a miracle.

Well, at the risk of derailing this thread, I would say the creation of the universe would be miraculous. The laws of nature were superseded by the creation of the world. And its origin must've been outside our universe since our universe was what was created.

This could only be evidence of a miracle if
1) you can show that the universe was created
2) there were any physical/natural laws to suspend before the universe was created, which is nonsensical

Let's just concentrate on the "laws of nature superseded" part.

Do laws exists independently from the universe? That is, did preexisting laws operate to cause our universe to exist?
What do you consider to be physical/natural laws?
Would agree that the first law of thermo was violated regarding the origin of the universe?

[otseng]

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

Not commensurable with the rational numbers.

That doesn't help me, since I can't remember what a 'rational' number is.

A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction. 2.5 is rational since it is 5/2.

An irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction. Pi is an irrational number since it cannot be expressed as a fraction.

[dianaiad]

.

Novels were not written then because something else was.

The CAUSE of novels not being written was because "something else was" written?

Sorry, that was sloppy of me.

Let's go to an analogy (sorry..) but if that fruit on the table is an orange, then it can't be an apple, can it? The orange is not the cause of the apple not existing there. It is simply that, if that fruit is an orange, it's not an apple.

Or...if the suspect in a murder case was in Australia at the time of the murder, then it has been proven that he did not kill Perky Marksworth in New Jersey. The suspect's being in Australia did not cause Perky's death, it just means that he's not guilty of it.

Or...if the description of the God I believe in is accurate, no other god exists. It's not a cause...it's a fact of elimination. Prove one theory to be true, and you have disproved all competing theories. Automatically.

England didn't exist because something else did...and I'm not going anywhere near math.

England didn't exist BECAUSE something else did? Could it possibly be that England didn't exist because that culture had not developed?

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.

Of course Zeus and Odin could exist together. What indicates otherwise? Tales by believers? The tales could be distorted views of the "gods" by human chroniclers

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.

"Makes others impossible" is part of the belief. That is only what one or more of the proposed "gods" is claimed to have said according to the unverifiable tales told about the gods.

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

Few who debate here claim "there are no gods", perhaps realizing the futility of proving non-existence of anything.

....and yet, here they are, on this thread, attempting to do just that.

That's why this thread is so much fun.

However, Theists seem to prefer to debate against the "no god" position even when it is not claimed by their debate opponents – or as a general straw man to argue against.

Except, of course, that there very much ARE those atheists who claim this. There's even a name for this position: "strong' atheism. I have come across it frequently, and on this forum.

Those who don't make that claim don't get any grief about it from me, certainly.

It is much more difficult for Theists to debate without the straw man (so they inject it often) because they claim existence and are asked for verification that their claims and stories are true. However, that does not justify resorting to "prove my favorite God doesn't exist" OR "provide an alternative."

Now, now....let's not derail the thread. There are so many others in which the above argument is not only made, but even made appropriately. In THIS one, the above is awfully close to a tu quoque fallacy.

Let's just see if anybody can come up with evidence that 'no gods exist." without figuring that proving (at least in their minds) that one specific description of god is disproved, it does so for all possible iterations of deity.

Which, so far, seems to be what's happening.

Those who make a claim are expected and required to substantiate their claim – not demand that others refute it or provide alternatives.

Hence this thread. I have heard this so many times...some atheist will jump in with the "there are no gods" claim, and then get all huffy and try to turn it around on me....when (and you know this) I've never MADE a claim that one can prove that god exists.

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.

MUST one have "something else" to rationally decline to accept a tale as true?

I think it's the only way that one can say that a 'negative' has been proven, yes. Rabbits don't lay eggs. They have live kits, instead. That's how we know that they don't lay eggs. If we didn't know a thing about how they DID procreate, how would you prove that they did not, after all, lay eggs?

At least one mammal does.

For instance, must one have "something else" to refuse to accept that unicorns exist on Earth?

Well now, that's a problem. I suppose that if one found the animal that was first called a 'unicorn,' (maybe a rhino?) and found out that the animal everybody thought was a unicorn was something else, that would work. However, without that, how can you prove that unicorns (of whatever description) do not, and never have, existed?

Now, this isn't about belief and probabilities. This is about absolute claims.

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

We tend to like candy and gifts even if the "occasion" is nothing more than a contrived holiday or "gifting occasion."

Of course. Why do you think we come up with those holidays and gifting occasions?

Good grief, Mormons don't believe that Jesus was born on Christmas day, but we celebrate it anyway.

Gifting occasions are very nice, both in the receiving and the giving.

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

That may be true for some people. Others may refuse to accept the tale for various reasons. Blanket statements are subject to being untrue.

You mean blanket statements like 'there are no gods?'

Those who claim 'there are no gods' have nothing to put in place of the gods.

Those who claim there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs, etc "have nothing to put in their place" either. Is something "in their place" rationally required?

For absolute proof, yep.

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.

Are you waiting for the "something else" in the case of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs, etc? Or does that just pertain to god proposals?

Well...no, in the case of fairies and leprechauns. After all, my belief system really doesn't have a place for them. In other words, for them I really do have a 'this can't be true because that is." As for unicorns and centaurs...I understand where those stories might have come from, so I'm willing to accept that the delicate white horse with the pearly horn is really a big, nasty gray beastie who'd rather trample a virgin than put his head in her lap, and the first folks to see a man riding a horse probably came up with the centaur thing.

Ah, well....

Perhaps the something else you ask about is actually knowledge of the real world. When diseases were not known to be caused by microorganisms no one could supply the "something else" as an alternative to various goddidit claims. However, as knowledge increased and microbial causes became known they replaced the god claims.

Ah, the 'god of the gaps' thing. As in...if we have found the physical causes to many things that people USED to attribute to supernatural 'God did it" claims, that there can be nothing left for God to 'do?"

The problem, of course, is that there are a bunch of us who are quite willing to accept that natural laws govern everything that happens, and y'know what? We can still believe that God did it. It's just that we are getting to know, more and more, HOW He did it....and perhaps even how we can do it, too.

For us, that's exciting, not faith destroying.

[dianaiad]

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

Not commensurable with the rational numbers.

That doesn't help me, since I can't remember what a 'rational' number is.

A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction. 2.5 is rational since it is 5/2.

An irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction. Pi is an irrational number since it cannot be expressed as a fraction.

Then why don't they just SAY that? What the heck is 'rational' about a fraction? Why is a number that just keeps going on into infinity an 'irrational' number? Who made up this vocabulary?

And where can I find him to slap him over the head with an irrational number of wet noodles?

[Zzyzx]

.

.

Novels were not written then because something else was.

The CAUSE of novels not being written was because "something else was" written?

Sorry, that was sloppy of me.

Let's go to an analogy (sorry..) but if that fruit on the table is an orange, then it can't be an apple, can it? The orange is not the cause of the apple not existing there. It is simply that, if that fruit is an orange, it's not an apple.

Agreed. An orange is not an apple.

Also, the absence of an orange does not guarantee the presence of an apple.

Or...if the description of the God I believe in is accurate, no other god exists. It's not a cause...it's a fact of elimination.

That rests on The Big IF. There is no assurance that the God you believe in or its description are accurate.

The Big IF the god(s) that others believe in are accurately described then your God cannot exist.

Whose belief is to be accepted and why?

Prove one theory to be true, and you have disproved all competing theories. Automatically.

All that is lacking is the proof.

Also, an event may have multiple or variable causes or explanations. Unless all are taken into consideration, the arrived answer / explanation is incomplete.

Few who debate here claim "there are no gods", perhaps realizing the futility of proving non-existence of anything.

....and yet, here they are, on this thread, attempting to do just that.

That's why this thread is so much fun.

Not to intrude on the fun, but I certainly am not one to claim to know that gods do not exist. In fact, it is "fun" for me to debate those who profess knowledge about "gods."

However, Theists seem to prefer to debate against the "no god" position even when it is not claimed by their debate opponents – or as a general straw man to argue against.

Except, of course, that there very much ARE those atheists who claim this. There's even a name for this position: "strong' atheism. I have come across it frequently, and on this forum.

Those who don't make that claim don't get any grief about it from me, certainly.

Thank you.

Those who make a claim are expected and required to substantiate their claim – not demand that others refute it or provide alternatives.

Hence this thread. I have heard this so many times...some atheist will jump in with the "there are no gods" claim, and then get all huffy and try to turn it around on me....when (and you know this) I've never MADE a claim that one can prove that god exists.

Agree. You don't claim proof of existence – and I do not claim proof of non-existence.

Neither of us is responsible for claims made by others (unless we announce agreement).

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.

MUST one have "something else" to rationally decline to accept a tale as true?

I think it's the only way that one can say that a 'negative' has been proven, yes. Rabbits don't lay eggs. They have live kits, instead. That's how we know that they don't lay eggs.

Biologists can determine that rabbits do not lay eggs because they are not physically equipped to do so. Female rabbits do have eggs (in genetic terminology) just as do human females. However, those eggs develop within the body and the offspring are born alive.

If we didn't know a thing about how they DID procreate, how would you prove that they did not, after all, lay eggs?

Watch them. See if they lay eggs. Demonstrate there are no eggs laid during rabbit reproduction.

At least one mammal does.

Yes.

For instance, must one have "something else" to refuse to accept that unicorns exist on Earth?

Well now, that's a problem. I suppose that if one found the animal that was first called a 'unicorn,' (maybe a rhino?) and found out that the animal everybody thought was a unicorn was something else, that would work. However, without that, how can you prove that unicorns (of whatever description) do not, and never have, existed?

Notice that I said "refuse to accept that unicorns exist on Earth."

That has nothing to do with what ancients might have named any animal. "Exist on Earth" is VERY contemporary.

When someone attempted to "explain" biblical reference to unicorns using rhinoceros I referred them to information about the behavior of such animals that strongly contradicts bible accounts of behavior.

Now, this isn't about belief and probabilities. This is about absolute claims.

Furthermore, it isn't about denial of existence (at least on my part) but of unwillingness to accept tales that cannot be substantiated.

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

We tend to like candy and gifts even if the "occasion" is nothing more than a contrived holiday or "gifting occasion."

Of course. Why do you think we come up with those holidays and gifting occasions?

Good grief, Mormons don't believe that Jesus was born on Christmas day, but we celebrate it anyway.

Gifting occasions are very nice, both in the receiving and the giving.

My approach is different. If I want someone to have something I give it to them without consulting the calendar. Structured "gifting" does not appeal to me at all.

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

That may be true for some people. Others may refuse to accept the tale for various reasons. Blanket statements are subject to being untrue.

You mean blanket statements like 'there are no gods?'

Yes, or blanket statements like "we don't believe in the Easter bunny because we know how all this stuff is done" OR "my favorite god is real (and others are false gods because my god said so").

Those who claim 'there are no gods' have nothing to put in place of the gods.

Those who claim there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs, etc "have nothing to put in their place" either. Is something "in their place" rationally required?

For absolute proof, yep.

What is in place of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs?

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.

Are you waiting for the "something else" in the case of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, centaurs, etc? Or does that just pertain to god proposals?

Well...no, in the case of fairies and leprechauns. After all, my belief system really doesn't have a place for them. In other words, for them I really do have a 'this can't be true because that is."

All you are saying with this is "fairies and leprechauns can't be true because my belief is true" or "my belief is the something instead that eliminates them existing."

Or in other words, they can't be true because I believe they can't be true.

As for unicorns and centaurs...I understand where those stories might have come from, so I'm willing to accept that the delicate white horse with the pearly horn is really a big, nasty gray beastie who'd rather trample a virgin than put his head in her lap, and the first folks to see a man riding a horse probably came up with the centaur thing.

Much the same can be said of god stories. We can understand that they came from people seeing what they did not understand and using imagination to find an "explanation." Droughts, storms, disease, defeat, etc were attributed to supernatural entities and influences when knowledge of actual natural process was acquired.

Although humans now have access to much more information about atmospheric processes and medical information there are still unknowns – to which the "god explanation" is applied.

Perhaps the something else you ask about is actually knowledge of the real world. When diseases were not known to be caused by microorganisms no one could supply the "something else" as an alternative to various goddidit claims. However, as knowledge increased and microbial causes became known they replaced the god claims.

Ah, the 'god of the gaps' thing. As in...if we have found the physical causes to many things that people USED to attribute to supernatural 'God did it" claims, that there can be nothing left for God to 'do?"

That certainly isn't my application of "god of the gaps." Rather than "nothing left for God to do" I take the position of challenging claims that are made attributing events or outcomes to a "god." If God can do something let him have at it – and let's see the result and see if any result can be shown to be associated with a God.

The problem, of course, is that there are a bunch of us who are quite willing to accept that natural laws govern everything that happens, and y'know what? We can still believe that God did it. It's just that we are getting to know, more and more, HOW He did it....and perhaps even how we can do it, too.

That is seemingly a more positive approach than many expressed in these threads.

Of course, it assumes that "goddidit" (and we just need to figure out how) assumes the conclusion and is based on belief rather than knowledge.

[Divine Insight]

How about this? After we deal with the issue of the problem of evil, we can then discuss the veracity of the Bible?

That would be fine. Dealing with the so-called "Problem of Evil" is a piece of cake. We should be able to get that out of the way in just a few posts.

In fact, it would make perfect sense to address that imaginary problem first, before even discussing the Bible, because once we realize the folly of the so-called "Problem of Evil" we'll be in a far better position to understand why the Bible has no merit at all.

[Divine Insight]

What does 'irrational' mean in mathematical terms?

Not commensurable with the rational numbers.

That doesn't help me, since I can't remember what a 'rational' number is.

A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction. 2.5 is rational since it is 5/2.

An irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction. Pi is an irrational number since it cannot be expressed as a fraction.

Then why don't they just SAY that? What the heck is 'rational' about a fraction? Why is a number that just keeps going on into infinity an 'irrational' number? Who made up this vocabulary?

And where can I find him to slap him over the head with an irrational number of wet noodles?

A fraction is a 'rational' number because it's the ratio of two whole natural numbers. An irrational number if irrational because it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two natural numbers.

This is actually a huge problem in terms of being able to commensurate irrational numbers with the natural numbers. And by commensurate, I mean understand them as being the same concept. We can understand the natural numbers as sets of collections of individual objects. So even fractions (i.e. ratios of natural numbers) are still commensurable with that same idea. We simply have a ratio of two sets, each having a cardinal property that is a whole number of objects.

But irrational numbers are totally different. They cannot be commensurated with the natural counting numbers in the same way that fractions can. Thus giving mathematicians a need to invent a whole new concept of number. These new numbers are called irrational numbers. And actually it's for reasons related to both meanings of the term irrational.

These numbers are irrational in the sense that they cannot be written or thought of in terms of ratios of natural counting numbers. But they are also irrational in the sense that they make no sense in terms of the same cardinal concept of quantity that natural numbers make.

So the term "irrational" is perfect for these number because they are indeed irrational new both of these ways.

No one to this day has made rational sense of the irrational numbers. We just use them without truly having a rational (meaning well-understood) idea of cardinality that they represent. Actually this isn't quite true. I do understand these irrational relationships, but I think I'm the only person on the planet who does.

In any case, these numbers truly are irrational in terms of both meanings of the work (i.e. not a ratio of natural number, and not logically commensurable with our cardinal understanding of the meaning of number as a collection of individual objects)

So they are irrational twice over.

[Divine Insight]

Haven't I proven that the belief that there are no gods is reasonable? How can Christians benefit from using that in debate?

Yes, it is true that you did prove justification for this.

But it's also true that the Christians are still arguing with you and aren't convinced of your proof.