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.

[Divine Insight]

Actually matter and energy can be created/destroyed as long as this is accompanied by a change in the configuration of the fabric of spacetime (i.e. gravitational potential energy changes).

The entire universe may actually sum to "zero" energy, or very close to it. And in this way the first law of thermo is not violated.

This has been claimed by others, but I'm not sure what this means. Can you elaborate this in layman terms? I understand spacetime fabric and gravitational potential. But, what does it mean to create matter and energy by changing spacetime?

Trying to explain this in layman's terms that are intuitive is not easy. Especially to explain it in any depth.

To begin with, there is no such thing as an "absolute" fabric of spacetime. Intuitively as laymen when we hear of a fabric of spacetime we think of this as being some sort of actual material. This is intuitive. Just like we used to think of an absolute empty space existing in the Newtonian classical physics. And we thought of that empty space existing in time.

But actually that's not how spacetime works. Spacetime is a distortion caused by the existence of mass. Or you can actually think of this in reverse without loss of meaning. Mass is a distortion of a fabric of spacetime. Of course in this latter picture you're probably thinking, "Well then the fabric of spacetime must actually exist if it's causing mass to come into being when distorted.

It's very much more dynamic than this. Both are simultaneously true. You can't have a meaningful fabric of spacetime that contains no mass, and you can't have mass without a distorted fabric of spacetime. In a mathematical sense they create each other. What you gain in mass you lose in spacetime distortion and vice versa. So in this way mass is not being created from "nothing". It's paying for it's creation by distorting the fabric of spacetime. Even though that fabric is not an absolute, it is a relative phenomenon.

And now we ask, "What is a distorted fabric of spacetime?" Well distorted (or warped) spacetime is gravity. So gravity is the price that is paid for matter. Matter is created at the cost of gravity. And these things can be though of as being opposites in a sense. Especially in mathematical terms where gravity potential energy is given a negative sign and matter is given a positive sign, summing up the universe we get zero.

Now it's important to realize here also that because matter and energy are basically the same stuff, energy too causes spacetime to warp. In other words energy generates gravity just like mass does. So energy is also paid for in terms of distorted spacetime, or gravity.

The total energy of our physical universe may actually be mathematically zero when calculated in this way. This would then mean that our universe has not violated the first law of thermodynamics.

~~~~~

There is far more too this idea than I have described here. Quite a bit more to it actually. I can't really think of any books off hand to point you to on this idea. I haven't typically kept track of my sources especially in terms of point for point.

But I did look up the following article for you:

This one is by Alexei V. Filippenko. I've watched many lectures by Filippenko and he has described this idea in depth in several of his lectures. I highly recommend his lectures. He has many on youtube. I just checked and couldn't find a short one specifically on this topic, but he covers this a lot in many of his lectures.

Here's a paper by Filippenko that touches on this concept directly.

A Universe from Nothing

[Artie]

OK, I'll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

1. If you are standing on a street corner without traffic lights you look left and right and left and listen for any cars coming. If you detect no evidence of any cars coming you assume that no cars are coming and cross the street. That is the rational approach. If two people are standing on the street corner and one detects no evidence of any cars coming and gets ready to cross and the other stops him and asks "why did you deem it safe to cross, what evidence do you have that no cars are coming?" I would assume that something was wrong with this person. Wouldn't you?

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don't exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don't exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don't exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don't exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven't made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don't exist?

[instantc]

OK, I'll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

1. If you are standing on a street corner without traffic lights you look left and right and left and listen for any cars coming. If you detect no evidence of any cars coming you assume that no cars are coming and cross the street. That is the rational approach. If two people are standing on the street corner and one detects no evidence of any cars coming and gets ready to cross and the other stops him and asks "why did you deem it safe to cross, what evidence do you have that no cars are coming?" I would assume that something was wrong with this person. Wouldn't you?

We could ressonably expect there to be visible evidence, in case cars were approaching the intersection, that's why the absence of evidence in that scenario constitutes proper evidence of absence. Can you show that same goes with God, can you show that there would be evidence available to us, if a personal creator of the universe existed? If you cannot, then you haven't made any valid point at all.

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don't exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don't exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don't exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don't exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven't made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don't exist?

This is not an argument, and much less a justification for anything, is it?

[wiploc]

We could ressonably expect there to be visible evidence, in case cars were approaching the intersection, that's why the absence of evidence in that scenario constitutes proper evidence of absence. Can you show that same goes with God, can you show that there would be evidence available to us, if a personal creator of the universe existed? If you cannot, then you haven't made any valid point at all.

Are you saying that, out of fear that an invisible god may be coming, you never cross streets?

Would you think someone rational is she refused to cross a street because there might be an invisible elephant coming? Or a silent hoard of Mongols?

Of all the undetectable things that might be coming that you dismiss as presumptively nonexistent, why do you carve out an exception for gods?

And why isn't that special pleading?

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don't exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don't exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don't exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don't exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven't made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don't exist?

This is not an argument, and much less a justification for anything, is it?

Seems like a winning argument to me.

I haven't followed the link, so I'm just going to assume that Thor is on the list, and use him as an example.

I personally don't believe in Thor because,
a) I don't know of any evidence that he exists, and
b) he flies and makes make lightning, or is otherwise so extraordinary as to be presumptively nonexistent in the absence of evidence that he exists.

For me, that line of reasoning works for Thor and Jehovah both.

People who disagree with me, who believe in one (say, Thor) but not the other (say, Jehovah) may be doing special pleading.

They may be thinking, well, of course Jehovah doesn't exist, because he's so extraordinary that he probably doesn't exist unless there's evidence for his existence. And there's no evidence for his existence. Therefore, he presumably doesn't exist.

But when they think about Thor, the thinking is different. More like, "I really like Thor. Such muscles, and yet, in the Thor comics, so gentle with babies. He could exist---nobody can prove it's not logically possible. So we don't get to hold an opinion either way."

Different thinking for the god that you want to exist. Special pleading.

So it seems like special pleading, a logical fallacy, is the only way someone could dismiss all but one of the gods on the list. If you have another theory, another explanation for how that could be done, you are invited to share it.

The Easter bunny illustrates the same thing. If you don't believe in the Easter bunny, why would you believe in Jesus? Or, if you do believe in Jesus, why wouldn't you believe in Thor, and the Easter bunny, and that a magical teleporting lion will kill you next time you try to go to the bathroom, and that next time you try to cross the street you'll be trampled by a tribe of silent invisible Mongols?

Rational people dismiss such things as presumptively nonexistent. If you are carving out a single exception, and saying, "No, this one may really exist. Don't dismiss this one," we want to know why.

Isn't the exception just special pleading? Because that's what it looks like from here.

You are invited to make a case that Thor and the Easter bunny do not exist, but some other god falls into another category.

In the absence of such a case, which I don't expect you to actually make because I've gone my whole life waiting for it, it is reasonable to believe that your exception is simply a case of special pleading.

[Artie]

We could ressonably expect there to be visible evidence, in case cars were approaching the intersection, that's why the absence of evidence in that scenario constitutes proper evidence of absence. Can you show that same goes with God, can you show that there would be evidence available to us, if a personal creator of the universe existed? If you cannot, then you haven't made any valid point at all.

So we are not supposed to cross the street in case a silent, invisible undetectable car is coming because I can't show that such a car isn't coming?

[KenRU]

[Replying to otseng]

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.
There are many models of how the universe came into existence, none of which require a supernatural explanation.

Perhaps you prefer a supernatural explanation for how the universe came to be, but in any case, given that science can provide rational explanations for the event, how do you justify citing it as a miracle?

[Divine Insight]

OK, I'll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

1. If you are standing on a street corner without traffic lights you look left and right and left and listen for any cars coming. If you detect no evidence of any cars coming you assume that no cars are coming and cross the street. That is the rational approach. If two people are standing on the street corner and one detects no evidence of any cars coming and gets ready to cross and the other stops him and asks "why did you deem it safe to cross, what evidence do you have that no cars are coming?" I would assume that something was wrong with this person. Wouldn't you?

We could ressonably expect there to be visible evidence, in case cars were approaching the intersection, that's why the absence of evidence in that scenario constitutes proper evidence of absence. Can you show that same goes with God, can you show that there would be evidence available to us, if a personal creator of the universe existed? If you cannot, then you haven't made any valid point at all.

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don't exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don't exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don't exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don't exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven't made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don't exist?

This is not an argument, and much less a justification for anything, is it?

You're not being consistent instantc. In the first part of your quote that I highlighted in red, you are attempting to argue that those who reject gods have no valid grounds for doing so.

Yet, in the second part of your quote you argue that the fact that Christians take the position that no gods exists save but one is not a valid argument that they have no valid grounds for making their claims.

Artie's argument is not only valid but he's point on.

Christian's are hypocrites when it comes to logical arguments and debate.

Here you are claiming that it's not valid for a person to not believe in gods all the while you are demanding that no gods exist save for one invisible virgin born zombie demigod.

That's got to be the most unjustifiable nonsensical claim in the universe. The only people who seem to have come up with anything quite as silly are the Muslims claiming that an invisible god named Allah corrected all the mistakes in the Christian Bible via an illiterate prophet named Muhammad who then flew away to a magical invisible land on a magical invisible flying horse.

There is far more justification for dismissing these absurd religious fairytale as having no more merit than myths of Santa Claus or Zeus, than there is for proclaiming that they might be true, especially by a person who has already dismissed Santa Claus and Zeus.

Artie has the perfect argument that cannot be contested by an rational mean.

To contest Artie's argument whist demanding that any of these absurd invisible Gods are true is to demand absolute irrationality.

Religions are irrational faiths. That's what they are and the fact that religious people refuse to even acknowledge this only shows that they don't even understand the true nature of religion to begin with.

If you believe in any of these gods, you choose to place your faith in an irrational ideal. That's just the fact of religion. Period. Pretending that it's a rational act is nothing short of denial.

If a person is going to be religious the least they can do is confess that they simply like to place their faith in an irrational dream. Because that's what religions necessarily are.

[instantc]

We could ressonably expect there to be visible evidence, in case cars were approaching the intersection, that's why the absence of evidence in that scenario constitutes proper evidence of absence. Can you show that same goes with God, can you show that there would be evidence available to us, if a personal creator of the universe existed? If you cannot, then you haven't made any valid point at all.

Are you saying that, out of fear that an invisible god may be coming, you never cross streets?

Would you think someone rational is she refused to cross a street because there might be an invisible elephant coming? Or a silent hoard of Mongols?

Of all the undetectable things that might be coming that you dismiss as presumptively nonexistent, why do you carve out an exception for gods?

I've got plenty of good reasons to believe that no invisible animal will run me over when I cross a street, I'm not ruling them out due to the absence of evidence alone. That's simply a terrible analogy.

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don't exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don't exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don't exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don't exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven't made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don't exist?

This is not an argument, and much less a justification for anything, is it?

Seems like a winning argument to me.

But, it's not an argument, it's a question. You do realize that there is a difference between a question and an argument, don't you?

The Easter bunny illustrates the same thing. If you don't believe in the Easter bunny, why would you believe in Jesus?

It's fairly easy to make a case against the Easter Bunny. To begin with, we would expect to have all kinds of evidence of it's existence, since it's a physical creature allegedly jumping around places during Easter. Now, I am waiting for you to stop laying red herrings and make a case against a personal creator of the universe.

[instantc]

Here you are claiming that it's not valid for a person to not believe in gods all the while you are demanding that no gods exist save for one invisible virgin born zombie demigod.

But, I didn't say either of those things, I was just asking Artie to show that his intersection analogy actually works. As far as I can see the belief that there are no cars in an intersection is not analogous to the belief that there is no God, because in an intersection one would expect to see the cars, if there were any present.

I'm not "demanding" that any Gods exist or don't exist. As far as I am concerned, there could be a personal creator of the universe, and you or Artie most certainly have not provided a proper argument against that hypothesis. All you have done is try to appeal to my disbelief in Thor and ask why I don't reject a personal creator of the universe on same grounds. The answer is simple, they are two different claims that are to be evaluated on their own merits individually.

[instantc]

We could ressonably expect there to be visible evidence, in case cars were approaching the intersection, that's why the absence of evidence in that scenario constitutes proper evidence of absence. Can you show that same goes with God, can you show that there would be evidence available to us, if a personal creator of the universe existed? If you cannot, then you haven't made any valid point at all.

So we are not supposed to cross the street in case a silent, invisible undetectable car is coming because I can't show that such a car isn't coming?

We have good reasons to believe that no invisible car will run us over when we cross a street, don't we? Do you really need me to spell them for you? So far you haven't provided any reason to believe that there is no personal creator of the universe.