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.

[dianaiad]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

That would rule out the Biblical God in any case. The Biblical God has proclaimed as a first commandment to men that they shalt not place any other Gods before him because he is a jealous God.

Why would he feel a need to make such a commandment if there were no other Gods?

Clearly the bible portrays a God that not only believes in other Gods himself, but who is also jealous of them.

Do get serious.

We know that people believe (and certainly at the time this was written) in very different definitions of God, to the point that they will point at each other and say 'you believe in a different God than I do!"

That the God of the OT said not to place any other gods before Him is not an admission of belief in other gods. It is, however, an acknowledgment that people believe that there are.

You do understand that, even though you don't believe in gods yourself, that other people do, right?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 174 by dianaiad]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.
But what makes the choice to believe in the god that "absolutely precludes the possibility of any other" more logical or believable than the others?

Isn't the simple fact that there is no credible evidence to believe in one particular god vs another, a good argument to believe in none? Isn't that a fair and logical justification?

For what? For the conclusion that so far you have seen nothing that would convince you that any of the descriptions of god presented to you exist?

Sure, that's fair and logical, if you can honestly say that.

However, how does that preclude any possibility that there is a god out there that nobody has described to you?

Because that is the question of this thread. "justify the belief that NO gods exist." Not 'justify the belief that none of the gods I"ve heard of so far exist," but that none exist. At all, Period. No possibility of one of any description or attributes whatsoever.

[Divine Insight]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

That would rule out the Biblical God in any case. The Biblical God has proclaimed as a first commandment to men that they shalt not place any other Gods before him because he is a jealous God.

Why would he feel a need to make such a commandment if there were no other Gods?

Clearly the bible portrays a God that not only believes in other Gods himself, but who is also jealous of them.

Do get serious.

We know that people believe (and certainly at the time this was written) in very different definitions of God, to the point that they will point at each other and say 'you believe in a different God than I do!"

That the God of the OT said not to place any other gods before Him is not an admission of belief in other gods. It is, however, an acknowledgment that people believe that there are.

You do understand that, even though you don't believe in gods yourself, that other people do, right?

Evidently I'm not the only one who takes this seriously:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 967#673967

[wiploc]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

Strong atheists have no such positive belief that precludes the existence of all Gods.

Unless you have something?

There's always Xal-xe. He's the ascetic demon of quadratic equations. We know these things about him by definition:

- He may exist.

- He is necessary (he exists in all possible worlds if he exists in any).

- He is logically incompatible with gods. (It would be a logical contradiction if a god existed in any universe that Xal-xe exists in.

Therefore, according to the logic of Plantinaga's cosmological argument, we know, first, that Xal-xe exists in the actual world, and, second, that no gods exist in the actual world.

[dianaiad]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

Strong atheists have no such positive belief that precludes the existence of all Gods.

Unless you have something?

There's always Xal-xe. He's the ascetic demon of quadratic equations. We know these things about him by definition:

- He may exist.

- He is necessary (he exists in all possible worlds if he exists in any).

- He is logically incompatible with gods. (It would be a logical contradiction if a god existed in any universe that Xal-xe exists in.

Therefore, according to the logic of Plantinaga's cosmological argument, we know, first, that Xal-xe exists in the actual world, and, second, that no gods exist in the actual world.

You are using math with me.

That's your first big mistake.

Your second is the 'He is necessary' part. Why would that be? Why isn't that a begging of the question?

And, uh,

what?

[wiploc]

How about...because they believe that one DOES exist, the existence of Whom absolutely precludes the possibility of any other existing.

Strong atheists have no such positive belief that precludes the existence of all Gods.

Unless you have something?

There's always Xal-xe. He's the ascetic demon of quadratic equations. We know these things about him by definition:

- He may exist.

- He is necessary (he exists in all possible worlds if he exists in any).

- He is logically incompatible with gods. (It would be a logical contradiction if a god existed in any universe that Xal-xe exists in.

Therefore, according to the logic of Plantinaga's cosmological argument, we know, first, that Xal-xe exists in the actual world, and, second, that no gods exist in the actual world.

You are using math with me.

Possible-world speak, a philosophical language.

That's your first big mistake.

And, uh,

what?

Consider my post a jape aimed at those who think Plantinga's arguments hold water.

Your second is the 'He is necessary' part. Why would that be? Why isn't that a begging of the question?

Well spotted. Among other failings, Plantinga's argument certainly begs the question.

[wiploc]

However, how does that preclude any possibility that there is a god out there that nobody has described to you?

Preclude the possibility? That's a strawman argument, isn't it? Don't you have beliefs that could possibly be wrong?

Because that is the question of this thread. "justify the belief that NO gods exist."

We all have beliefs that are possibly wrong. We all justify beliefs without precluding possibility of error.

Not 'justify the belief that none of the gods I"ve heard of so far exist," but that none exist. At all, Period. No possibility of one of any description or attributes whatsoever.

We've done that repeatedly in this thread.

[otseng]

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

I have posted my argument repeatedly in this thread.

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

And yet, I can come up with evidence that the earth exists, and I'll be surprised if you come up with evidence that gods exist.

I have no burden (in this thread) to provide any evidence that a god exists.

For me, nothing counts as a god unless it is extraordinary in some way. If you can't fly, or smash suns, or walk on water, or create universes, or stop time, or otherwise have some extraordinary power, then, by definition, you aren't a god.

Sure. Attacking ordinary, mortal gods (Caesar, statues, etc) is pointless. There is no need to even bring those up, let alone argue that they are not really considered to be a god.

Call this the Russell's teapot category. It would be weird if that teapot were there. And there's no reason to think it is there. Reasonable people, then, assume that the teapot is not there.

I already said we can ignore this.

Theists are eager to claim that these gods exist. They offer up evidence all the time. But the evidence turns out to be false or fraudulent. (You can't tell me that William Lane Craig, for instance, doesn't know he's talking nonsense.)

Actually, I have high regard for Dr Craig. Yes, he uses the same arguments over and over. But, interestingly, atheists still have a hard time debating him, even though they know exactly what he'll say in a debate. (For example, the William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? debate)

As for evidence that turns out to be false or fraudulent, that is a gross misrepresentation of apologetic arguments. Sure, some are false, but not all are.

We believe, based on countless examples, that the evidence for the kind of god that leaves evidence, is always the work of a motivated believer.

Actually, it doesn't matter what the motivation of the person is. The only thing that matters is the arguments and evidence that he presents. He could have improper motives, but he could still be correct.

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?

[dianaiad]

However, how does that preclude any possibility that there is a god out there that nobody has described to you?

Preclude the possibility? That's a strawman argument, isn't it? Don't you have beliefs that could possibly be wrong?

Of course. I'm quite certain that I do...but until I know which ones, I can't really change 'em.

That said, your question has nothing to do with anything. The question in front of us is 'justify the belief that gods do not exist," not "well, maybe you are wrong, so if maybe you are wrong, you can't be right, therefore there are no gods."

At least I THINK that's where you were trying to go with that.

Because that is the question of this thread. "justify the belief that NO gods exist."

We all have beliefs that are possibly wrong. We all justify beliefs without precluding possibility of error.

With all due respect...nobody has. Nobody has even attempted it so far on this thread. Everybody so far has attempted to justify the belief that no gods exist by attempting to disprove the ideas of the gods they know about.

I hope that you can see that this isn't what was asked.

I can go into an almond orchard here and point at all the trees. I can say 'hey, you aren't a pomegranate, and you aren't, and you. Over there. Hey. YOU! You ain't no pomegranate either!" That doesn't prove that there aren't any pomegranates.

Not 'justify the belief that none of the gods I"ve heard of so far exist," but that none exist. At all, Period. No possibility of one of any description or attributes whatsoever.

We've done that repeatedly in this thread.

Actually, no, nobody has. Nobody has even tried. Everybody attacks descriptions of deities they know about, but nobody has actually attempted to justify the positive statement 'there are no gods."

The most anybody has done...even if I accepted their arguments, which of course I can't, completely, being that I'm a theist...is justify the statement "the god YOU believe in doesn't exist."

Not the same thing.

[otseng]

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.

Yes, this is what is commonly claimed. But, I'd have an easier time believing this claim if it can be demonstrated that gravitational energy can destroy matter. Why would it only be a one way process where out of nothing came gravitational energy and matter, but it cannot go the other way?

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.

Yes, I understand this. But, spacetime is only warped locally. For the entire universe, I believe the spacetime fabric is actually flat.