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]

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.

I really can't believe you posted this wiploc, because many of your other posts seem fairly reasonable. But this one is not.

You don't seem to understand why the PoE doesn't' apply to a secular philosophy. But it absolutely does not. And it doesn't apply because secularists have no need to hold that a God exists. It doesn't matter what they "believe".

You say:

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.

That's not a problem for secularists. Secularists aren't proclaiming that PoE doesn't exists for theists. On the contrary, I have proclaimed that theists most certainly are plagued with the PoE. So I recognize the reality of PoE for theists.

I'm saying that for secularist the PoE is not a "problem" that applies to them or concerns them.

Why not? Well, precisely because they don't believe in a tri-omni god.

Why should they care that there exists a "Problem of Evil" associated with something they don't even believe exists?

There is no "Problem of Evil" for secularists precisely because they don't believe in a tri-omni God.

The "Problem of Evil" is tied directly to that concept. Therefore if a secularist doesn't believe in a tri-omni God then the "Problem of Evil" is not a problem for them.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't still exist as a problem for theists. Obviously it does because theists are trying to hold up the notion that the world was indeed created by an omni-potent God.

And so this is not anywhere near the same as 2+2=4.

2+2 = 4 has been shown to be a quantitative property of the physical universe, providing of course, that you actually apply these quantitative ideas to actual quantities. And therefore a person would need to be in denial of the quantitative properties of the universe in order to deny 2+2=4. And that would be pretty hard to deny in any reasonable way.

But the PoE does not depend upon the physical universe. Instead it depends upon an imaginary God that no one has ever been able to even show exists. Therefore dismissal of the PoE is available to anyone who chooses to dismiss the idea of this God that has never been shown to exist.

So it's not anywhere near the same as 2+2=4.

[instantc]

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.

But, in your previous post you said that 'God created the universe' is the theistic explanation.

Now you contradict your previous take by saying that God is not even an explanation, let alone the explanation. Before I go deeper into this, were early scientists not justified in positing gravity to explain the movements of physical objects because they could not explain gravity itself? Were the cave men not justified in positing a wandering mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints in their caves because they did not have an explanation as to where the lion came from?

If we need an explanation for every explanation, then we need explanations for the explanations of explanations as well, and we will never have an explanation for anything.

Again, I am not sure whether you disagree with the general principle or its specific application to God, please specify.

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".

How is this relevant to my argument? I haven't made any assertions as to what the best explanation is. Faeries, gods take your pick. All I am saying is that in order for us to recognize something as the best explanation, we don't need to have an explanation of that explanation. Therefore the question 'who created fairies?' is irrelevant to the question whether or not fairies are the best explanation for the universe. When scientists posit quarks to explain the quantum phenomenon, it is natural to ask for an explanation for the quarks, but that does not mean that positing quarks was not justified.

[Divine Insight]

But, in your previous post you said that 'God created the universe' is the theistic explanation.

In their minds yes. But that only goes to show how theists think (or fail to think)

Because it's not an explanation. It's just a guess. A stab in the dark. That's far from an explanation.

Now you contradict your previous take by saying that God is not even an explanation, let alone the explanation.

There is no contradiction. I hold that it is indeed true that postulating any unknown magical source or entity is not an explanation. On the contrary it's the same as saying, "I give up. I have no explanation, therefore it must be magic".

Magic is not an explanation. If you see a magician do a magic trick and you cannot explain how the trick was done, then you do not have an explanation, all you can say is, 'It sure looks like magic to me" And magic itself implies that there is no explanation. That's what magic is. An event that cannot be explained. If you can explain it, then it's no longer magic.

So if I say that the "best explanation" for the universe is that it is magic, all I'm really saying is that I see no possible explanation for it at all. That's certainly a valid stance to take. But it's hardly an "explanation".

Moreover it would be extremely arrogant and absurd for anyone to claim that this magic was being done by a particular magician that they believe to know something about.

Yet this is precisely what religious people try to do.

Before I go deeper into this, were early scientists not justified in positing gravity to explain the movements of physical objects because they could not explain gravity itself?

That's different. In that case they were giving a name to a motion that they could not explain. But they could observe the motion. It's not even claimed to be an explanation. On the contrary it's merely claimed to be an observation. In fact, when Isaac Newton first discovered a very precise mathematical description of this motion caused by "gravity" he was still quite embarrassed about the fact that he could not explain it. All he could do is describe it.

So in this case gravity is more like the universe, not a God. Gravity is what we observe, it's not an explanation of a cause.

And besides "gravity" is still not fully understood today. We certainly have a far better description of this observation of motion today with General Relativity. And we can even pretend that it explains things better in terms of an imagined fabric of spacetime. This brings it far closer to an intuitive understanding. But let's face it, does anyone truly understand this idea of a fabric of spacetime? I don't think so. In fact, I know we don't. Instead scientists are still proposing the idea of subatomic particles called gravitons to explain gravity.

If we discover the graviton then we will finally have an explanation for gravity. And that explanation may also help to better define what we mean by a "fabric of spacetime". Will we need to have an explanation for the graviton? Well, actually I would suggest that we already do have an explanation for it. But even though we have an explanation for it, we don't yet have evidence that it actually exists. Here's a case where we have an explanation for something before we have even found evidence for it. That's exactly the opposite of postulating the existence of a God that we have no explanation for.

In fact, this is what we have done for the Higgs field. We had an explanation for it before we actually found evidence for it. That's was one of the greatest achievements in science. Although it's by far not the first time this has happened.

Were the cave men not justified in positing a wandering mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints in their caves because they did not have an explanation as to where the lion came from?

You are not being consistent here. There are several things wrong with your analogy here. To begin with, if the caveman looked at the paw print and concluded that it was too unique regular and repeatedly found to have been a random accident, that would have been a correct conclusion. If he then postuated that whatever caused it must also be too unique to have been a random accident that too would have been correct. A mountain lion is not a random accident. It's the product of evolution by natural selection taking place over millions of years. That's far from a random accident. So the caveman would have been right to conclude that the paw print came from some living creature.

Secondly, if a caveman had never seen a mountain lion before it is extremely unlikely that he would have postulated that a mountain lion exists. Instead he could probably be imagining all sorts of different animals. In fact, he might even imagine that some totally abstract "boogieman" had made the tracks.

He would have no reason to actually believe that the "boogieman" exists anymore than we have a reason to believe that "God" exists. In fact, when he finally discovered that the tracks were being made by a mountain lion instead of his imagined "boogieman" it would probably be quite a relief. And then he would just think to himself, "Oh it was just a mountain lion". And that would be a sensible explanation.

If we need an explanation for every explanation, then we need explanations for the explanations of explanations as well, and we will never have an explanation for anything.

If you accept that line of thinking then you must conclude that there are no explanation for anything. Therefore this would bring into question you continued claim that something has a "Best Explanation".

What you are arguing for now is the idea that nothing can even be an explanation ever. And that the whole concept of "explanation" is a bogus concept to begin with.

Again, I will grant you that this is a valid position to take. However, when you take that position you are not arguing for the "Best Explanation" for anything. Instead all you are doing is throwing your hands up in the air and proclaiming, "It's all magic to me!". And that's the same as proclaiming that you can't even imagine any explanation for it at all. None. And so you end up postulating not only magic, but even an imagined magician to boot. And then you have exhibit the absolute inconsistency of proclaiming that this is not only an explanation but you proclaim that it is the Best Explanation. When in truth, this is really nothing more than a confession on your part that you can't even imagine an explanation at all so you've just given up entirely.

The problem with that line of thinking is that at that point you appear to have fooled yourself into believing that your surrender to the problem constitutes the "Best Explanation" possible and then you act like everyone else should accept this too.

But that's absurd. Other people are willing to accept that intermediary understandings of things are the stepping stone that get you to a "Better Understanding". And so they strive to continue to "Better" then "Understanding", whereas you appear to have just given up and are running around screaming, "Magic is the Best Explanation!".

But magic isn't an explanation. On the contrary, it's a confession that you have no explanation at all and you give up. The only thing left for you to do at this point is wait until the magician appears and then ask him to explain how he did all his magical tricks. Ironically if that day ever came he would probably say to you in return, "If you had paid attention to science you would have learned how all the tricks are done my child."

Again, I am not sure whether you disagree with the general principle or its specific application to God, please specify.

I don't see where there is anything productive in just giving up on trying to understand things by tossing your hands in the air and saying "The Best Explanation is that the boogieman did it!" All that is doing is proclaiming that you are convinced that no explanations can ever be had for anything.

Every explanation that has been given by science is an explanation of observation. It's not necessarily an ultimate answer to the "why" of everything.

Just as I had pointed out avove, Isaac Newton's "Gravity" was not an explanation of gravity at all. On the contrary it was just a refined description of motions that we associate with the idea of "Gravity". However, even in that respect it was very useful because it suddenly demonstrated that the "Gravity" we feel here on earth also runs the entire solar system. And that did result in an explanation of why the solar system behaves the way it does. We didn't need to have a full explanation of gravity to understand that Gravity is what causes the motions of the planet.

Now you might start screaming here again proclaiming that we are using gravity as an explanation for the motion of the solar system whilst we don't fully have an explanation for gravity. And this is no different from using God as an explanation for the universe when we don't' have an explanation for God. But that's anywhere near the same.

To begin with, we are observing "gravity" to be a real and measurable motion, and effect in the physical universe. We don't have that kind of measurable observation for any imagined "God". So we aren't just making gravity up for not good reason.

Secondly, even Isaac Newton did have some explanation for gravity. He explained that gravity is "caused" by the presence of mass. His mathematical equations for gravity clearly placed the amount of gravity associated with an object with the mass of that object. So Issac Newton made progress in our understanding of gravity. Now we understand that gravity is associated with massive objects and is even entirely dependent upon the mass of these objects in a very precise mathematical way.

So this was a major leap forward in our understanding of gravity (an observable phenomenon). How in the world does that relate to your claim that arbitrarily postulating that a magician magically created the universe is a "Best Explanation" for anything?

Albert Einstein stood on the shoulders of Isaac Newton and showed more details concerning how massive objects warp a mathematically describable fabric of spacetime. In the process he also discovered "Time Dilation", yet another measurable and observable phenomenon in the universe.

These kinds of explanations result in learning more about the nature of reality.

Where does the guess that a magical magician created the universe lead?

And what does that "explain"?

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".

How is this relevant to my argument? I haven't made any assertions as to what the best explanation is. Faeries, gods take your pick. All I am saying is that in order for us to recognize something as the best explanation, we don't need to have an explanation of that explanation. Therefore the question 'who created fairies?' is irrelevant to the question whether or not fairies are the best explanation for the universe.

But what is it that you are recognizing as the "Best Explanation"?

Unexplained Magic?

It seem to me that you are simply saying that if we simply throw our hands up in the air and scream "Magic!", that amounts to the "Best Explanation" we can offer and no further explanation is required.

If I'm going to go that route then why not save a step?

Instead of throwing my hands up in the air and saying. "It's magic and therefore there must be a magician behind it all". Why don't I instead just say, "It's magic and it's so magical that it doesn't even require a magician behind it all"

Requiring that magic has to have a magician behind it is actually belittling magic.

That's basically demanding that magic has an "explanation" (i.e. the magician is the explanation for magic)

You're not gaining anything by proclaiming that magic is the "Best Explanation" for anything. On the contrary, to resort to accepting magic is the same as confessing that there is no "explanation" (because that's what magic is. Magic is that which has no explanation)

When scientists posit quarks to explain the quantum phenomenon, it is natural to ask for an explanation for the quarks, but that does not mean that positing quarks was not justified.

That's different. That's more like the case of gravity. Not at all like what you are doing with the universe and God.

In short, with the universe and God, what you are really doing is just tossing up your hands saying, "I see no explanation for the universe, therefore I posit that the 'best explanation' for the universe is a magical God who also has no explanation.

In other words, what you are actually saying is that there is no explanation for anything. That's a valid position to take, but if you're going to take that position then at least own up to it and quit pretending that it represents the "Best Explanation". On the contrary, it's a total surrender to the idea that there can be "No Explanation at All"

And at that point you can just say "It must be magic" and forget entirely about postulating the existence of a magician because that postulate right there is just yet another attempt to explain the magic.

If you truly want to posit "magic" as being the ultimate source of reality then join the secular atheists because their "magical material world" doesn't even require a magician as an explanation. Save yourself a step.

Demanding that there must be a magician behind the magic is to do nothing more than demand that the magic itself has an explanation.

And of course, if you actually found this magician you would indeed expect it to have an explanation as well.

If you were willing to accept magic without an explanation, then you would have no need to posit the magician.

[Artie]

Also, by the way, his original post never provided evidence that gods do not exist.

Sorry but I haven't had time to follow the thread lately. It is not my place to provide evidence that gods do not exist. "A positive claim is an assertion that something exists. A negative claim is an assertion that something does not exist. The burden of proof is upon those who make a positive claim." https://thebeautifulvirus.wordpress.com ... -of-proof/

Strong atheist: "I believe there are no gods" (negative claim)
Christian: "I also believe there are no gods, with one exception". (positive claim)
Strong atheist: "Why the exception"?

The Christian has to explain why he has made the exception because claiming that one god exists is a positive claim. The strong atheist needn't explain or justify anything.

[Divine Insight]

Also, by the way, his original post never provided evidence that gods do not exist.

Sorry but I haven't had time to follow the thread lately. It is not my place to provide evidence that gods do not exist. "A positive claim is an assertion that something exists. A negative claim is an assertion that something does not exist. The burden of proof is upon those who make a positive claim." https://thebeautifulvirus.wordpress.com ... -of-proof/

Strong atheist: "I believe there are no gods" (negative claim)
Christian: "I also believe there are no gods, with one exception". (positive claim)
Strong atheist: "Why the exception"?

The Christian has to explain why he has made the exception because claiming that one god exists is a positive claim. The strong atheist needn't explain or justify anything.

I take a totally different stance entirely.

I am only a "Strong Atheist" with respect to certain Gods. The Christian God being one of them.

I also have absolutely no problem at all explaining why I reject the Christian God as being unbelievable. Especially verbatim as per the Christian scriptures.

I have no problem at all with the "God" of Taoism. So with respect to that God I simply remain agnostic (i.e. I can't say whether it exists or not, I simply don't have enough knowledge to draw a firm conclusion.)

Moreover, in the case of Christianity, even if I were agnostic I would still have many very powerful reasons why it would not be worthy of my "faith".

In other words, even if I could know that Christianity is false (which I believe I can know with certainty), I still wouldn't be compelled to even place agnostic faith in it. Why not? Because, IMHO, it is an extremely negative picture of reality. Why would I want to believe in an extremely negative picture of reality on pure faith?

I mean sure, the Christians can argue, "Well if you believe at least you can save your own soul!". I say, "So what?" It's still an extremely negative picture of reality even if my own personal soul is "saved" in this paradigm.

Saving my soul doesn't help the bigger picture. It would still be a pathetically negative picture of reality. In fact, it's a picture where the vast majority of human souls are necessarily condemned. Why would I want to place my faith in the idea that this represents the truth reality?

If Christianity is true, then life is a nightmare for the vast majority of souls. Even if I made it into the Christian heaven that wouldn't change the fact that life is a nightmare for the vast majority of souls.

So why would I want to believe in this picture of reality as a matter of pure faith?

I would much prefer to have faith that it's totally wrong.

[wiploc]

It is not my place to provide evidence that gods do not exist.

That is, however, the reason for this thread.

"A positive claim is an assertion that something exists. A negative claim is an assertion that something does not exist.

Those both seem positive to me.

The burden of proof is upon those who make a positive claim."

The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.

Strong atheist: "I believe there are no gods" (negative claim)
Christian: "I also believe there are no gods, with one exception". (positive claim)

Those are both claims about a state of mind. If you have to prove one, you have to prove the other.

...

The Christian has to explain why he has made the exception because claiming that one god exists is a positive claim. The strong atheist needn't explain or justify anything.

Not believing either way is the default position. If you leave the default position, you ought to have justification. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof.

If you try to distinguish between positive and negative claims in the way that you have, you invite people to twist their claims into negative phrasing. "I say it is not true that there are no gods." Okay, that one was lame, but you know that people would eventually come up with stronger challenges based entirely on spoofing your positive/negative test.

[wiploc]

Okay, Artie, here's a better example:

Suppose I claim that it is reasonable to believe that there are an odd number of stars. What's my reasoning? It is that I believe there are not an even number of stars. Since that's a negative claim, it doesn't need justification. Therefore, there must be an odd number of stars since there isn't an even number.

See, that kind of positive/negative distinction isn't useful for determining burden of proof.

[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?

There's no reason to believe that it can't go the other way. On the contrary we have evidence that it does go the other way. This is precisely what happens when matter and antimatter meet. Moreover, every time new matter is created it is always created in matter/antimatter pairs.

Are you saying gravity is antimatter?

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.

If you believe that then you reject scientific knowledge. We know that precisely the opposite is true. The fabric of spacetime is anything but flat. On the contrary it's a seething sea of quantum foam where matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into and out of existence.

When I mean flat, I speak on the cosmic scale, not on a local scale.

As for scientific knowledge, actually, I believe it supports my case.

"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Plus it's definitely a two-way street. If all that stuff that is popping into existence wasn't also popping back out of existence the universe would quickly become filled with matter and antimatter. So the two-way nature of this process is clearly evident.

For antimatter and matter, yes, I agree it's a two-way street. But, I believe what you are claiming is that the universe arose not of antimatter and matter, but gravity and matter.

[otseng]

Replying to post 193 by otseng]

Depends on how you define supernatural. If it means outside our universe, then our universe must've had a supernatural origin.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

If we're talking before the beginning of the universe (when), then we can't be talking about where (outside). So, no, it would not be "supernatural" as you intended here. And, the "when" (beginning) could very well have a natural explanation anyways.

Unless you define things outside of our universe as also being natural, then "before" and "outside" our universe can be considered supernatural.

[otseng]

There are three possible explanations for the cause of something.
1. Natural law/process
2. Chance
3. Intentional design

If 1 and 2 are ruled out, then it’s logical that 3 is a solution.

Is that a rule, a natural law, that those are the three choices?

If you know of another explanation for the cause of something, I'd be curious to know it.

Would that rule still work in a singularity, where the rules are suspended?

Well, we can then classify it as a miracle since we can never understand it, even in principle.