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.

[KenRU]

[Replying to otseng]

Unless you define things outside of our universe as also being natural, then "before" and "outside" our universe can be considered supernatural.
Before would not be supernatural. The nature of "nature" may change, but it does not follow that it would be supernatural.

But I think we're beginning to split hairs (or sub-atomic particles if you prefer, lol).

Since the how or why of our universe's origin is unknown, there is no reason to believe a supernatural event happened. It would only be wishful thinking.

Using logic that argues for a supernatural possibility, I could equally argue that a hyper-intelligent trans-dimensional alien could have sparked the beginnings of our universe. As cool as that may be, it offers no more an explanation (and has no more or less proof) than saying god did it, or it was a supernatural event.

The absence of knowing something and postulating a supernatural cause, is just as wise as man creating Poseidon to blame for tidal waves.

So, I still maintain, there has been no verifiable proof a miracle ever happened.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 262 by otseng]

Yahweh is eternal, all-powerful, holy, creator, redeemer, transcendent, and many other attributes. To my knowledge, Thor is none of these.
Well, both are gods, are they not?

Or are you arguing that all that matters is which ever one has a more creative origin story? Or all that matters is which story provides said deity with more powers?

I thought this was all relative to justifying the belief that gods do not exist? If the justification comes down to whichever story is more creative, then I'll go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 275 by dianaiad]

I would say that, since Thor is supposed to be the author of thunder by throwing his hammer around, and we know know that thunder is not made thusly, that Thor has been disproved.
And if I said that Thor's hammer creates the conditions of thunder, so of course it would seem like we know the cause of thunder?

He is a god after all.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 275 by dianaiad]

I would say that, since Thor is supposed to be the author of thunder by throwing his hammer around, and we know know that thunder is not made thusly, that Thor has been disproved.
And if I said that Thor's hammer creates the conditions of thunder, so of course it would seem like we know the cause of thunder?

He is a god after all.

Does he?

Well, according to Norse mythology, Thor isn't actually primarily responsible for thunder. As well, he has to have special gloves and a belt in order to use his hammer, which is mostly for fighting the enemy.

And the enemy is pretty much everybody.

the thing about any description of god is...you can't decide what he SHOULD be, and so fight that; you have to go with what the description actually is; you know, what the believer thinks God is. Doesn't do either one of you any good for you to make up a God for you to criticize; the believer will, quite rightly, say...well, if God were really like that, you'd be right, but He's not, so how is your criticism going to make any difference to anybody?

So here we have a bunch of folks who are doing one of a couple of things:

First, figuring somehow that attacking and disproving (in their own minds, at least) the description of the Abrahamic god somehow justifies the belief that no god of any sort can exist anywhere,

or Second (and even sillier, as far as I can tell) deciding what God would and would be if He were real (because of course the skeptic knows what's best for the human race eternally better than anybody else could possibly understand, so the 'proper' god would of course be the one he describes) and figuring that because of the state of the world, that god obviously doesn't exist, then no god could exist.

Either way, it doesn't work.

Now, I happen to think that the description of God I believe in works quite well in the world the way it is, but that's just me. I'm not claiming that I can prove to you in the way you prefer that He does exist. I'm simply pointing out that nobody here has, of yet, justified the belief that no gods exist.

I WILL concede that someone who says "I see no evidence so far that a God exists" may be justified, but that's a different statement.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 284 by dianaiad]

the thing about any description of god is...you can't decide what he SHOULD be, and so fight that; you have to go with what the description actually is; you know, what the believer thinks God is. Doesn't do either one of you any good for you to make up a God for you to criticize; the believer will, quite rightly, say...well, if God were really like that, you'd be right, but He's not, so how is your criticism going to make any difference to anybody?
This is my point. That Yahweh and Thor both have such fluent and tenuous definitions, that they are indistinguishable. (substitute Thor with any god you wish, btw)

First, figuring somehow that attacking and disproving (in their own minds, at least) the description of the Abrahamic god somehow justifies the belief that no god of any sort can exist anywhere,
Wasn't trying to do that here. Was simply showing, imo, there is no credible evidence to support one god over another.

Second (and even sillier, as far as I can tell) deciding what God would and would be if He were real
Doesn't both the atheist and theist do this?

because of course the skeptic knows what's best for the human race eternally better than anybody else could possibly understand,
I may have a high opinion of myself, but certainly not that high : )

so the 'proper' god would of course be the one he describes
The proper god I know of is the one I was taught about in CCD and Church, and what my theist friends and family tell me he should be. If I use their logic to draw a reasonable conclusion, I shouldn't be faulted for what they assert, should I?

and figuring that because of the state of the world, that god obviously doesn't exist, then no god could exist.
I have only maintained that the god purported to exist by theists should (and does according to scriptures and holy books) leave evidence of his existence. And no such evidence has ever been substantiated.

I'm not claiming that I can prove to you in the way you prefer that He does exist.
Its not the way I prefer, it's the way he was explained to me (via holy books) that should show evidence of his existence.

-All the best,

[FarWanderer]

Let me try this:

Things are as they are.
If God exists, then they are as they are because He intended them that way.
We can and do understand many physical laws, which remain (for the most part) consistent.
Therefore we are intended to be able to understand them.

Intent has nothing to do with it. This is because it is not this God's intentions that inform our expectations, but simply what is that does. All you are doing is postulating intent behind it all, which is a red herring. In other words, when the argument goes that what is is exactly what this God intends, then our expectations are identical regardless of whether this God exists or not.

And if the existence or non-existence of this God changes nothing in regards to what we ought to expect, then its hypothetical existence is epistemically useless.

For epistemically useless entities, belief in their non-existence is the most simple, parsimonious approach.

And thus we have a way to justify a belief that this God does not exist.

[Divine Insight]

God didn't write the bible. People did. If they didn't know about mental illnesses they couldn't write about it any more than they could write about quantum theory and the Horsehead nebula.

Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. The "Word" made flesh.

So why didn't Jesus know about these things? Clearly Jesus was just as stupid as everyone else when it came to believing in things like casting demons out of people.

Jesus was no exception to the ignorance of his day.

[dianaiad]

God didn't write the bible. People did. If they didn't know about mental illnesses they couldn't write about it any more than they could write about quantum theory and the Horsehead nebula.

Jesus was supposed to be the son of God. The "Word" made flesh.

So why didn't Jesus know about these things? Clearly Jesus was just as stupid as everyone else when it came to believing in things like casting demons out of people.

Jesus was no exception to the ignorance of his day.

Not during his mortal lifetime, no, evidently. Either that, or He was really good at blending in.

[instantc]

... 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" ...

Well written, the reason I'm not going to go deeper into your post is because most of it is clearly not addressed to me. For example, you ask why magic should require a magician, why cannot it be just magic? In essence, if I understand you correctly, you are asking that if we are going to go with an absurdity, who's to decide which absurdity we should pick. That's a good question and a tenable objection, I have no problem with that.

That is exactly right. I'm glad to see that you have recognized this and agree. That certainly hints an some progress in communication.

This can hardly be seen as progress, as I was never saying anything different.

While I appreciate your thoughtful posts, I sincerely recommend that you'd try spending a bit more time on reading and less on writing. The rest of your posts is again, as it seems, not addressed to me.

You aren't being consistent.

I was objecting to your claim that something was the "Best Explanation".

I'm not going to read any further than this. I have never claimed anything to be the best explanation. The only claim I made was that we don't need to consider an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation.

[Divine Insight]

I'm not going to read any further than this. I have never claimed anything to be the best explanation. The only claim I made was that we don't need to consider an explanation of an explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation.

But that is what I disagree with. And the examples you have given in science are actually in agreement with me.

Newton's "best explanation" for gravity is that it applies to not only objects on earth but that it also applies to objects in the heavens. Also, his "best explanation" for gravity is that gravity is dependent upon the mass of objects. He was able to show that his "best explanation" are true unto themselves. There is no need for further explanation in regard to the "explanations" he gave. There is of course room for further explanation, but that doesn't mean that his explanation were not complete within the scope of what he was explaining.

The same is true for Einstein's refinement of gravity. Einsteins, "explanations" also revealed that time must necessarily dilate and that space and time must necessarily be a single seamless and malleable fabric. Once again, his explanations were self supporting and need no further explanation to be complete in terms of what they were explaining.

You're trying to carry that basic principle way too far. You are trying to claim that to simply say that a creator is the "best explanation" for the existence of the universe is sufficient. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't even explain anything at all.

You've made no headway at all. None.

At least both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein clearly made headway at explain things. They clearly explained more than had been known before, and in both cases science made great advances in knowledge and in measurements and discoveries.

What has been produced by proclaiming that an invisible undetectable creator is the "Best Explanation" for the universe?

What has been explained? What has been discovered? What has been moved forward?

NOTHING!

Nothing at all. Zip, nada, zilch. Nothing has been explained, nothing new has been proposed, predicted or discovered from this. It is a totally empty claim.

To claim that it has been an "explanation" for anything is clearly fraud.

Absolute nothing has been explained.

So your comparison of these kind of nonsense with science is simply false. There is no grounds for your claim that any arbitrary off-the-all claims are explanations that don't' need further explanation in order to be the "Best Explanation". They most certainly do.

In fact, to merely claim that a creator God is the "Best Explanation" for the universe without explaining what this explains is absolute nonsense.

This is precisely the kind of nonsense that theologians have to offer.

They have "nothing" to offer at all. Other than truly bad arguments that are nothing other than an empty play on semantics and have no logical substance at all. It's no wonder that secularists get tired of this.

You have no argument. My objection stands tall.

Proclaiming that a creator God is the "Best Explanation" for the universe is a totally bogus claim that has no logical foundation at all. Such a claim is actually a disgrace to the very concept of logic and reason.

You could call it a personal subjective "Best Guess" if you like, but clearly there are many secular scientists who's "Best Guess" is that the universe is purely materialistic. And they don't claim that this is the "Best Explanation" either. But they might claim that we have no evidence to support any other guess, and they would be perfectly correct in that claim.