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.

[instantc]

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.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, let's focus on the example of paw prints in the cave. Do the cave men know where the mountain lion came from or why it is there? No. Are they still justified in positing the mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints? Yes. Consequently, they do not need to have an explanation for their explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation for the paw prints.

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?

Let's work on the hypothetical that someone has put forward a good argument suggesting that personal creation is the best explanation for the universe. What has been explained? For starters, we would have an explanation as to why things are the way they are, namely a person willed them to be that way. What have we discovered? That the beginning of the universe was not a naturalistic process, that the things are way they are for a reason, that there exists (or existed) a being that transcends time and space and so forth. What has been moved forward? For starters, if this discovery were made, we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 291 by instantc]

An explanation can't only explain what it assumes.

"Hypothetically, if we suppose the Universe were created by a God, it would explain that the Universe were created by a God | willed into existence | not created by something other than God |created intentionally"
This is not an explanation. This is tautology. This is saying "If we suppose A, then A".

[Zzyzx]

.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, let's focus on the example of paw prints in the cave. Do the cave men know where the mountain lion came from or why it is there? No. Are they still justified in positing the mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints? Yes. Consequently, they do not need to have an explanation for their explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation for the paw prints.

Recognized by WHOM as the best explanation, based on what criteria?

Let's work on the hypothetical that someone has put forward a good argument suggesting that personal creation is the best explanation for the universe. What has been explained?

Having an explanation is very different from having an accurate and truthful explanation.

People once "explained" disease as possession by demons and droughts as punishment for disobeying gods. What was the value of those "explanations?"

For starters, we would have an explanation as to why things are the way they are, namely a person willed them to be that way.

Correction: explain means "An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts."

More accurately, we would have a conjecture (which means "Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork; A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork")

What have we discovered?

NOTHING has been discovered. The term discover means ": to see, find, or become aware of (something) for the first time: to show the presence of (something hidden or difficult to see) : to make (something) known: to learn or find out (something surprising or unexpected)"

Nothing has been seen, found or learned.

That the beginning of the universe was not a naturalistic process,

That has been GUESSED, proposed, speculated " not learned (or seen or found)

that the things are way they are for a reason, that there exists (or existed) a being that transcends time and space and so forth.

Pure speculation

What has been moved forward?

Nothing has been moved forward. However, forward movement toward accurate understanding may be discouraged by focus on a conjecture.

For starters, if this discovery were made, we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe.

The Big IF " and if pigs had wings . . . .

[instantc]

[Replying to post 291 by instantc]

An explanation can't only explain what it assumes.

"Hypothetically, if we suppose the Universe were created by a God, it would explain that the Universe were created by a God | willed into existence | not created by something other than God |created intentionally"
This is not an explanation. This is tautology. This is saying "If we suppose A, then A".

I was only talking about a hypothetical situation. If we had good reasons to believe that the existence of the universe is due to personal creation, then that would explain why the universe exists and give us some indication as to its origin.

[instantc]

.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, let's focus on the example of paw prints in the cave. Do the cave men know where the mountain lion came from or why it is there? No. Are they still justified in positing the mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints? Yes. Consequently, they do not need to have an explanation for their explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation for the paw prints.

Recognized by WHOM as the best explanation, based on what criteria?

Let's work on the hypothetical that someone has put forward a good argument suggesting that personal creation is the best explanation for the universe. What has been explained?

Having an explanation is very different from having an accurate and truthful explanation.

People once "explained" disease as possession by demons and droughts as punishment for disobeying gods. What was the value of those "explanations?"

For starters, we would have an explanation as to why things are the way they are, namely a person willed them to be that way.

Correction: explain means "An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts."

More accurately, we would have a conjecture (which means "Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork; A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork")

What have we discovered?

NOTHING has been discovered. The term discover means ": to see, find, or become aware of (something) for the first time: to show the presence of (something hidden or difficult to see) : to make (something) known: to learn or find out (something surprising or unexpected)"

Nothing has been seen, found or learned.

That the beginning of the universe was not a naturalistic process,

That has been GUESSED, proposed, speculated " not learned (or seen or found)

that the things are way they are for a reason, that there exists (or existed) a being that transcends time and space and so forth.

Pure speculation

What has been moved forward?

Nothing has been moved forward. However, forward movement toward accurate understanding may be discouraged by focus on a conjecture.

For starters, if this discovery were made, we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe.

The Big IF " and if pigs had wings . . . .

You seem to have completely missed that we were talking about hypotheticals.

[Zzyzx]

.

You seem to have completely missed that we were talking about hypotheticals.

All talk about "gods" and various "supernatural" entities is hypothetical. So?

[instantc]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I found nothing of relevance in your post, so I thought perhaps you wrote it under the impression that we weren't talking about hypotheticals.

[Divine Insight]

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, let's focus on the example of paw prints in the cave. Do the cave men know where the mountain lion came from or why it is there? No. Are they still justified in positing the mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints? Yes. Consequently, they do not need to have an explanation for their explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation for the paw prints.

To begin with, cavemen would never posit that paw prints were made by a mountain lion if they had never seen mountain lion before. At best if they didn't know what made the prints they found they would simply posit that perhaps some "creature" made the prints. They might even imagine that the prints were made by a supernatural boogieman.

In the end they would never know what made the prints until they actually find the animal that made them. In this case it is clearly possible to find the animal because mountain lions exist in the natural world.

You analogy would be far better if you changed to people finding footprints in the sand and positing that some creature named "Big Foot" made them. The problem is that no one has ever seen this "Big Foot" creature, and far more interesting is that these large tracks can actually be explained away far better by other explanations. For example, they were actually made by humans, and the prints are simply larger than the actual feet that made them because the mud or ground conditions were such that footprint impression actually swell up over time. That actually happens. Another possibility is that they were actually faked to scare people into thinking that some monster exists that doesn't actually exist. That actually happens too.

So your "hypothetical" that cavemen would simply postulate the that a mountain lion exists from having seen tracks is nonsense. If no one has ever seen a mountain lion then this is no explanation at all on the contrary it's just a pure guess that imagines an animals existing that no one has any reason to believe exists.

Of course in this case something appears to have left tracks. But until it's discovered what made them, all we can do is guess.

Moreover, you have created a very false analogy to your original hypothetical. There do not exist any unexplained "tracks" to attribute to any God. So you analogy here to your hypothetical about God is actually quite dishonest even if naively dishonest. It's not a valid analogy.

Let's work on the hypothetical that someone has put forward a good argument suggesting that personal creation is the best explanation for the universe.

Even if you wish to propose this as a hypothetical you must offer this "good argument" as part of your hypothetical because this is what you claim that your hypothetical offers.

But you haven't done that. So your hypothetical itself is incomplete and bogus.

What has been explained? For starters, we would have an explanation as to why things are the way they are, namely a person willed them to be that way.

Not you are positing that the universe was "willed" into existence by a totally unexplained hypothetical being. I would not call that a "good argument". A "good argument" would be to explain why this needs to be the case.

What have we discovered? That the beginning of the universe was not a naturalistic process, that the things are way they are for a reason, that there exists (or existed) a being that transcends time and space and so forth.

But we haven't "discovered" any such thing. On the contrary this has just been posited for "no good reason". It's also clearly based on an anthropomorphic point of view.

What has been moved forward? For starters, if this discovery were made, we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe.

I agree, "If this discovery were made" we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe. But no such discovery has been made.

In fact, there are very good arguments that stand against this hypothetical "guess".

You claim that it's a "Hypothetical explanation". But it's not an explanation. It doesn't explain why animals eat each other, for example. Why would a being who willed the universe into existence will to have animals eat each other?

This is far more evidence that things happened entirely by accident rather than having been willed into existence.

Why would a creator have willed humans into existence, and then also will a whole plethora of disease, bacteria, viruses, biting insects, and poisonous animals into existence among them?

That these things just happened by accident is a far better explanation.

~~~~

All you are doing is attempting to argue that to imagine that some conscious creator willed the universe into being makes more sense than to imagine that things happened by some sort of natural process that has no will or intent.

But the evidence actually points to the latter.

Evolution by natural selection actually does explain precisely why the world would be exactly as we see it to be. We even have further explanations for precisely how evolution works genetically. We have have further observations of the existence of DNA and how genes naturally combine and evolve to produce these results.

In short, instantc, the posit that the world came to be the way it is has far more evidence to support it than the idea that a creator willed the universe into existence.

So the discovery of evolution and all that it has predicted and has been subsequently found to be true, trumps the notion that some creator merely willed the universe into existence.

Unless of course you also posit that this creator God has a will that is quite unfriendly toward every living thing within the universe including humans. You must also posit that it gets a kick out of having everyone suffer in horrible ways.

Your hypothetical actually raises far more problems than it pretends to solve. And it don't advance anything. Nor does it explain anything.

Unlike your example with the caveman there are no "tracks" that suggest that any such being exists. On the contrary we have found countless "tracks" that show how the universe evolved within the need for anyone to "Will" it into existence.

So you are offering a failed hypothetical that "explains nothing". It doesn't even remotely match up with observed reality.

[instantc]

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, let's focus on the example of paw prints in the cave. Do the cave men know where the mountain lion came from or why it is there? No. Are they still justified in positing the mountain lion in order to explain the paw prints? Yes. Consequently, they do not need to have an explanation for their explanation in order for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation for the paw prints.

To begin with, cavemen would never posit that paw prints were made by a mountain lion if they had never seen mountain lion before. At best if they didn't know what made the prints they found they would simply posit that perhaps some "creature" made the prints. They might even imagine that the prints were made by a supernatural boogieman.

In the end they would never know what made the prints until they actually find the animal that made them. In this case it is clearly possible to find the animal because mountain lions exist in the natural world.

You analogy would be far better if you changed to people finding footprints in the sand and positing that some creature named "Big Foot" made them. The problem is that no one has ever seen this "Big Foot" creature, and far more interesting is that these large tracks can actually be explained away far better by other explanations. For example, they were actually made by humans, and the prints are simply larger than the actual feet that made them because the mud or ground conditions were such that footprint impression actually swell up over time. That actually happens. Another possibility is that they were actually faked to scare people into thinking that some monster exists that doesn't actually exist. That actually happens too.

So your "hypothetical" that cavemen would simply postulate the that a mountain lion exists from having seen tracks is nonsense. If no one has ever seen a mountain lion then this is no explanation at all on the contrary it's just a pure guess that imagines an animals existing that no one has any reason to believe exists.

Of course in this case something appears to have left tracks. But until it's discovered what made them, all we can do is guess.

Moreover, you have created a very false analogy to your original hypothetical. There do not exist any unexplained "tracks" to attribute to any God. So you analogy here to your hypothetical about God is actually quite dishonest even if naively dishonest. It's not a valid analogy.

Let's work on the hypothetical that someone has put forward a good argument suggesting that personal creation is the best explanation for the universe.

Even if you wish to propose this as a hypothetical you must offer this "good argument" as part of your hypothetical because this is what you claim that your hypothetical offers.

But you haven't done that. So your hypothetical itself is incomplete and bogus.

What has been explained? For starters, we would have an explanation as to why things are the way they are, namely a person willed them to be that way.

Not you are positing that the universe was "willed" into existence by a totally unexplained hypothetical being. I would not call that a "good argument". A "good argument" would be to explain why this needs to be the case.

What have we discovered? That the beginning of the universe was not a naturalistic process, that the things are way they are for a reason, that there exists (or existed) a being that transcends time and space and so forth.

But we haven't "discovered" any such thing. On the contrary this has just been posited for "no good reason". It's also clearly based on an anthropomorphic point of view.

What has been moved forward? For starters, if this discovery were made, we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe.

I agree, "If this discovery were made" we could then drop all the naturalistic models for the beginning of the universe. But no such discovery has been made.

In fact, there are very good arguments that stand against this hypothetical "guess".

You claim that it's a "Hypothetical explanation". But it's not an explanation. It doesn't explain why animals eat each other, for example. Why would a being who willed the universe into existence will to have animals eat each other?

This is far more evidence that things happened entirely by accident rather than having been willed into existence.

Why would a creator have willed humans into existence, and then also will a whole plethora of disease, bacteria, viruses, biting insects, and poisonous animals into existence among them?

That these things just happened by accident is a far better explanation.

~~~~

All you are doing is attempting to argue that to imagine that some conscious creator willed the universe into being makes more sense than to imagine that things happened by some sort of natural process that has no will or intent.

But the evidence actually points to the latter.

Evolution by natural selection actually does explain precisely why the world would be exactly as we see it to be. We even have further explanations for precisely how evolution works genetically. We have have further observations of the existence of DNA and how genes naturally combine and evolve to produce these results.

In short, instantc, the posit that the world came to be the way it is has far more evidence to support it than the idea that a creator willed the universe into existence.

So the discovery of evolution and all that it has predicted and has been subsequently found to be true, trumps the notion that some creator merely willed the universe into existence.

Unless of course you also posit that this creator God has a will that is quite unfriendly toward every living thing within the universe including humans. You must also posit that it gets a kick out of having everyone suffer in horrible ways.

Your hypothetical actually raises far more problems than it pretends to solve. And it don't advance anything. Nor does it explain anything.

Unlike your example with the caveman there are no "tracks" that suggest that any such being exists. On the contrary we have found countless "tracks" that show how the universe evolved within the need for anyone to "Will" it into existence.

So you are offering a failed hypothetical that "explains nothing". It doesn't even remotely match up with observed reality.

I cannot make sense of how any of this is relevant to my post. You just keep repeating that I haven't made good arguments for God's existence, when I have never claimed to have made any such arguments. So what's the point? After reading 25 pages of your posts, I haven't figured out whether you disagree with the general principle that I proposed or its application to a creator. Most of your posts are clearly not addressed to me, so why should I take the time and try to weed out the few relevant points that might be there to be found from the 25-page-long rambling about how magic doesn't need a magician and how Yahwe is like Thor.

[Divine Insight]

I cannot make sense of how any of this is relevant to my post. You just keep repeating that I haven't made good arguments for God's existence, when I have never claimed to have made any such arguments. So what's the point? After reading 25 pages of your posts, I haven't figured out whether you disagree with the general principle that I proposed or its application to a creator. Most of your posts are clearly not addressed to me, so why should I take the time and try to weed out the few relevant points that might be there to be found from the 25-page-long rambling about how magic doesn't need a magician and how Yahwe is like Thor.

I have addressed your claims right on the money every time.

You have used illogical and unsound "hypotheticals" and I have addressed them in detail.

Your argument is that an explanation needs no explanation.

And what I have shown is that the posit that a "Creator willed the universe into existence" does not explain anything. And therefore there is no justification that it is the "Best Explanation" when in fact it is no explanation at all.

All you have been arguing for all along is that you can call something a "Best Explanation" when in fact, you haven't even remotely offered an explanation at all.

Our whole conversation started by you proclaiming that for someone to posit that a creator created the universe is the "Best Explanation" is justified and stands on its own as a "Best Explanation".

My counter argument is that this is totally bogus because no explanation has actually been offered. You haven't even offered an explanation for why this claim is being made in the first place.

I suggested that the most common explanation offered is that the world appears to be intelligently designed and therefore it must have had an intelligent designer. I've further showed how this argument doesn't hold because if an universe requires an intelligent designer simply because it appears to be intelligently designed (a subjective opinion I might add), then clearly it follows that anything so sophisticated as an intelligent designer would also need to have an intelligent designer for the same reasoning and thus this argument fails as an infinite regression that doesn't explain anything.

You tried to divorce your claim from any specific explanation, by proclaiming that an explanation doesn't need an explanation to be the "Best Explanation". But that is nothing more than semantic nonsense that has no basis in logic or reasoning whatsoever. In short, you never had an explanation for anything in the first place much less a "Best Explanation"

You then further attempted to avoid having to give an explanation by proclaiming that the posit is simply that a creator had 'willed' the universe into existence. That might sound semantically intuitive to you, but it doesn't amount to an 'explanation' of anything. On the contrary it can easily be shown to be a very poor suggestion that doesn't even remotely match up with reality.

You have also falsely claimed that scientific hypotheses don't require explanations for their explanations, but they do. Moreover, they offer actual explanations in the first place rather than just random guesses that have no explanatory power.

If what you claim was a valid form of reasoning then we could all just say, "Hey, I think the best explanation is that faeries did it, and I don't even need to offer any explanation as to why I believe for this to be true."

And that would be the end of it right there.

Clearly this is neither how logic nor reason work.

What you have offered is neither logical nor reasonable. It's just a totally empty guess devoid of any rationale or critical thinking whatsoever.