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.

[otseng]

I would agree with this. But I see no reason to rule out either 1 or 2. In fact, insofar as I can tell both of these have already been ruled-in in our current world by observation. So why should we be so quick to rule them out when considering how the world began?

For one thing, if the size of the universe was at one point smaller than a planck length, then science, even in principle, cannot describe what happened.

Another problem is when did natural laws and processes arise? Did it spontaneously appear with the origin of the universe? How could that happen? Or are laws somehow eternal?

Chance typically is not "pure" chance, but based on some underlying physical process. Radioactive decay is described by probabilities, but they are described by the quantum properties of the elements. The role of a die is also described by probabilities, but one knows that a cube would result in 1/6 of a chance for a particular side to face up. The same with the universe. If it did arise by chance, it would go back to problem 1. What is the origin of the underlying process?

[Divine Insight]

For one thing, if the size of the universe was at one point smaller than a planck length, then science, even in principle, cannot describe what happened.

Actually there is no reason why we need to imagine that the entirety of the universe was ever that small. The idea that everything that currently exists in the universe had to have existed within the smallest imaginable beginnings of the universe is no longer necessarily in light of inflation theory. Much of the mass/energy content most likely came into being when inflation stopped.

Another problem is when did natural laws and processes arise? Did it spontaneously appear with the origin of the universe? How could that happen? Or are laws somehow eternal?

If we postulate that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation then clearly we would need for the laws of quantum mechanics to have existed prior to the universe. However, this is not a problem because those laws are explainable by purely natural actions. And by that I simply mean actions that have occurred by pure chance.

Chance typically is not "pure" chance, but based on some underlying physical process. Radioactive decay is described by probabilities, but they are described by the quantum properties of the elements. The role of a die is also described by probabilities, but one knows that a cube would result in 1/6 of a chance for a particular side to face up. The same with the universe. If it did arise by chance, it would go back to problem 1. What is the origin of the underlying process?

But you just described a very plausible origin when you gave the roll of a die as an example.

A die has 6 possible faces that can come up. But which face comes up can indeed be purely random. Purely random is the same as pure chance. You can be "omniscient" of the outcome in the sense that you know all the possibilities. In other words in the case of a die you know that only the whole numbers 1 thru 6 are possible. You know that you'll never see a fractional number. You also know that you'll never see less than 1 or more than 6. So you are omniscient in terms of all the possibilities. Yet you cannot say which number will come up on any particular roll. And that's even true in our universe. Because deterministic Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply and therefore the die are free to come up at any truly random number, especially if they are quantum dice.

This was what bothered Einstein, he didn't like the fact that "God plays dice" with the universe (i.e. that nature is ultimately unpredictable at it's most fundamental level). But today this is accepted as experimentally verified fact.

So the entire universe could have come into existence from a quantum fluctuation with nothing other than laws of pure random chance behind it. No need for any intelligent being who had consciously decided to create it.

[Divine Insight]

On Quantum Gravity:

It would then be purely conjecture at this point then to say gravity had a role to play at the moment of the origin of the universe.

I agree. I'm not personally convinced that we need to even postulate quantum gravity. That idea may be totally wrong.

In the beginning of the Big Bang we have reasons to believe that matter and antimatter were created in equal parts. The question then arises "Where did the antimatter go? Why didn't the whole universe just annihilate itself? Scientists don't have an answer for where antimatter went.

Yes, valid questions. Another question is why did it only happen once in the history of our universe?

Actually there are potential reasons why it only happened once. After all why should we expect it to happen again if all the antimatter is already gone?

If you had a box of kindling wood and you set it on fire and burned it up and it all turned to ash would it make sense to ask why you can't do it again? It's a one-way process. Maybe it's the same thing with antimatter becoming gravitational energy in the early universe. The universe is quite different today, so there's many things that took place in the early universe that are no longer occurring today.

In fact, this may have occurred at the end of inflation.

Well, speaking of inflation. I'm quite skeptical of that as well.

I just heard an interesting talk on public radio that evidence for inflation has been discovered. I was very sleepy at the time I listened to this so I didn't catch the details. I fell asleep. But clearly progress is being made in this area.

You mentioned earlier that "magic" is not an explanation. I see cosmic inflation theory as naturalistic magic. We don't know how to solve the horizon problem, so let's invent the inflationary theory. Do we actually know what caused the inflation to start or to stop? Do we know why it only occurred once?

Actually inflation was originally proposed to solve the problem of magnetic di-poles. But then it was soon realized that it solves the horizon problem and the flatness problems too. It was quickly realized that it actually solved many problems that it was never intended to solve.

To ask why inflation only occurred once may not be an important question. It may also be answerable in the same way that firewood only burns up once.

And then again, who's to say that inflation might not occur again. After all, the universe as a whole has quite a bit of life left to it. We have no clue what it might do out of the blue. It could suddenly collapse as fast as it had expanded during inflation. Although if that were to happen we would never know it. Our existence would simple cease so suddenly that we would never even know that our existence had ceased.

We have no clue what the universe might do tomorrow. Everything we know is based on looking back into the past and realizing that it seems to be changing fairly slowly now, but clearly that wasn't the case in the early universe.

I'll grant that there is a lot of speculation here on my part, but it's all being speculated within the framework of known science and no additional magic is required.

Depends on what you mean by magic. If no supernatural element is required, sure. But, if it eliminates hand-waving, I disagree.

I'm not offering it as a final conclusion. I'm just saying that based upon the science we know there are many possibilities open that don't require a conscious entity to be involved.

As far as I'm concerned it still constitutes "magic" no matter what. The question is, does magic need a magician to explain it? And if it does, then why call it magic since it has an explanation? The magician would then be the entity that has no explanation. May as well save a step and just let magic be magic all on its own.

Magic without a slight-of-hand magician would be "real magic".

I have no problem with magic. I'm convince that reality is indeed magical. But magic alone does not imply conscious awareness.

In fact this would actually make sense mathematically since the matter/antimatter content of the universe would have had to have been in perfect balance. If the antimatter converted into gravity then gravity too would be in perfect balance with matter yielding a sum of "zero energy" when everything is accounted for.

Yes, I see what you are saying. This would be an explanation why the first law of thermo would not be violated during the origin of the universe. However, the trick would be to demonstrate that anti-matter is equivalent to gravitational energy.

I agree, I certainly don't have the answer to that one. I wish I did, I would be world famous and rich! But none the less, it seems to me to be too viable of a theory not to be explored. After all, if gravitational energy exactly balances the matter in the universe and antimatter is mysteriously missing, and no one is sure where gravitational energy came from then here's a theory that promises to balance the scales.

I think also that many physicists believe that the "Higgs Field" condensed out of inflating universe, potentially at the very moment that inflation stopped. Perhaps the stopping of inflation and the production of the "Higgs Field" are linked?

Moreover, since the Higgs field is the field that is responsible for giving matter mass, and gravity is clearly related to the mass of objects, then it seems like a natural step for gravity to have emerged into being at the very moment the Higgs field condensed out and inflation came to and end.

In other words, there may not be any such thing as "quantum gravity". Gravity may have never existed until the universe was already gargantuan in size.

Of course, I'm getting into proposing physics solutions here rather than why it is justified to believe that no gods exist. But I can't help myself. Physics offers so many possible theories and ideas, a God doesn't. A God is nothing more than a belief not only in pure magic but also a belief that here exists a conscious magician to go with it.

It's kind of like the Wizard of Oz type of magic. To expect that a God is behind everything is to actually expect that some little guy is pulling all the levers making the "magic" happen and therefore it's not really magic at all.

When you stop and think about it, religions are actually a refusal to believe in true magic. They want the little man who's pulling levers. The secularists are the ones who are genuinely accepting a magical universe that needs no little man to pull levers.

[Divine Insight]

I agree that it is a huge problem for Christianity. Not one that can easily be dismissed by far.

But still, it's not a problem for secularists at all. So in terms of justifying a belief that gods do not exist, why should a secularist need to even address the "Problem of Evil" at all?

There is no problem of evil in a secular world.

That only becomes a problem when you postulate the existence of a God.

Of course. I would even go further. In a secular world, there is no concept of objective evil.

I absolutely agree. The very concept of evil is a human construct. We define evil in terms of our own humanity.

But consider this:

Imagine that you have a young son or daughter whom you love very much. Now imagine that some human criminal butchered and killed your child. You would no doubt consider that to be an "Evil" act.

But what if instead of a bear or alligator viciously ate your child for dinner? Would that then not be "Evil". How above if your child contracted a horrible disease and suffering horribly whilst dying from it? Would that be "Evil"?

People used to believe that disease was evil. It was either evil demons doing it, or God himself doing is as a punishment to someone.

Where do we draw the line between evil and simply bad things that happen?

I think we have a very difficult time drawing this line. You might argue that modern day men in their suits and ties can sit around and philosophically define apologetic arguments or precisely what constitutes evil and what doesn't. But as I say, it wasn't always that way. Back in the days of the Bible people believe in being possessed by evil demons and they probably thought that mentally ill people were indeed possessed by evil. They also thought diseases were evil too.

We invent the concept of evil, and we define it. Therefore evil is not even objective in religion. Evil is always a subjective notion whether it secular or religious.

There is no such thing as objective evil. If religious people are clinging to that notion for a reason to believe in a God then they should really stop and rethink that one.

[wiploc]

In a secular world, there is no concept of objective evil.

There is no such thing as objective evil.

I took a Western Civilization class in which evil was defined as the sources of unhappiness, or, by extension, unhappiness itself.

That works. And it works just as well in the secular world.

I'm willing to listen to an explanation of why this kind of evil isn't "objective," but I can't think of any such explanation myself.

[Divine Insight]

In a secular world, there is no concept of objective evil.

There is no such thing as objective evil.

I took a Western Civilization class in which evil was defined as the sources of unhappiness, or, by extension, unhappiness itself.

That works. And it works just as well in the secular world.

I'm willing to listen to an explanation of why this kind of evil isn't "objective," but I can't think of any such explanation myself.

Well, unhappiness is different for different people. Therefore not everyone will be in agreement on whether a particular "source" is evil or not.

And so by the definition you've just offered unhappiness itself is subjective. Therefore evil defined in this way must also be subjective.

I think it's pretty obvious that most humans will be in agreement with many things in terms of unhappiness. For example, I don't think anyone likes to be hit on the head with a heavy steel hammer. So everyone would probably agree that being hit on the head with a hammer is a source of unhappiness.

But that's an extreme case. When we move onto things like people of the same gender having sex together we get a lot more diversity in who deems that to be a source of a happiness versus unhappiness.

But even when we get a consensus on something that everyone dislikes (like being hit on the head with a hammer), does that really make being hit on the head with a hammer "evil". Or is this just something we obviously don't like?

Calling it 'evil' is already nothing more than a label.

Typically the term 'evil' is usually a religious term, specifically associated with things that that some God supposedly disapproves of. Because if the God actually approves of something then it's not going to be viewed as being 'evil'. Even if we don't like it we say that it's "justified' and therefore not 'evil.

Like a God casting people into a state of eternal punishment. That's not considered to be 'evil' it's just justice.

[instantc]

You have also falsely claimed that scientific hypotheses don't require explanations for their explanations, but they do.

This is our disagreement, isn't it?

So you suggest that in order for a scientific explanation to be recognized as the best explanation for something, we need to have an explanation for that explanation. But it then follows logically that before we can recognize the explanation of the explanation as the best explanation for that explanation, we need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation and so forth. The direct consequence of your above proposition is that we will never be able to have an explanation for anything.

[wiploc]

I took a Western Civilization class in which evil was defined as the sources of unhappiness, or, by extension, unhappiness itself.

That works. And it works just as well in the secular world.

I'm willing to listen to an explanation of why this kind of evil isn't "objective," but I can't think of any such explanation myself.

Well, unhappiness is different for different people. Therefore not everyone will be in agreement on whether a particular "source" is evil or not.

Evil isn't defined as something that people agree on as causing unhappiness.

And so by the definition you've just offered unhappiness itself is subjective. Therefore evil defined in this way must also be subjective.

No. If something actually causes unhappiness, then it is by definition evil. No subjectivity there.

I think it's pretty obvious that most humans will be in agreement with many things in terms of unhappiness. For example, I don't think anyone likes to be hit on the head with a heavy steel hammer. So everyone would probably agree that being hit on the head with a hammer is a source of unhappiness.

Agreement doesn't come into it. This is a definition, not an opportunity to vote.

But that's an extreme case. When we move onto things like people of the same gender having sex together we get a lot more diversity in who deems that to be a source of a happiness versus unhappiness.

If it causes at least one person to be unhappy, then it's evil. If it causes at least one person to be happy, then it's good. If it does both, then it is both good and evil.

If I stub my toe and this makes me unhappy and you happy, then this is both good and evil.

But even when we get a consensus

Consensus doesn't come into it. Do we vote on whether 2+2=4?

on something that everyone dislikes (like being hit on the head with a hammer), does that really make being hit on the head with a hammer "evil". Or is this just something we obviously don't like?

To the extent that we can dislike something without being made unhappy by it, then there is a distinction between evil and things we don't like.

Calling it 'evil' is already nothing more than a label.

No name for anything is more than a label.

Typically the term 'evil' is usually a religious term, specifically associated with things that that some God supposedly disapproves of.

Good, that's an alternative definition of the word.

I don't think that definition works. For instance, when Jehovah hardened the Pharaoh's heart so the Pharaoh wouldn't let his people go yet, he was causing the Pharaoh to do what he did want him to do.

When reprobates try to be good even though they are not among those selected to go to Heaven, Jehovah "hardens their hearts and darkens their counsels" so they'll go back to doing bad stuff.
According to your definition, that makes rape and murder virtues, and telling the truth (because god doesn't want reprobates to do it) evil.

...
Like a God casting people into a state of eternal punishment. That's not considered to be 'evil' it's just justice.

By the definition I'm offering, it is evil.

Consider the definition of "atheist." When we say it covers anyone who is not a theist, Christians often say that can't be right because that would make babies into atheists. That seems incongruous to them because they aren't believing that it is a definition. Or they're trying to use both definitions at once, or something. If they would accept that we mean what we say we mean, and that's all we mean, then they'd see that we aren't calling babies god-haters, or whatever they're thinking.

So, try to do the same exercise with "evil." It means "the sources of unhappiness."

Don't confuse it with sin, which has to do with bad thoughts, with doubting or disobeying god. Before sin, there was no unhappiness. Evil is the punishment for sin.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 311 by otseng]

So I think the only way to conclusively proof God or Gods don't exist is to show they were created by men. This is easier to do than following the insanity of proving something doesn't exist.

Though from physics for example, it is easy to prove something all-powerful must have infinite potential energy and therefore infinite mass, therefore easily detectable. The counter to this is of course that God is everywhere and everything. But then you run into intelligence requires structure, etc..

I made a post the goes a long way to proving Christianity at least was created by man, the counter to the logic of the proof is word games, with posters not realizing words can prove reality, but they can prove word-games.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=26334

[Divine Insight]

If it causes at least one person to be unhappy, then it's evil. If it causes at least one person to be happy, then it's good. If it does both, then it is both good and evil.

If I stub my toe and this makes me unhappy and you happy, then this is both good and evil.

What you have just described here is subjective evil, not objective evil.

You are describing an 'evil' that is entirely subject to a person's subjective views.

Don't confuse it with sin, which has to do with bad thoughts, with doubting or disobeying god. Before sin, there was no unhappiness. Evil is the punishment for sin.

By that definition then sinning is not evil. Disobedience of God is not evil.

By your definition here, punishment is evil.

Thus if God is punishing people for having disobeyed him then God is the source of all evil.