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 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.

I have shown clearly that science does indeed offer explanations for things. You are corrupting that by demanding that the "last turtle down" also be explained. But that's an erroneous argument that holds no water.

Science doesn't claim to explain "the last turtle down" with every explanation. If they could do that their fist explanation would indeed be their last.

You are being absurdly ridiculous in your demands.

All you are doing it trying to claim that if someone "postulates" that the universe was created by "The last turtle down" then they are finished, and they have explained everything. This is of course a fallacy because you have never even shown that there exists a "last turtle down".

In short Instantc you haven't done anything but make completely irrational and unrealistic arguments of semantics. You haven't "explained" anything at all much less offer a "Best Explanation" for anything.

I can't believe you are continuing to harp on this point. You haven't offered an explanation for anything.

[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.

I have shown clearly that science does indeed offer explanations for things.

Obviously science offers explanations for "things", the question was whether science requires explanations for those explanations before they can be recognized as the best explanations for the aforementioned things. The obvious answer in my opinion is no, but for some reason you think differently.

You are corrupting that by demanding that the "last turtle down" also be explained. But that's an erroneous argument that holds no water.

Hold on now, you are the one who demands that the "last turtle down" should be explained. I specifically said many times that science does NOT require an explanation of an explanation for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation. You explicitly disagreed with that motion.

All you are doing it trying to claim that if someone "postulates" that the universe was created by "The last turtle down" then they are finished, and they have explained everything.

Don't put words in my mouth. Again, I suggest more time on reading and less on writing. I didn't say that they are "finished" or that they have explained "everything". I said that the creator explanation potentially has some limited explanatory scope, and whether or not an explanation can be found for the hypothesized creator is totally irrelevant to the question whether or not the creator-explanation should be accepted as the best explanation for the universe.

How can we have a conversation, if you keep putting words on my mouth time and time again in each one of your posts? Every post you have written so far is an example of gross misrepresentation of my statements. That's an odd style of debating DI. I suggest that from hereon you back up your posts with quotes whenever you want to represent my arguments. One more time you put made up words in my mouth without even trying to back it up with a quote, and we are done here.

[wiploc]

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.

Would you say that the statement, "Some people are unhappy sometimes," is only subjectively true? Yes, it involves human feelings, but the statement is nonetheless just a fact.

So, if Joe is made unhappy by watching City of Women it is a fact that (according to the definition of "evil" that I offer) City of Women is evil. It doesn't matter what you think about that. You don't have to believe it is evil. You don't have to believe that Joe didn't like the movie.

According to my preferred definition, evil is objective.

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.

It's not inherently evil. There are sins ("moral evils") that make people unhappy. Gluttony, for instance, can be both a disobedience and a cause of unhappiness.

By your definition here, punishment is evil.

Again, not inherently. One can be punished without being unhappy.

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

I don't have a problem with that.

Jehovah is the source of everything, including evil. In the bible, somewhere, I can never find it, Jehovah says he causes evil.

He drowned almost everybody. Of course that caused some unhappiness.

If we define "evil" my way, then god is unabashedly evil. If we define it other ways, we get either terminal vagueness or contradictions.

[Divine Insight]

Obviously science offers explanations for "things", the question was whether science requires explanations for those explanations before they can be recognized as the best explanations for the aforementioned things. The obvious answer in my opinion is no, but for some reason you think differently.

But science isn't proclaiming to have the ultimate complete explanation for everything. So your barking up the wrong tree here.

Your complaint is invalid. And your insinuation that I think that science has given the "Best Explanation" for everything is simply a false insinuation. What it has given is the "best explanation" possible based on what we currently know. Science also acknowledges that these explanation may change as new information becomes available.

What you are doing to trying to pretend that something else is being claimed by science, and by me. When in fact, I'm not claiming anything at all on the order that you are trying to claim. Science does not have the "Best Explanation" for everything. But then neither do you.

You are corrupting that by demanding that the "last turtle down" also be explained. But that's an erroneous argument that holds no water.

Hold on now, you are the one who demands that the "last turtle down" should be explained. I specifically said many times that science does NOT require an explanation of an explanation for that explanation to be recognized as the best explanation. You explicitly disagreed with that motion.

Science science doesn't claim to have the purely philosophical idealized "Best Explanation" for anything. That's your unrealistic ideal.

When they have a "Best Explanation" they are only saying that they have the "Best Explanation" based upon the information they currently have to work with. Therefore for you to even compare your unrealistic philosophical mumbo jumbo with Science is already a farce.

Your argument that a "Creator" represents the "Best Explanation" for the universe is simply a bogus argument that has no foundation in either logic or reason and cannot in any way be compared with the logic and reasoning used in science.

All you have been doing every since we began this conversation is trying to argue for a semantic victory that ignores all matters of practicality, logic, or reason.

All you are doing it trying to claim that if someone "postulates" that the universe was created by "The last turtle down" then they are finished, and they have explained everything.

Don't put words in my mouth. Again, I suggest more time on reading and less on writing. I didn't say that they are "finished" or that they have explained "everything". I said that the creator explanation potentially has some limited explanatory scope, and whether or not an explanation can be found for the hypothesized creator is totally irrelevant to the question whether or not the creator-explanation should be accepted as the best explanation for the universe.

And I simply ask, "Why should this unexplained speculation be accepted as the 'best explanation' for the universe?"

Please answer me this one question.

How can we have a conversation, if you keep putting words on my mouth time and time again in each one of your posts? Every post you have written so far is an example of gross misrepresentation of my statements. That's an odd style of debating DI. I suggest that from hereon you back up your posts with quotes whenever you want to represent my arguments. One more time you put made up words in my mouth without even trying to back it up with a quote, and we are done here.

Fine. Just answer the question:

"Why should the unexplained speculation that the universe was created by a creator be accepted as the 'best explanation' for the universe?"

Justify your claim that this amounts to an "explanation" at all, and why it should be accepted as the "Best Explanation".

I'll await your reply.

[Divine Insight]

Would you say that the statement, "Some people are unhappy sometimes," is only subjectively true? Yes, it involves human feelings, but the statement is nonetheless just a fact.

So, if Joe is made unhappy by watching City of Women it is a fact that (according to the definition of "evil" that I offer) City of Women is evil. It doesn't matter what you think about that. You don't have to believe it is evil. You don't have to believe that Joe didn't like the movie.

According to my preferred definition, evil is objective.

It seems to me that you're just arguing for vague semantics here.

When speaking of objectivity versus subjectivity the idea is that an objective truth is one that all observers will agree upon. Whereas a subjective truth is one that different people will perceive differently.

This doesn't mean that subjective truth is not "Real". It simply means that it's not absolute. It's not the same for all observers. It may not even remain constant for a single observer.

So what you seem to be arguing above is simply a case that subjective perception is just as "real" as anything else. I won't argue with that.

[wiploc]

Would you say that the statement, "Some people are unhappy sometimes," is only subjectively true? Yes, it involves human feelings, but the statement is nonetheless just a fact.

So, if Joe is made unhappy by watching City of Women it is a fact that (according to the definition of "evil" that I offer) City of Women is evil. It doesn't matter what you think about that. You don't have to believe it is evil. You don't have to believe that Joe didn't like the movie.

According to my preferred definition, evil is objective.

It seems to me that you're just arguing for vague semantics here.

Anything that causes unhappiness is evil. There's nothing vague about that.

When speaking of objectivity versus subjectivity the idea is that an objective truth is one that all observers will agree upon. Whereas a subjective truth is one that different people will perceive differently.

Not so. An objective truth is one that is true whether you agree with it or not.

This doesn't mean that subjective truth is not "Real". It simply means that it's not absolute.

Again, that's off target. "Chocolate ice cream tastes good" would be true for everybody if everybody liked the taste of it. That might make it "absolute," but it wouldn't make it objective.

It's not the same for all observers.

Not necessarily true.

It may not even remain constant for a single observer.

That's true, but something like that could be said of objective truths too.

[otseng]

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.

Or the wishful thinking is that there could be no supernatural cause.

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.

You're sort of correct. Yes, we don't know the exact nature of the creator. It could be whatever deity. But, nobody is really offering an alien as a possible explanation.

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

True, if there was an acceptable naturalistic explanation. We have naturalistic explanations for tidal waves, so there's no need for Poseidon. In the case of the origin of the universe, we have no acceptable naturalistic explanations. I'll even go further. If the God hypothesis is correct, I will make the prediction that there will never be an acceptable scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.

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

I've never claimed that there exists a verifiable proof of a miracle.

[otseng]

[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?

Well, you are a poster on this forum right? So, let's use your logic.

KenRU and Skybringr are members of this forum.
Skybringr has been banned.
Therefore KenRU will be banned.

Of course, this is fallacious. The problem is that KenRU and Skybringr do not have the same properties. Skybringr used excessive profanity. Only if you also use excessive profanity will you get instantly banned.

Yes, Thor and Yahweh are considered gods. But, I already demonstrated that they do not share the same properties. So, just because they are gods, does not automatically mean that both do not exist.

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?

Neither.

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.

Creativity has no bearing on truth.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 328 by otseng]

Could you justify the belief that Thor does not exist?
I'm not talking about that old fashioned belief that only kids thought about Thor, i.e. that he was a physical man with a literal hammer who would fight a literal ouroboros known as Jormangundr at the end of the world.
I'm talking about what the writers really meant, a non-physical spiritual agent whose hammer represented justice and fought evil (represented by Jormangundr, hence the use of a snake).

... see my point?

[instantc]

Fine. Just answer the question:

"Why should the unexplained speculation that the universe was created by a creator be accepted as the 'best explanation' for the universe?"

I'll await your reply.

In my last post I urged you to back up your posts with quotes, instead of making up claims and attributing them to me. I will not continue this conversation, until you show me a quote where I have claimed that a creator should be accepted as the best explanation for the universe. Can you do that?