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]

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.

Why would your "creator" have to be a deity?

If an entity exists outside our universe that created all of space/time/matter, the most common description of it would be a deity. Who exactly would argue that it is an alien?

We have a lot of different theories and if one of them is shown to be correct we will have no need for your god either. What will you do then?

I would then say the Biblical God is just based on blind faith.

[otseng]

So the absence of a natural explanation justifies a supernatural explanation?

On the condition that if a naturalistic explanation is definitively found to be true, then it would falsify the supernatural explanation. In other words, the supernatural explanation has to be falsifiable. If a supernatural explanation (or any explanation for that matter) is offered, and it is not in principle falsifiable, then it's not really an explanation.

For example, suppose I tell you that the light in your basement is flickering because your house was actually built on top of a native American burial ground and that Indian spirits have come to haunt you. Then you show that the lightbulb was not screwed in properly. You screw it in and it stops flickering. Then I say that it stopped flickering because the Indian spirits are now resting and will come back later. The supernatural Indian ghost explanation is not falsifiable, so it's not really a valid explanation.

[otseng]

And how do we know these properties? From man.

Isn't practically everything we learn from man? Most things that we learn are taught to us. So, even if the knowledge of whatever god is taught from man, it does not necessarily mean it could not be true.

Then how do you justify that properties matter?

It's relevant when comparing things.

Please explain how the properties of the gods matter then.

If you're going to argue that gods do not exist, you cannot just pick a subset and say because that subset is false, then the entire set is false. This would only apply if everything in the set and subset shared identical properties. Since Thor and Yahweh do not have identical properties, then showing that Thor does not exist does not show that Yahweh does not exist.

[dianaiad]

In answer to the question of the thread I do not believe that God or gods exist because I do not see room for them in what we know about formation of the planets, stars, etc. Everything else is just arguing against various religious conceptions.

You have just given the classic 'weak' atheistic stance: "I see no evidence for deity."

That's fine...but it's not what the thread is addressing. There are those who go a considerable step beyond "I don't see any evidence for deity," to "there aing none, period."

THAT is a very "positive" claim, one that needs to be supported.

"I don't see [that there is]..." is NOT the same thing as "I see that there isn't."

It is that latter claim, made fairly often, that this thread is addressing and for which it is asking justification.

[help3434]

[Replying to dianaiad]

It is more than just the absence of evidence. We do have evidence of the Big Bang and the naturalistic formations of planets and stars. Where is there room for a Supreme Being in these seemingly natural processes that take millions and billions of years? Not mechanism could a deity use to cause or influence any of it?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to dianaiad]

It is more than just the absence of evidence. We do have evidence of the Big Bang and the naturalistic formations of planets and stars. Where is there room for a Supreme Being in these seemingly natural processes that take millions and billions of years? Not mechanism could a deity use to cause or influence any of it?

This is precisely true.

If these processes such as stars, elements, planets and glaxies have been described in full using nothing other than natural laws of physics, (and they have indeed been completely described and explained in this way), then there is nothing left for any gods to do.

So when you say "There is no room for any gods" that's quite literally true.

The only place that left for any gods at all is inside of a black hole or potentially at the very early birth of the Big Bang. But even then, any gods that would have been involved in those process clearly created them in a way to unfold via natural evolution after that anyway.

So the Biblical type of God who creates man specifically from the dust of the earth separate from the other animals and breathes life into his nostrils is not only not required, but clearly there's nothing for that type of God to do. There is no need for a God to explain how humans came to be here.

[TruthHunter]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]


I know am out of topic but still

Sir can you tell me the reason why you told that bible contradicts itself?.

[instantc]

[Replying to dianaiad]

It is more than just the absence of evidence. We do have evidence of the Big Bang and the naturalistic formations of planets and stars. Where is there room for a Supreme Being in these seemingly natural processes that take millions and billions of years? Not mechanism could a deity use to cause or influence any of it?

This is precisely true.

If these processes such as stars, elements, planets and glaxies have been described in full using nothing other than natural laws of physics, (and they have indeed been completely described and explained in this way), then there is nothing left for any gods to do.

We do have models for the universe that are self-contained in the sense that they don't leave any room for "supernatural" interventions. However, they leave open the question what caused that self-contained universe into existence, don't they?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 362 by otseng]

On the condition that if a naturalistic explanation is definitively found to be true, then it would falsify the supernatural explanation. In other words, the supernatural explanation has to be falsifiable. If a supernatural explanation (or any explanation for that matter) is offered, and it is not in principle falsifiable, then it's not really an explanation.
But you are assuming the origin of the universe will never be explained. So, your assumption of a supernatural cause, is, essentially, hinging upon science never explaining the origin of the universe. But if, down the road, it does ... ? (or at least presents a viable explanation?)

Kind of like the "god of the gaps" don't you think?

For example, suppose I tell you that the light in your basement is flickering because your house was actually built on top of a native American burial ground and that Indian spirits have come to haunt you. Then you show that the lightbulb was not screwed in properly. You screw it in and it stops flickering. Then I say that it stopped flickering because the Indian spirits are now resting and will come back later. The supernatural Indian ghost explanation is not falsifiable, so it's not really a valid explanation.
First off, I would think I was in the movie Poltergeist, lol.

But, neither answer (regarding the origin of the universe - science or supernatural) at this stage would be falsifiable. Why leap to a supernatural explanation, instead of a simple, "I don't know"?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 363 by otseng]

Isn't practically everything we learn from man? Most things that we learn are taught to us. So, even if the knowledge of whatever god is taught from man, it does not necessarily mean it could not be true.
Exactly, which goes right back to my point. The origin story (created by man) determines (by your argument) how believable the supernatural being is. By this argument wouldn't most major religions be of equal believability then? If not, then the better origin does (by your argument) result in a more believable deity. Or, do you have access to some other proof of god’s existence?

If you're going to argue that gods do not exist, you cannot just pick a subset and say because that subset is false, then the entire set is false. This would only apply if everything in the set and subset shared identical properties. Since Thor and Yahweh do not have identical properties, then showing that Thor does not exist does not show that Yahweh does not exist.
And yet, the subset in this case (properties), is entirely not falsifiable. The properties of any deity are entirely subjective, heavily dependent upon interpretation. You do not have a true set or subset to play with.

Many gods could easily be substituted for the Abrahamic god. If you don’t like Thor, we could choose others such as: Shiva, Ra, Set, Zeus etc.