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]

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?

Yes, but there are two problems even with that.

To begin with, we actually do have models of how this universe could have begun without any need for any intelligence or purpose to give rise to it. So in that sense we have models that do not require and intelligent entity to give rise to the universe.

Whether those models are correct or not is another question entirely, but such models do exist.

Secondly, since there is no room for intervening Gods in this universe, we can eliminate all the religions that have tales concerning how God played an intervening role in how the universe evolved or how human battles may have gone etc.

This only leaves religions that only propose an underlying creator who doesn't intervene. And most of those religions suggest that we are this entity. In other words, they don't even propose that some separate entity created this universe separate from itself but instead they propose that that this entity transformed itself to become this universe. Some like to suggest that this entity is a mind and the universe is a dream within this mind. Life is but a dream. And we are ultimately the dreamer. That's a whole different picture of mystical spirituality than the idea that we are separate entities that have been created to be totally separate from some Godlike creator.

So, yes, if we could make that step forward I would be very happy with that. I have no problem entertaining the potential spirituality of mysticism. And I'll agree that this would still be on the table. But no way does that support these Abrahamic religions with their jealous egotistical intervening and judgmental Godhead.

[Divine Insight]

[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?.

The bible contains far too many contradictions to address in a single post. But I can give you two of the most obvious ones.

The first one is the simple fact that this God is supposed to be wise and all-intelligent, yet all of his methods to attempt to solve a problems have always been by using extremely unwise and violent curses. None of which even solved the problem. There are countless examples of these so I won't go into detail describing them here. But there is not one wise or intelligent example where this God actually solves a problem.

The second major contradiction is in how this God changes his method of attempting to solve problems in major and contradictory ways.

For example in the Old Testament God deals with the sins of men by drowning the men, women, children, and babies, in a Great Flood.

You could say, "For God so hated the world that he downed the bulk of humanity"

But in the New Testament this same God arranges to have his own corrupt priests call for the brutal beating and crucifixion of his only begotten son in an effort to "save" men from their sins.

You could say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save it"

But there are so many contractions just in this.

For one thing God must be consistent and dependable in character if he is to be trustworthy. After all, how can we trust a God who drowns people one day and sacrifices his son to save them the next? What might he do in the future? If he's prone to changing his character this extremely he can't be trusted.

The second contradiction within this is that this God's own scribes and priests who were in charge of keeping his Holy Books and Temple in order had become so corrupt and evil that they can not only not be trusted to properly teach and preserve God's Word but they have become so corrupt to even call for the beating and crucifixion of God's son.

That's a contradiction within a contradiction.

Also what does it tell us? It tells us that we can't trust Scribes, Priests, Holy Books, or Temples to not be corrupted by men. So where are we supposed to even turn for our insight into God? In fact, why should we believe anything in the New Testament when the New Testament itself has been written by Scribes, Priests, and held up by them as a Holy Book in their Temples?

This religion is so riddled with contradictions layered upon further contradictions that no one should trust anything it has to say by its own proclamation.

The contradictions in the Bible are extreme and exist in layers upon layers of contradictions.

Christianity especially is the most contradicting religious mythology in the world. Even more so that pure Judaism or Islam. Although, those too contain countless contradictions just in their Old Testaments.

[instantc]

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?

Yes, but there are two problems even with that.

To begin with, we actually do have models of how this universe could have begun without any need for any intelligence or purpose to give rise to it. So in that sense we have models that do not require and intelligent entity to give rise to the universe.

What is it that those models propose caused the universe into existence then?

Secondly, since there is no room for intervening Gods in this universe, we can eliminate all the religions that have tales concerning how God played an intervening role in how the universe evolved or how human battles may have gone etc.

No argument there.

[dianaiad]

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?

Yes, but there are two problems even with that.

To begin with, we actually do have models of how this universe could have begun without any need for any intelligence or purpose to give rise to it. So in that sense we have models that do not require and intelligent entity to give rise to the universe.

Whether those models are correct or not is another question entirely, but such models do exist.

Secondly, since there is no room for intervening Gods in this universe, we can eliminate all the religions that have tales concerning how God played an intervening role in how the universe evolved or how human battles may have gone etc.

This only leaves religions that only propose an underlying creator who doesn't intervene. And most of those religions suggest that we are this entity. In other words, they don't even propose that some separate entity created this universe separate from itself but instead they propose that that this entity transformed itself to become this universe. Some like to suggest that this entity is a mind and the universe is a dream within this mind. Life is but a dream. And we are ultimately the dreamer. That's a whole different picture of mystical spirituality than the idea that we are separate entities that have been created to be totally separate from some Godlike creator.

So, yes, if we could make that step forward I would be very happy with that. I have no problem entertaining the potential spirituality of mysticism. And I'll agree that this would still be on the table. But no way does that support these Abrahamic religions with their jealous egotistical intervening and judgmental Godhead.

But this thread isn't about the Abrahamic religions, specifically, or the description of deity that they use. It's about justifying (proving) the notion that there are no gods, of any description, anywhere, of any type, period.

Even if you can prove that any one description of deity is impossible, or even that any group of deities is impossible, how does that justify a claim that "gods do not exist?"

Yes, indeed there are models of the universe that do not require deity. Are you making the claim that if such a model can be imagined, that it then must be the one, the only, possible model?

I mean, really....I know of models that show that the earth is experiencing global warming and that we'll all be flooded out by 2032.

I know of models that show the whole idea of global warming is incorrect...and many models in between. Most people choose the model they accept to be true because that model coincides with their political or philosophical mindsets.

Are you sure you aren't doing the same, when you make the case that if there IS a model which excludes deity, then that means deity is excluded? There ARE other models.

After all, it's quite possible for me to have baked my birthday cake last Sunday. I've baked a great many cakes. I have all the ingredients. Anybody who knows me would probably bet on "she baked the cake."

But I didn't. I went to WalMart and bought one.

Models do not always model truth.

[Divine Insight]

What is it that those models propose caused the universe into existence then?

Random fluctuations in preexisting quantum fields. That's all that is required.

[Divine Insight]

But this thread isn't about the Abrahamic religions, specifically, or the description of deity that they use. It's about justifying (proving) the notion that there are no gods, of any description, anywhere, of any type, period.

That not what this thread is about. It's not about proving that no gods can exist. It's about justifying the belief that no gods exist. You'd don't need to prove that no gods exist in order to justify that you believe no gods exist. All you need to do is show why you see no reason to believe in any gods.

I don't personally claim that there can be no 'gods'.

On the contrary, I think it all depends on how you define the very concept. I can define God in such a way that I can not only prove that God exists but I can also prove to myself that I am that God. I cannot prove to you that I am God. However, I can suggest a way that you can prove to yourself that you are God. I can never know if your proof is true, but I'll accept on faith from my own experience that your proof is also true too.

[Zzyzx]

.

After all, it's quite possible for me to have baked my birthday cake last Sunday. I've baked a great many cakes. I have all the ingredients. Anybody who knows me would probably bet on "she baked the cake."

But I didn't. I went to WalMart and bought one.

Models do not always model truth.

I agree.

Mom always baked wonderful cakes. One time I said "Mom that is the best cake you have ever baked" to which she replied -- "I bought that one."

OOPS

Trusting models isn't always best.

[otseng]

Yes, to be totally consistent in a secular worldview, there can be no such thing as objective evil.

In case people misunderstand me, I'm not saying that objective evil does not exist in a religious worldview.

I've never understood this, and I've never gotten a theist to explain it. What does evil have to do with theism?

Why, if objective evil is possible with gods, isn't it also possible without gods?

Why, if it's impossible without gods, isn't it also impossible with gods?

Let's refer to your definition of 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.

Is unhappiness objective? If not, then neither would be evil, according to your definition.

Happiness is only relative to a person (or group of people). But it cannot be extended to everybody. Divine Insight pointed this out in post 316.

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

We are categorizing two types of evil: objective and subjective. People are free to think that what causes unhappiness is evil, but that would be subjective evil, not objective evil. It could be evil for one person, but not evil for another.

With objective evil, something can be considered evil and it is independent of what people think. Everybody in the world might even think it makes them happy, but it can still be considered evil. This would only make sense in a world where objective evil exists.

Going back to your question of why is objective evil only possible with gods? In order for something to be considered objectively evil, it must be regarded as evil independent of social customs, human preferences, or societal norms. It must be regarded as evil from a non-human point of view. The only possible way that I know of for something to be considered objective evil is to be defined by a non-human that can claim authority over us. This would be god.

In an atheistic worldview, there is no non-human that has authority over people. There is nothing that can be a foundation for calling anything objectively evil.

[otseng]

There is no problem with postulating the quantum fields have always existed independent from the macro universe.

How did the quantum field arise?

Are you suggesting that we should be seeing baseballs and anti-baseballs popping into and out of existence? There are very good reasons to explain why that never happens. There's no reason to expect that to happen.

We don't expect baseballs to pop into existence, and yet our entire universe did pop into existence?

Well, don't you think that gives Inflation quite a bit of merit as a viable explanatory theory?

It also raises a lot of questions. Some of which I already raised. Another issue is that it would mean the universe had expanded faster than the speed of light.

So for me they are "magic". But that in no way implies that there is a magician behind them. In fact, it there was a magician behind them then they would no longer be magic.

Yes, I understand that is what you mean.

Ironically I think this is what religious people need. They refuse to believe in magic. Instead they insist that there must be a magician behind it that can explain the magic in every detail to the point where it's no longer magic.

Now, that IS an ironic statement.

So if we don't know what constitutes reality how can we even begin to speak of the supernatural?

To me, anything beyond our physical universe would be supernatural.

[otseng]

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?

As for the formation of planets and stars, even naturalistic explanations posit things that are not even observable or detectable. So, I do not really think it has much of a leg up on things. For example, how did our moon form?