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]

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?

I'm not assuming it. It's still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.

What makes it not a god of the gaps argument is that I'm stating it is falsifiable. God of the gaps arguments are not falsifiable, like the illustration I gave earlier with the flickering light.

Why leap to a supernatural explanation, instead of a simple, "I don't know"?

Would you accept "I don't know" as a satisfactory answer to questions about the Bible or Christianity?

[otseng]

[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?

What I'm referring to is not just religious texts, but any texts - history books, science books, novels, etc. My point is that just because something is written by man, that by itself does not mean what it contains is either true or false.

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. Does that line up with evidence? Bear in mind, it's only recent that science has come to claim that the universe had a beginning. 100 years ago, very few scientists believed this.

You do not have a true set or subset to play with.

The set is all gods. If that set is not a true set to play with, then how can atheists make the claim that nothing is in that set?

[instantc]

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.

Quantum fields that have existed for an infinite amount of time?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 383 by instantc]

Why would the Universe need to be caused or come into existence?
Models exist that don't require either of these.

[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.

Quantum fields that have existed for an infinite amount of time?

There doesn't need to be any such thing as an infinite amount of time.

The time you are talking about is entropic time. In other words, it's the kind of time that we actually experience in this world. It's the kind of time where we think there was a past, a present, and a future. It's the kind of time we can measure on clock.

There is no such thing as entropic time in the quantum world. Quantum fields simply exist. The kind of time that you and I experience in this universe is not relevant to quantum fields. They simply exist. Now and forever. Not forever into an infinite past and forever into an infinite future because for the quantum fields there is no past or future, all that exists is now.

Our very notion of entropic time causes us to not be able to think this way, but for the quantum fields it's not a problem.

The kind of time we're used to only came into existence when the physical universe erupted at the Big Bang. And this entropic time will also someday cease to exist. But the quantum fields will remain and probably do this cosmic dance endlessly.

[FarWanderer]

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning.

Yeah. It also claims the earth was made before the stars.

[wiploc]

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?

When someone is unhappy, that is an objective fact.

The cause of that unhappiness is an objective fact.

If not, then neither would be evil, according to your definition.

It looks objective to me.

Happiness is only relative to a person (or group of people).

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Take a person in the agony of Hellfire. Are you saying something like, I don't know, you're happy so he must be happy? He may seem unhappy to himself, but since he seems happy to you, he must be subjectively happy?

I'm just not getting your point.

But it cannot be extended to everybody.

Huh? What would that mean? You can't extent a tape measure to everybody either. Does that make the tape measure subjective? I'm really at a loss here.

Divine Insight pointed this out in post 316.

He was confused. I dealt with that in 318.

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.

I'm not with you.

People are free to think that what causes unhappiness is evil

We're defining evil as the sources of unhappiness. So it doesn't matter what someone thinks about that.

, but that would be subjective evil, not objective evil.

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying that a rock isn't objective because some people think "rock" refers to a kind of music?

It could be evil for one person, but not evil for another.

The definition we're discussing is that evil is the sources of unhappiness. That can't be evil for one person and not for another. Suppose X makes George unhappy. Then X is, by definition, evil. It doesn't matter what George or anyone else thinks about that.

With objective evil, something can be considered evil and it is independent of what people think. [Emphasis added.]

Consideration cannot be independent of thought. Not that I see what this has to do with the topic at hand anyway.

Everybody in the world might even think it makes them happy, but it can still be considered evil.

If everybody thinks X makes them happy, then everybody thinks X is good. Who is left to consider it evil?

And if they are wrong, if X actually makes them unhappy, then it is evil regardless of the fact that they think it is good.

This would only make sense in a world where objective evil exists.

It doesn't make sense now. Are you saying there's no such thing as objective evil?

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. [Emphasis added.]

If X makes George unhappy, then X is evil, regardless of social customs, human preferences, or societal norms.

It must be regarded as evil from a non-human point of view.

Why? That doesn't make any sense.

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. [emphasis added]

What do gods or other non-humans have to do with it?

If X makes George unhappy, then X is, by definition, evil. How is that subjective? How do gods come into it? Why would we care for a god's subjective opinion anyway?

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.

Are you saying that a two-wheeled pedal-powered vehicle isn't a bicycle, because no reptile, eohippus, or god called it a bicycle? Your argument is very weird.

[Divine Insight]

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning.

Isn't this something that all "Creation Myths" have in common?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 388 by Divine Insight]

Not only that, but either the Universe begun or it didn't begin... and the Universe continuing to exist doesn't make for an interesting story. Even if it did, people wouldn't go around telling the story of how at one time the world continued to exist.
So it's not even a 50/50 guess.

The Bible doesn't say the Universe began to exist either. It says "In the beginning". It doesn't reference what is beginning - and considering that the Bible omits the entire Universe (to more than 100 decimal places by volume), it doesn't seem like it is talking about that, more that it's talking about the world.

[KenRU]

[Replying to otseng]

But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.
What makes this any difference than an assumption? Sounds like splitting hairs to me.

God of the gaps arguments are not falsifiable ...
Well, perhaps I'm mistaken, but the parts of god (properties) that are proven to be false by science, would most certainly be falsifiable. What's left becomes non-falsifiable ... for the time being.

Would you accept "I don't know" as a satisfactory answer to questions about the Bible or Christianity
No, for Christianity and the bible. But I would for the belief in a generic supernatural deity. The suspension of disbelief is much smaller for a deistic god than the Abrahamic one.