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.

[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.

Yeah, one day science will catch up on that one too.

Exactly how much do you really believe that and how much are you just being facetious?

I'm half serious and half joking. Actually, currently I do believe the "earth" was made before the stars. But, I don't think science will actually ever accept that.

You've appealed to science as an authority to make an argument for Christianity. Now you're poisoning the well for science.

You're trying to have it both ways.

Please either retract your claim that the universe's beginning is evidence that Christianity is true, or accept that science saying stars existed before the earth is evidence that Christianity is false.

[Divine Insight]

I'm half serious and half joking. Actually, currently I do believe the "earth" was made before the stars. But, I don't think science will actually ever accept that.

Why should science ever accept that?

Are you not aware that it has already been scientifically determined that all of the heavier elements required to make a rocky planet like the earth were all manufactured in the stars that have gone nova in the past?

There were no heavy elements in the early universe before stars made almost entirely of hydrogen created them through a process of nuclear fusion. This is well-known and well-understood science. There is overwhelming evidence from many independent disciplines within science and even technology that confirm this knowledge to be factual.

Therefore for the earth to have been created before the stars would have required that the creation of the earth violated all the laws of known physics. It would indeed have needed to be an act of total pure unnatural magic manipulated by some extra-universal force that was violating all known laws of physics.

So the only way that science would ever accept this claim would be to confess that science is all wrong and has no clue whatsoever about the physical universe. And why would they do that? Our current technologies are proof positive that our scientific knowledge of physics is true and correct. If science is wrong then many of our technologies that depend upon scientific truths would no longer work. Including and especially those related to nuclear fission reactors.

So when you make a statement like the one you've made above, it certainly appears that you are appealing to extreme irrationality in an effort to support an ancient mythology.

My question to you at this point is this, "Don't you think we could appeal to the same degree of irrational thinking to keep the ancient Greek Religions alive?"

I mean, once we're willing to go this far to support an ancient mythology then why even bother with any specific mythology? Why not try to support them all? I'm sure we can keep them all alive if we are willing to abandon rational thought.

[Fundagelico]

This is how the rational mind works. The weirder a claim is, the less credence it is given.

The principle I illustrate is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rational people dismiss extraordinary claims as false. That is the rational position. That dismissal is the fruit of a rational mind. There is nothing wrong or illogical about dismissing wacko propositions as false.

In that case my rational mind would have to dismiss the following weird propositions as false:

• 1. A universe came into existence from nothing whatsoever (or has existed forever).
  2. A single-celled living organism sprang to life from an inanimate pool of chemicals.
  3. By mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations this single-celled organism evolved into rational minds capable of explaining their own existence in terms of mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations from a single-celled organism.

On the other hand, if I accept these weird propositions as true, then I also welcome a number of extremely improbable events contrary to all human experience into my store of background knowledge, in which case I have no basis for dismissing other extremely improbable events contrary to all human experience (like the resurrection of Jesus) as false.

What would be wrong would be to close your mind entirely. If you do look at the evidence for an extraordinary claim, you have to weigh that evidence objectively. You can't twist the evidence so as to allow you to reach whatever conclusion you are comfortable with. No, so long as there is any possibility that a claim is true, you cannot entirely write it off.

Agreed.

[Divine Insight]

In that case my rational mind would have to dismiss the following weird propositions as false:

• 1. A universe came into existence from nothing whatsoever (or has existed forever).
  2. A single-celled living organism sprang to life from an inanimate pool of chemicals.
  3. By mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations this single-celled organism evolved into rational minds capable of explaining their own existence in terms of mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations from a single-celled organism.

All of the above is a gross misrepresentation of a scientific understanding of the universe in which we live. There are mechanistic explanations for how both #2 and #3 have occurred naturally. So you are not being asked to believe that these things happens for no apparent reasons.

The first problem you have listed is not yet understood. However if you reject that the universe, or what caused it, could have existed forever then clearly you also reject the idea of any God who has existed for ever because that wouldn't be any different.

On the other hand, if I accept these weird propositions as true, then I also welcome a number of extremely improbable events contrary to all human experience into my store of background knowledge, in which case I have no basis for dismissing other extremely improbable events contrary to all human experience (like the resurrection of Jesus) as false.

You'd need top believe a lot more than just the resurrection of Jesus. You'd also need to believe that an infinitely wise omnipotent God would have arranged to have his own corrupt priests call for the brutal beating and crucifixion of Jesus just so he can forgive you of your sins.

And even that is not necessary unbelievably if we allow that this God is a sick demented sadist. But we can't allow for that. We must believe that all of this make perfect sane health and wholesome sense.

So you'd need to believe that beating an innocent demigod to a pulp and nailing him to a pole somehow makes "right" all the "wrongs" that have ever been committed.

For me, it's not that this is simply difficult to believe, but on the contrary, it's the most absurd thing I can possibly imagine. It goes against everything that makes sense to me.

Since when does beating an innocent person to a pulp and nailing them to a pole make up for having done similar atrocities to others?

It makes no sense at all. In fact, if you were to beat an innocent person to a pulp and nail them to a pole I do believe that most people would consider that to have been an extremely immoral act.

So why should condoning such an immoral and brutal act on your behalf lead to your salvation? On the contrary you should be damned for having condoned it on your behalf.

So Christianity is an oxymoron that can't possibly be true. It's not even in the running as a sane mythology.

[KenRU]

Replying to post 443 by Fundagelico]

Ok, so let's assume that your mind must by default dismiss these as well:

1. A universe came into existence from nothing whatsoever (or has existed forever).
2. A single-celled living organism sprang to life from an inanimate pool of chemicals.
3. By mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations this single-celled organism evolved into rational minds capable of explaining their own existence in terms of mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations from a single-celled organism.

By that argument, you would have to dismiss the following as being more absurd, correct?

1. A universe came into existence from an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural entity that has existed forever.
2. This same all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural entity created Adam from the dust in the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib. All completed within the last 10000 years.
3. Despite nature providing vast amounts of evidence that evolution occurs (fossil records, microbiology, taxonomy and genetics) Modern Man is exempt from the forces of evolution.

Which seems more incredulous to you?

[Fundagelico]

Ok, so let's assume that your mind must by default dismiss these as well:

1. A universe came into existence from nothing whatsoever (or has existed forever).
2. A single-celled living organism sprang to life from an inanimate pool of chemicals.
3. By mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations this single-celled organism evolved into rational minds capable of explaining their own existence in terms of mindlessly reproducing and mutating over countless generations from a single-celled organism.

By that argument, you would have to dismiss the following as being more absurd, correct?

1. A universe came into existence from an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural entity that has existed forever.

An omnipotent entity is about the only sort of entity I would consider capable of existing forever.

2. This same all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural entity created Adam from the dust in the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib. All completed within the last 10000 years.

Again, I expect that omnipotence would be capable of both feats. Inanimate matter? Not so much.

3. Despite nature providing vast amounts of evidence that evolution occurs (fossil records, microbiology, taxonomy and genetics) Modern Man is exempt from the forces of evolution.

I'm not dealing with evidence at this point (if I was I would say the evidence for evolution has been overstated), but rather a subjective evaluation of prior probability based on observations and experience. I don't know anyone who has ever witnessed Modern Man producing anything but more Modern Men – unless you want to consider postmoderns a novel species.

Which seems more incredulous to you?

Atheism is nothing if not incredulous… Heh-heh.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 446 by Fundagelico]

Conclusion: The Universe is omnipotent therefore a God is not required... right?
But seriously, there are other threads for vague assertions that in combination lead to the less vague assertion that atheism might be wrong if you already expect that it is. (namely "Are there good reasons to believe a God exists?")

As for the actual topic, imho parsimony is a good reason to actively believe a God does not exist, as is the lack of evidence of suparnaturalism (ie the inconsistency of natural law)

[Fundagelico]

Conclusion: The Universe is omnipotent therefore a God is not required... right?

You can't be serious about this...

But seriously,

Ah, you were kidding! Okay, good.

there are other threads for vague assertions that in combination lead to the less vague assertion that atheism might be wrong if you already expect that it is. (namely "Are there good reasons to believe a God exists?")

I was addressing the argument referenced in the OP that theism is probably false because many of its claims are extraordinary (or "outrageous" if you prefer). It turns out that many non-theistic claims are equally extraordinary. But I wouldn't guess that theism and non-theism are both false.

Extraordinary events have happened, which leaves us little choice but to make extraordinary claims to explain them.

As for the actual topic, imho parsimony is a good reason to actively believe a God does not exist, as is the lack of evidence of suparnaturalism (ie the inconsistency of natural law)

Parsimony is certainly a useful tool for identifying the most probable theory. But the essence of parsimony is to not multiply entities beyond necessity; it is not to distill reality down to the simplest possible explanation. Otherwise we would all be solipsists.

As for natural law, I'm not sure what that is. As far as I know the entire cosmos is governed by a vast host of invisible angels created by God rather than by a vast host of invisible natural processes of unknown origin, in which case what you think is natural law is actually supernatural law.

[otseng]

We're after your explanation, so we'll have to let you set the definition. There's no point in asking me to guess what definitions you want to use.

So, in answer to your question, I'm happy to accept whichever answer you prefer.

Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil.

This confuses me. It would have to be considered evil to be objective? I thought the test of objectivity was that it didn't matter what people thought.

You're placing too much emphasis on considered. Let me rephrase it. Objective evil is something that is universally evil.

Can we have exceptions, like "Thou shalt not kill, except in self defense?"

I think "You shall not murder" is a better translation.

As for exceptions, I do not think there would be any for things considered to be objective evil.

And you seem to be saying that (if there was a god) the Holocaust would be only subjectively evil because only one country did it.

Right now, I'm not even introducing god into the equation yet. I'm just trying to define objective and subjective evil.

Are you saying that if god said to rape your daughters on Tuesdays, that would be subjectively good, but if he said to do it every day then would be objective because the application is universal?

Again, I'm not even mentioning about god yet.

[otseng]

You're claiming lack of evidence (in essence) is evidence for belief in a supernatural origin of the universe.

Where did I ever say that?

Also, it's getting very difficult to read your posts. I'd ask you to please use the quote bbcode to show who said what. See Quick BBCode Tutorial.

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?

You were the one to bring it up.

There are certainly many factual inaccuracies in the bible.

I'd disagree with this. There can be some, but I wouldn't agree with many.

But even if nothing about god has ever been proven false by science (which I disagree with), I still don't see how it couldn't be considered a god of the gaps, given your earlier admissions.

If you disagree, then you must have some reason to support it.

Science also has many models that account for how it began - without the need for a Cause.

Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.