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]

So, the universe just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without any cause?

The Block Universe explains this from the perspective of the Theory of Relativity. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... iverse.asp It's really quite simple. We are watching from inside the universe. There's no such place as "outside" the universe where there already was/is space and time and from where you first could see nothing and then see the universe coming into existence. Space and time came into existence with the universe. From within the universe we can look back to the Big Bang but no further simply because there is no further. That's where time and space "starts".

Yes, I agree that space and time came into existence with our universe. Yes, I agree that the Big Bang is where our space and time starts. But, it still does not answer the question if our universe (even as a block) just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without a cause. If one does claim that, wouldn't that just be a faith belief?

[Danmark]

So, the universe just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without any cause?

The Block Universe explains this from the perspective of the Theory of Relativity. http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_ ... iverse.asp It's really quite simple. We are watching from inside the universe. There's no such place as "outside" the universe where there already was/is space and time and from where you first could see nothing and then see the universe coming into existence. Space and time came into existence with the universe. From within the universe we can look back to the Big Bang but no further simply because there is no further. That's where time and space "starts".

Yes, I agree that space and time came into existence with our universe. Yes, I agree that the Big Bang is where our space and time starts. But, it still does not answer the question if our universe (even as a block) just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without a cause. If one does claim that, wouldn't that just be a faith belief?

It may be. At least considering my knowledge, or rather lack of knowledge, I find myself constantly butting my head up against things theoretical physicists say.
Krauss says the universe comes from 'nothing,' but then he goes on to talk about this 'nothing' having 'virtual particles' that are constantly moving in and out of existence. Even 'nothing' is not nothing. They speculate about photons 'thinking' and atoms existing in as many universes as they have electron shells. This is all too much for me. Believing in God is simple compared to understanding this stuff, at least for me.
[sigh]

[Divine Insight]

It may be. At least considering my knowledge, or rather lack of knowledge, I find myself constantly butting my head up against things theoretical physicists say.
Krauss says the universe comes from 'nothing,' but then he goes on to talk about this 'nothing' having 'virtual particles' that are constantly moving in and out of existence. Even 'nothing' is not nothing. They speculate about photons 'thinking' and atoms existing in as many universes as they have electron shells. This is all too much for me. Believing in God is simple compared to understanding this stuff, at least for me.
[sigh]

I actually understand the physics pretty darn well. But trust me, even understanding the physics doesn't really answer the deepest questions for sure. And like Stephen Hawking points out, even if we had the ultimate grand unified theory of everything, that still wouldn't be an explanation, all it would be is a mathematical description. And like Hawking asks, "What breathes fire into those equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

Physics can never hope to explain reality. At best all it can ever hope to do is describe it. That is truly all that "observational science" can ever hope to do. Science observes and describes what has been observed.

It works very well for dispelling myths that demons cause epileptic fits, but when it comes to answering the question of how reality came to be, that quite a different thing.

It seems to me that the universe is indeed mystical and will always be mystical. Even if it's a purely materialistic entity that's still mystical. It even more mystical that this purely materialistic entity is able to become conscious of itself through us and other living creatures. In some sense the universe is clearly capable of consciousness even if only through us. It seems to me that this is a given even in a purely secular world.

This also seems to me to prove things like Taoism, because after all Taoism is basically saying that we are the universe experiencing itself. And that seems to pretty much be confirmed even by the purely materialistic world view. We are the material that is having an experience.

So for me, materialism and mysticism are basically saying the same thing.

The idea that there exists some external personified God who actually has a sentient and individual personality separate from us seems to be an extreme over complication. Could it be true? Sure, anything could be true for all we know.

I hope the following doesn't sound like a 'rant', but I just can't imagine an external personified God who has the personality described by the ancient middle eastern folklore. Surely if there exists a personified supreme Godhead it would have a better personality. That's all I know to say.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 781 by otseng]

A block Universe doesn't come into existence the way in which you're thinking.
Imagine that the Universe is like an eternally existing film.

Now, imagine that you can only experience one frame of that film at a time.
Now, imagine that you perceive a change in frame in one particular direction.

You are now experiencing an arrow of time, or more specifically A theory, despite the objective lack of one (B Theory).

Similarly, if you imagine a ruler that goes from 0 - 30 cm, it begins at 0 and ends at 30, but it doesn't pop into existence at 0, does it? It exists across the 0-30cm range. Similarly, energy and matter in the Universe exist across the dt to ∞ (or less) time range.

Another analogy:
Imagine you have a calendar.
But with this calendar, you don't have to turn the pages.
This calendar doesn't 'change' in a conventional sense, you just see different pages over some new dimension.
This change can be referred to as the time dimension.
The whole calendar (all of time) exists as one object, it's just that you only perceive one page at a time.

In other words, it's not a case of "the 3 dimensions + time", it's "the 4 dimensions", but we can only perceive 3 of those dimensions in the same sense (we can have memories, and make predictions, which is sort of almost seeing in the time dimension).

[Artie]

Yes, I agree that space and time came into existence with our universe. Yes, I agree that the Big Bang is where our space and time starts. But, it still does not answer the question if our universe (even as a block) just spontaneously appeared out of nothing without a cause. If one does claim that, wouldn't that just be a faith belief?

You misunderstand the whole concept when you say "I agree that space and time came into existence with our universe." Space and time didn't come into existence! The Block Universe has always existed and will always exist as a block. There was never a time and place before the Block Universe where there was no Block Universe.

[wiploc]

And the universe does seem to have causeless particles.

Such as?

Virtual particles.

I'm not sure if it's actually "causeless". Virtual particle pairs are a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The weight of scientific opinion favors the Copenhagen interpretation, which gives up causation. There are other interpretations, but I'm told that in order to retain causation, they have to make moves even more counter-intuitive than giving up causation. I can't imagine what that would be.

In any case, since that's what most of the experts believe, I think we have to tentatively go along with it.

Because it seems like you're always asking me questions but not answering mine.

Uh, where have I not answered your questions? I've tried to be fairly methodical in this thread and follow posts addressed to me. I might not have answered to your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean I have not answered them. I might have also postponed addressing them, but I can't address all questions at one time and have said I'll eventually address them (eg, the problem of evil).

I apologize for my impatience.

Oh, and speaking of impatience: I'm going to be away from the internet for three weeks. And I may have to send my computer for repairs for an unknown amount of time, starting either when I leave for Africa, or when the computer finishes breaking down. Either way, starting within the next few days, I'm likely to fall out of contact.

You claim that objective morality can't exist without god. By implication, you're claiming that it can exist with god. (Do I have that right?)

Yes. Of course, I'm not the only one that has claimed this. As you know, Divine Insight also agrees that objective morality doesn't exist in an atheistic world.

Right, but he's a separate discussion. You guys are coming from such different places.

And you tell me we have to agree on definitions before you'll answer.

Yes, because I had asked you, "Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil?" Then you asked for me to provide a definition of the terms. Which I did so in post 414.

Thanks so much for locating that post.

BTW, I don't recall if you ever acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil.

I sometimes like to define morality as "that which we ought to do." You wrote that "the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it."

So perhaps subjective morality would be things that you ought to do, depending on what you think about it?

If so, then, yes, they are different.

I'd like you to tell me now why objective morality depends on a god.

Let's assume that "the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it."

The question is where does this "ought" come from? It cannot come from themselves, since it doesn't matter what they think about it.

I don't see how an ought can come from somewhere.

Suppose you have some pennies on your desk. You push them around until they form a straight line. Then you push one again, and they aren't in a straight line. Did the straight line come from somewhere, or go to somewhere? Obviously not.

I think oughtiness is like straightness. It is a situation.

For example, if you step out of your house and find that a bear is charging you, we might say that you ought to step back inside and shut the door. But that presupposes that there is something you want (not to be killed by the bear) and that there is something you can do to achieve the desired end.

So when you say that objective morality is true regardless of what anybody thinks about it, that gives me pause. Can there be an obligation to do something that benefits nobody? If nobody wants you to do X---if it benefits nobody---then what is the point?

In that case, why would anyone even want to be moral?

I don't see how we could have oughtiness in that circumstance.

It's like saying, "You ought to do X, but there is no reason to do X."

Now, I'm not arguing with you, not disputing your definitions. I'm going to accept them for the sake of this discussion, so we can move forward. I'm just telling you in passing what my doubts and reservations are.

So, what or who defines what people ought to do? It would have to come from some authority that defines what people ought to do.

I don't see what authority has to do with it.

This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history.

I don't see how that could be.

The authority that best fits this would be a god.

This assumes a fact not in evidence. If a god, say Jehovah, existed, how would he get authority over us? George Carlin used to say, "I have just as much authority as the Pope---I just don't have as many people who believe it." How would a god have more authority than George Carlin?

One other thing: I'd like you to start putting blanklines between your work and mine.

And not just me, but anybody. It's nice to be able to see at a glance, when responding to a post, which parts I wrote and which parts the other person wrote.

You mean a blank line after the quote block? This is the first I've heard that this is netiquette to do this.

Whatever you're doing now works perfectly. Thanks.

Special pleading is when you apply a rule to other people that you don't apply to yourself.

Special pleading is when an arbitrary exception is made to a standard/rule/principle to a particular class of things. For example, suppose there is a rule that says all people must stand in line. But suppose I then say I don't have to stand in line and can go immediately to the front. That would be special pleading. However, if there is a rule that handicapped people can bypass the line and if I show that I'm in a wheelchair, then it would not be special pleading.

I'm not arguing that "Everything that exists needs a cause---except not my god, because he's special." What I am arguing is that everything that began to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause. However, God is in a different class because God did not begin to exist. So, it's not special pleading.

The invention of the class seems to me arbitrary, and the inclusion of your god in that class seems to me arbitrary.

I use an analogy, saying that everything that isn't blue has a cause, so something blue must have caused the universe. The point of the analogy is so that you can see that it seems arbitrary to you when I do it. It seems just as arbitrary to me when you do it.

- I don't know why you say that your god didn't begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.

This is standard Christian doctrine. This is not something I just happened to arbitrarily make up.

I know it's standard. It still seems utterly unfounded, made up, arbitrary. Being traditional doesn't change that.

- I don't know why you say the rest of the universe did begin. The claim seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.

How can one accept the Big Bang and say that universe did not begin to exist?

Again, I'm doing my best to defer to scientific opinion. Asimov and Hawking said that the universe began at the big bang, but then hedged, saying that we can say that it began then---because we don't know what came before.

The big bang seems obvious. I don't know how anybody can not believe in it. But, it's not at all obvious that nothing preceded the big bang. I went onto campus about ten years ago, and asked a cosmologist what the scientific consensus on this issue is. He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

So it is my understanding that there is no scientific consensus that nothing preceded the big bang. Therefore I see no linkage between believing in the big bang and believing that the universe began to exist.

Now, "Our universe" is a different matter. You defined "our universe" as starting at the big bang. So of course it had a beginning. But if you had defined it as beginning last Tuesday, it would still have had a beginning. So that kind of defined beginning doesn't prove anything.

- But since you do say the universe began, why doesn't that mean that your god began along with everything else?

Because if God created the universe, God could not have also began with the universe.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If the universe is everything, god would be creating himself along with everything else. You can see how that gives me pause.

Or, if we stipulate that the big bang was a real beginning, that there was nothing before it, not even time, then there can't have been a cause.

Causes, by definition, precede effects. If a god was before the universe, then there was time before the universe, and that means (since time is part of the universe) that the universe existed before the universe existed.

I don't see any way to work it that doesn't involve contradiction. If the universe really began, it cannot have been caused.

- Generally, theists deal with this issue by equivocation. They use one definition of "begin" when they want to show that their god did not begin, and another definition to show that the rest of the universe did begin. In other words, their claim that god is a special case depends entirely on special pleading.

There's no equivocation. I'm using the term "begin" the same way in both instances.

So I'll field a definition. You don't have to accept it. It's just an example.

- If X existed at time T, and didn't exist before time T, then X began.

So, if that's our definition of a beginning, then the rest of the universe (the non-god part) began. But god (assuming he exists at all) began too. Neither god nor the rest of the universe existed before there was time.

So that definition doesn't work out for you. I'd love to see a definition of "begin" that has god unbegun but the rest of the universe begun.

I'm not saying that you'll do this. And I'm not saying that theists are generally conscious of performing this sleight of mouth. I am saying that---once I point out the equivocation---I have never seen a theist manage manage a plausible defense of the claim that god didn't begin but the rest of the world did.

So, if there really is a way to justify that claim, I really want to see it.

Would you agree that something must not have a beginning?

No.

Otherwise we have an infinite regress?

An infinite regress is uncomfortable, anti-intuitive. Wow, how could it work?

But the same is true of a beginning. We don't like it. How can there be a beginning? Why would there be a beginning? How can there be something at time T if there wasn't something before time T? It's totally weird and unbelievable!

Just not any more weird and unbelievable than infinite regress.

And those are often thought to be our two choices, neither palatable.

The only way to make one of them seem plausible is to focus on the implausibility of the other.

The first cause argument makes that move, asking us to recognize the outlandishness of infinite regress, and so hoping that we'll overlook the outlandishness of a begun universe.

That's not a proof. It's just sleight of mouth.

But if Jehovah meets that requirement, then the rest of the universe does too.

Do you agree that whatever began to exist must have a cause?

No. Given that most cosmologists believe that some things happen uncaused, I don't see how I can go against the weight of expert opinion.

If something is truly causeless, then it would be beyond science (and cosmology). One of the major purposes of science is to find causes. If something was truly causeless (there was no law, no principle, no force, no agent), would it even fall in the realm of science?

It is science that tells me that virtual particles are causeless. If you want to challenge that, you can either establish that your personal expertise rivals that of the worlds top scientists, or you can show that I'm wrong about what the consensus of experts is.

What you can't do is refute the Copenhagen interpretation by saying it seems weird to laymen.

But, I'd be willing to stipulate that everything that happens has a cause, if that would help you state your case. But I'm not willing to make that stipulation with an arbitrary exception for your god.

I don't see it as an exception. But, I'm even willing to go with your stipulation. Let's suppose that God did have a cause. It still would not refute the existence of God.

Right.

"OK, then what is the natural world?

Since I don't believe in magic: Everything that exists.

Hypothetically speaking, if God does exist, would the natural world then include God?

That would depend on the details of the particular hypothetical. But, if you want me to assume we're talking about a supernatural god who is not part of the natural world, I can do that.

So, if we go with my preferred definition (universe = everything) then, no there is nothing other than the universe.

If you mean universe is "all of reality", I would say that's an arbitrary definition for universe.

It seems the normal definition to me, but we don't have to use it. We can use any definition that will get us to your explanation of why gods are necessary for objective morality.

Sometimes we talk about "pocket universes," or use other language to make it clear that we're using "universe" in a special less-than-everything way. You may be intending that when you talk about "our universe."

Yes, I'm talking about "our universe". Do you believe other universes exist?

No. I don't have an opinion. Bertrand Russell wrote that when the experts don't agree on a topic, the layman does well to not have an opinion.

but I don't know what those things are, in part because I don't know what "our universe" is.

"Our universe" is everything that resulted from the Big Bang.

Okay.

Except for the fact that he arbitrarily excludes gods, I'm with Plantinga.

Not sure what you mean. Does that mean you DO include gods in the universe?

On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists?

I'm not making any claim like that.

But, you still use language that implies things outside "our universe" exists. If you have to qualify our universe, you imply that there are other universes.

If you don't count gods as part of our universe, then, right back at you: On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exist?

There are many reasons. For one, it can account for the origin of our universe.

I'm skeptical.

For another, it can account for objective morality.

I'm hoping to see how you manage that.

How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?"

I've never said they do.

OK.

If things inside our universe require causes, why don't things outside our universe require causes? If you get to make up the one rule for one place, why do you get to make up the other rule for the other place? Isn't that just special pleading?

Another reason it's not special pleading is because if our universe is eternal, then there would not be a cause for it.

I confess that I've never been comfortable with that claim. Suppose that there was a Big Mac (Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions – on a sesame seed bun) that never began. Wouldn't you want an explanation? Wouldn't you want to know how that happened, what caused it, how and why it never began? It would cry out for explanation.

Jehovah does equally. Saying he never began isn't an explanation. It raises questions without answering any.

It's not just that God is an exception. It's that anything that does not begin to exist would not need a cause, including an eternal universe or an eternal God.

I don't buy it. It seems to me that anything that is here now either began now (caused by something that existed a moment ago) or is caused to exist now by the fact that it existed a moment ago.

I don't see how a god could be an exception to that rule.

[FarWanderer]

I sometimes like to define morality as "that which we ought to do." You wrote that "the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it."

So perhaps subjective morality would be things that you ought to do, depending on what you think about it?

If so, then, yes, they are different.

I'd like you to tell me now why objective morality depends on a god.

Let's assume that "the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it."

The question is where does this "ought" come from? It cannot come from themselves, since it doesn't matter what they think about it.

I don't see how an ought can come from somewhere.

Suppose you have some pennies on your desk. You push them around until they form a straight line. Then you push one again, and they aren't in a straight line. Did the straight line come from somewhere, or go to somewhere? Obviously not.

I think oughtiness is like straightness. It is a situation.

For example, if you step out of your house and find that a bear is charging you, we might say that you ought to step back inside and shut the door. But that presupposes that there is something you want (not to be killed by the bear) and that there is something you can do to achieve the desired end.

So when you say that objective morality is true regardless of what anybody thinks about it, that gives me pause. Can there be an obligation to do something that benefits nobody? If nobody wants you to do X---if it benefits nobody---then what is the point?

In that case, why would anyone even want to be moral?

I don't see how we could have oughtiness in that circumstance.

It's like saying, "You ought to do X, but there is no reason to do X."

Now, I'm not arguing with you, not disputing your definitions. I'm going to accept them for the sake of this discussion, so we can move forward. I'm just telling you in passing what my doubts and reservations are.

"Ought"s are always predicated on an "if". Usually the "if" is presupposed.

For example, take the belief that "you ought not murder". The "if" in this case is: "if human lives have value".

You ought not murder if human lives have value.

In other words, assuming humans are valuable, killing them is wrong. Such is an objectively true statement.

Morality is the field of logic that deals with value axioms. Coming up with the axioms is subjective, but after they are presupposed, the rest of the process is objective.

It's really not as complicated as people think.

[Artie]

"Ought"s are always predicated on an "if". Usually the "if" is presupposed.

For example, take the belief that "you ought not murder". The "if" in this case is: "if human lives have value".

You ought not murder if human lives have value.

In other words, assuming humans are valuable, killing them is wrong. Such is an objectively true statement.

Morality is the field of logic that deals with value axioms. Coming up with the axioms is subjective, but after they are presupposed, the rest of the process is objective.

It's really not as complicated as people think.

We were born with a survival instinct and are hard wired by evolution to think that life/survival is good and death is bad. Hence we say murder is bad/immoral because it causes death.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 787 by FarWanderer]

But 'value axioms' can be universal, or in other words prescribed necessarily (for a class of entities)

Hence I usually call universal morality (for instance a moral compulsion for all humans) separately from objective morality, which is seemingly oxymoronic.

[wiploc]

Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil. It does not matter what people thought about it (even if people thought it was acceptable); it would be still be evil. For example, exterminating innocent people in the gas chambers would be evil (even if the people doing it thinks it is acceptable). Or another example, forced sterilization of people who do not consent to being sterilized would be evil (even if it is approved of by the Supreme Court).

I think I tried to ask this before, and I don't remember getting an answer. Maybe I made a hash of the question.

You say objective evil is evil regardless of what we think of it. But your examples (gas chambers, forced sterilization) are things we recoil from.

To make the examples work, don't we need examples that we do not think are evil?

Like, suppose you said, "If objective evil exists, then kindness could be evil regardless of how you feel about that."

And I'd say, "But that would suck. I wouldn't like that at all."

And you could say, "But that's the thing: It doesn't matter who you feel about it. That's what we mean by 'objective.'"

And I'd say, "Then who wants it? Objectivity sounds bad; it sounds evil. Objective morality sounds like bad morality."

And you could say, "Well, it wouldn't have to sound bad. Kindness might turn out to be objectively good. Cruelty could be objectively bad."

And I could say, "But that's just a chance? Why take a chance? Why don't we just agree that things we know are good are moral?"

You might say, "Not everybody agrees that kindness is good."

I might say, "But according to you that's good, isn't it? Isn't the whole point of objectivity that it doesn't matter whether people agree."

You might say, "But if morality is subjective, why would you have to go along with it? If it's just subjective, nobody is bound by the rules."

I might say, "How are objective rules more binding? If it is objectively true that kindness is bad, shouldn't we still be kind? How can an objective rule be more binding than a subjective rule?"

-

Well, anyway, that conveys some of why I have trouble with objective morality. I'm a utilitarian. I think that's as objective as anything---depending of course on how you define "objective"---but I don't see what the big deal about objectivity is.

Not that we need to let this distract us from getting to you explaining why gods are needed for objectivity.