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]

[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.

As you point out, value axioms are always tied to class. In other words, in the context of human-class morality, a human killing another human for no reason is wrong.

However, in contrast, there is also the Nazi-favored Arian-class morality. In Arian-class morality, an Arian killing another Arian for no reason is wrong, but that same Arian killing a Jew for no reason is perfectly acceptable. But that would still mean that they, as a human, violated human-class morality.

And because of the amount of meat I eat, I'm a complete monster in terms of animal-class morality.

We all belong to countless entity-classes. However, we choose which entity-class value axioms to ignore and which not to quite arbitrarily.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 791 by FarWanderer]

All humans prefer more happiness (by definition), and you get more happiness with rehabilitated Nazis than with oppressed Jews. (more people can be happy at once with non-oppressive ideologies)

"Happier is better" is a tautology. (This is a slight simplification, but you get the drift that even when one sacrifices happiness, they are doing so because they find greater pleasure in another outcome - for simplicity that too is being considered happiness)

Because of empathy (among other reasons), other people's happiness is important (need not even be direct - if my friend is sad out of empathy for their friend, that would make me less happy).
Restricting empathy limits empathy, which can help reduce a victim's unhappiness. It also lowers social cohesion, which reduces happiness.

Not to mention that a society that restricts entire sections of people on an unjustified whim is not a safe place to live - you could be next.

[otseng]

Imagine that the Universe is like an eternally existing film.

I'm not sure how to imagine that. You mean the universe is eternally existing?

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?

No. But, someone, or something, did create that ruler.

[otseng]

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.

It's meaningless to speak of "before" the (block) universe, esp if we're discussing it in reference to our space-time. So, I'm not saying that there was a before. All I'm saying is that there must be some cause of the (block) universe.

[otseng]

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.

OK, good.

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.

If the "ought" exists, then it must come from somewhere.

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?

I personally do not think that morality has no benefits. It might not be beneficial in the short-term to be moral, but it would be beneficial in the long-term.

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

Objective morality would not depend on providing reasons why one should do X.

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.

Authority is some person or thing that has the right to tell someone else what one ought to do. For example, my boss has the right to tell me at work what I ought to program. However, a person who is not a boss over me does not have the right to tell me what I ought to do.

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.

Then where else could objective morality come from?

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?

God is the ultimate creator. George Carlin is not.

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

Not applying a rule to just a class would be arbitrary. Do you mean the same rules should apply to everything?

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.

Could it be that they avoid the issue because they don't like to leave room for God?

If the universe is everything, god would be creating himself along with everything else. You can see how that gives me pause.

Only naturalism would assume the universe is everything. Supernaturalism does not posit that the universe is everything.

- 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.

OK, good.

But god (assuming he exists at all) began too. Neither god nor the rest of the universe existed before there was time.

If god was bound by our space-time, yes. But nobody is saying that god is bound by our space-time. Rather, what is claimed is that god created space-time.

An infinite regress is uncomfortable, anti-intuitive.

OK, good, we agree that an infinite regress is uncomfortable and anti-intuitive.

But the same is true of a beginning. We don't like it.

Atheists might not like a beginning. Theists have no problems with it.

"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, the natural world is our universe and everything outside our universe except God?

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.

This wasn't in regards to objective morality, but in regards to what is science.

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.

Oh, come now, it's OK to have an opinion, even when experts don't agree.

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.

The claim has fallen out of favor, so there's no need to really entertain it. But, my point is that here is an example of a non-God scenario where there is no need to have a cause. So, it disproves the assertion that a God scenario is special pleading.

[Haven]

It's meaningless to speak of "before" the (block) universe, esp if we're discussing it in reference to our space-time. So, I'm not saying that there was a before. All I'm saying is that there must be some cause of the (block) universe.

No. But, someone, or something, did create that ruler.

Your statements seem to be a non-sequitur. Why must the block universe and ruler have an external cause? Why can't they simply be eternal and uncaused? For that matter, why can't they be self-caused?

[Divine Insight]

God is the ultimate creator. George Carlin is not.

But WHO is God?

Whenever we're debating whether or not "God" exists in general, and I keep bringing up the Biblical picture of God, you seem to object that I'm constantly "ranting" about Christianity.

But there seems to be a problem here. If George Carlin is not God, then WHO is God?

And if there is supposedly some "objective morality" exactly WHERE are we supposed to find this objective morality?

If you say that we're supposed to find it in the Bible, then be prepared to hear my reasons why I totally reject the bible as being immoral and not even remotely sensible.

[wiploc]

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.

If the "ought" exists, then it must come from somewhere.

I don't understand.

Perhaps an example would help. If the bear charges, you ought to go back inside and shut the door. Where did that ought "come from"?

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?

I personally do not think that morality has no benefits. It might not be beneficial in the short-term to be moral, but it would be beneficial in the long-term.

You're saying that objective (pointless) morality is congruent with subjective (beneficial) morality. But that's beside the point, because your claim is that we ought to be objectively moral even if there was no reason to do so.

My question is why ought we comply with a morality that does not have any benefit. You can't answer that question by saying that this non-beneficial morality just happens to be beneficial after all.

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

Objective morality would not depend on providing reasons why one should do X.

Right. You should do it even though there is no reason to do it. You should do it for no reason. There is no reason you should do it.

If there is no reason to do it, how can it also be true that you should do it?

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.

Authority is some person or thing that has the right to tell someone else what one ought to do. For example, my boss has the right to tell me at work what I ought to program. However, a person who is not a boss over me does not have the right to tell me what I ought to do.

How does a god get the right to tell us what to do? Where would such a right "come from"?

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.

Then where else could objective morality come from?

That's not an argument. I don't think morality comes at all.

And, as near as I can tell, you're saying that objective morality is the kind that there is no reason to go along with, no reason to comply with. As near as I can tell, that's the same as saying it doesn't exist.

How can there be something you should do, but no reason you should do it?

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?

God is the ultimate creator. George Carlin is not.

And?

I'm not being dismissive. This is a question that I've never been able to get an answer to. What is it about being a god that gives you authority? If god were evil, would we still be supposed to do what he told us? Because there wouldn't be any reason to do what an evil god told us, so, that might mean that evil morals are "objective."

If a scorpion god created us just for the pleasure of stinging us to death, should we still obey? What do gods have that George Carlin doesn't?

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

Not applying a rule to just a class would be arbitrary. Do you mean the same rules should apply to everything?

Normally, I'd say no. But since you're saying that objective rules have all their exceptions baked in, then, yes.

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.

Could it be that they avoid the issue because they don't like to leave room for God?

That's special pleading. Unless you're going to assume that all scientific opinion results from bias.

You're the one saying that it's impossible to believe in the big bang without believing in a finite universe. Does your justification of that claim come down to ... well, you haven't actually given a reason. You argued like you were going to get your justification from science, but when science doesn't agree with you, you dismiss it as biased.

That still doesn't explain why you believe that people who believe in the big bang should believe in a finite universe.

Do you have a justification for that claim?

If the universe is everything, god would be creating himself along with everything else. You can see how that gives me pause.

Only naturalism would assume the universe is everything. Supernaturalism does not posit that the universe is everything.

It was 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.

OK, good.

But god (assuming he exists at all) began too. Neither god nor the rest of the universe existed before there was time.

If god was bound by our space-time, yes. But nobody is saying that god is bound by our space-time. Rather, what is claimed is that god created space-time.

You said you know of a single definition of "begun" that has god unbegun but the rest of the universe begun. Simply refusing to apply the definition to your god doesn't suffice.

By the definition I gave, both god and the rest of the universe are begun. Do you really have a definition according to which god is unbegun and the rest of the universe is begun?

An infinite regress is uncomfortable, anti-intuitive.

OK, good, we agree that an infinite regress is uncomfortable and anti-intuitive.

But the same is true of a beginning. We don't like it.

Atheists might not like a beginning. Theists have no problems with it.

That's like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "La la la, I'm can't hear you." I could make an equivalent argument by saying I have no problem with infinite regress.

If theists have no problem with a beginning of the universe, they aren't paying attention.

"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, the natural world is our universe and everything outside our universe except God?

There's no reason to believe that. You defined "our universe" as only extending back to the big bang. I don't know what happened before the big bang; so therefore I don't know whether---if anything happened at all---it was natural.

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.

This wasn't in regards to objective morality, but in regards to what is science.

Not sure what you're saying here. But, if it doesn't have to do with why gods are necessary to objective morality, perhaps we can leave it to one side.

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.

Oh, come now, it's OK to have an opinion, even when experts don't agree.

Stipulated: It's okay to have an opinion.

But I don't have one anyway. I have no information about the topic, no information to base an opinion on, and therefore no opinion.

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.

The claim has fallen out of favor, so there's no need to really entertain it. But, my point is that here is an example of a non-God scenario where there is no need to have a cause. So, it disproves the assertion that a God scenario is special pleading.

I still don't get it. Why wouldn't something need a cause just because it didn't have a beginning? That seems to me an absolutely arbitrary claim. As such, it doesn't disprove anything.

[Jashwell]

Imagine that the Universe is like an eternally existing film.

I'm not sure how to imagine that. You mean the universe is eternally existing?

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?

No. But, someone, or something, did create that ruler.

Yes, but unfortunately we don't have a lot of examples of uncreated things that aren't begging the question now, do we? The point is that the beginning of the film is not equivalent to the film coming into existence. It is the same case for our Universe.

What I mean to say, is that objects exist in time as well as in space.
The Universe exists across the t>0 and t<=infinity range.

Time doesn't actually flow - we just perceive a flow. Past & the future exist too, but in the same way that you don't exist here, they don't exist now. We can't currently perceive them as well as the present (one could argue with memories and predictions that you can somewhat accurately sense the past/future).

Another example is a flipbook. The pages of the flipbook stay the same, and all exist at the same time, but we only perceive one at a time - and the fact that we perceive direction gives us the everyday concepts such as individual objects existing in space for time (rather than in spacetime) and causality (also the 2nd law, which is the reason we perceive in this direction) and stuff.

[Artie]

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.

It's meaningless to speak of "before" the (block) universe, esp if we're discussing it in reference to our space-time. So, I'm not saying that there was a before. All I'm saying is that there must be some cause of the (block) universe.

No there isn't. There is no cause and effect. The Block Universe isn't an effect. It just is. It isn't the result of a cause. Simply imagine looking back in time to the Big Bang from our vantage point in the universe. You can't look "further back" than the Big Bang to look for a "cause". There's simply no space and time there. No cause. Doesn't matter where you look, there's no space and time in which to find a "cause".