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.

[Artie]

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"?

Our survival instinct.

[otseng]

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

There are plenty of examples. One example is divorce. Another is premarital sex. Both of these are widespread and common and many do not think of these as morally wrong.

[otseng]

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?

Do you believe the universe is eternal?
Do we have any examples of anything that is self-caused?

[otseng]

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.

It's not really my burden in this thread to argue for God. This whole topic came up because of the atheists' assertion that there is zero evidence for God. I'm simply countering that assertion by bringing up the cosmological argument and the moral argument.

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

I'm not specifying where it should come from. Again, I'm just simply refuting atheistic claims that no evidence exists for God.

[Haven]

Do you believe the universe is eternal?

I don't have any beliefs about the ultimate origin of the universe because, right now, there is insufficient evidence to justify such a belief.

I merely posited an eternal universe as a plausible scenario.

Do we have any examples of anything that is self-caused?

Nothing as of yet has been demonstrated to be self-caused. Again, self-causation may be common, and it may explain the universe, but there's insufficient evidence now to say whether or not it's a real phenomenon.

[wiploc]

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

There are plenty of examples. One example is divorce. Another is premarital sex. Both of these are widespread and common and many do not think of these as morally wrong.

So, to make the example work for you, we need to point out that objective morality may require divorce and premarital sex. You might not like that, but your opinion wouldn't change the fact that it's morally required.

[wiploc]

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

I'm not specifying where it should come from.

Then why were you asking me where it comes from?

[otseng]

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"?

That wouldn't be a good example. Moral goodness or evil wouldn't apply here.

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.

Ultimately, we should do what is right simply because that is what we are expected to do.

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.

I never said there is no reason to do it. I said it's not necessary to provide a reason for people to do what is morally right.

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

Any creator has rights over its creation.

I'm the owner and creator of this forum. It is within my right to create the rules and to tell people what to do on this forum. I also don't need to tell anyone why the rules are there or what benefit they will have if they follow the rules. People need to follow the rules just because I say so.

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.

Never said that.

To elaborate on the forum example. The forum rules are like the objective morality. It doesn't matter what people think the rules should be. (As a matter of fact, some seem to think that they can just abide by their own rules here.) I have my own reasons for the rules, but I don't need to give reasons why people need to follow the rules. People are expected to do the right thing and follow the rules.

A counterexample is YouTube. There are no rules on how people should act when people post comments. People have their own opinions, but it would be subjective. One cannot enforce another to abide by their own rules.

What is it about being a god that gives you authority?

Because I created this forum, I have authority here. Because God created the universe, God has authority over the universe.

But since you're saying that objective rules have all their exceptions baked in, then, yes.

Depends on what you mean by exceptions.

The rules on this forum applies to a special class of people - those who participate on this forum. Does that mean the exception is built-in so that it doesn't apply to members of another forum?

Unless you're going to assume that all scientific opinion results from bias.

Believe it or not, scientists can be biased.

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.

Nobody is totally correct in all things. One needs to decide for themselves based on reasoning and evidence what is correct.

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?

I believe there's more justification for this than an infinite universe.

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.

If God created space-time, there is no "begun" for God, unless one posits God living in a different space-time.

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

OK, then, I'm listening… go on.

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.

If you don't know if there's other universes, then wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that no other universe exist?

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.

Then why even bring up "pocket universes" or saying that my intention was talking about "our" universe?

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.

It's not an arbitrary claim. Cosmologists used to believe that the universe was eternal just so they wouldn't have to have a cause for the universe.

[otseng]

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).

Actually, I'm not convinced of the B-theory of time.

We perceive time to be flowing, but it really isn't. We perceive to be here, but we really aren't. We perceive to have a train of thoughts, but we really don't.

This is a strange metaphysical view where what we perceive has nothing to do with reality.

[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.

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".

Then the principle of causality is not important?