Arguments Against a God

[Uriel]

I have recently been studying arguments for and against the existence of God and would like to hear this communities arguments against the existence of a god. This is not a debate about the existence of the Christian God or any other specific god, rather the idea of a god, all loving or uncaring whatever way you wish to argue. I will attempt to debate each point provided, the sheer number of replies may prevent me though from arguing each one.

This is my first post here purely because as a Christian there really isn't any reason for me to visit this forum except for the opportunity to challenge my faith. I am not a troll as some of you may be thinking; I just believe that you cannot truly know your position in any argument until you challenge it. So let this debate get started and please, no flaming.

[templeboy]

Where to start?

Well we can divide our arguments into

1) Arguments against the general concept of god.

Well for tens of thousands of years, we have had no better explanation for phenomena that we see than the supernatural. We didn't understand why thunder and lightening occured, so we blamed it on the men in the sky who were angry. Its not an argument against god per say (isn't that spelt differently? I've never typed it), but its an explanation for why religous memes have been sucessful...

The concept of god is dismissed firstly by the principle of Occams Razor, which says that if there are several otherwise equally valid explanations for a phenomena, the one which is simplest is more likely to be the successful one. While we have no specific formal logical disproof of god, this is an irrelevent distraction, for outside of formal mathmatics, we cannot define our hypothesis tightly enough to be ably to logically reduce them to absurdity or any other form of proof. That doesn't mean that we can't say something very strong about the probability that god exists, and that is what most atheists base their disbelief on (its called agnostic atheism.)

2) Arguments against a specific god.
Taking the christian god for instance.
Check out http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for a guide to the many contradictions, absurdities and immoralities of your so-called "word of god."
Specific gods like the christian god are far less likely than the general concept of god (which is unlikely enough in its own regard,) because of contradictions they have with the findings of rigorous human study, sciences. And of course with themselves, although theologians usually attempt some kind of theological gymnastics at this point to get around this.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people to expand and improve upon my points, but that is a start!

From my experience of debating christians, nobody is going to convince anyone of their point of view, but as long as both are prepared to stick to the topic and keep away from personal or petty trolling, then we will hopefully find it a constructive discussion. And good on you for having the bravery to come over to the "other side." I'm pretty new here, but I'm pretty sure that the community in general would like to encourage theists to discuss, leaving aside the ignorant trolls. So welcome!

[PipeBox]

Without a more specific example being brought up, my argument against gods is that every time we thought they were necessary to explain the so-called supernatural, whether it be lightning, or weather, or volcanic eruptions, or supernova, it has turned out that the events were natural occurrences, with no need for the gods.  Why, then, would I expect this to be any different for the soul, who's operation appears to be nothing but functioning of the brain, or spiritual uplifting that appears to be totally emotional?

Why should I expect a god, nevermind an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving one to be necessary to explain the universe's existence?  If I have no reason to explicitly expect a god's necessity, why would I take on faith?

[curiosityandthecat]

So let this debate get started and please, no flaming.

Guess I'd better stay out of it, then.  :nerd:

[Whitney]

Are you wanting arguments against the existence of your God or just a god in general?  I think you were speaking generally but was not sure.  I don't think it is possible to argue against an undefined god aside from pointing out logical errors in arguments for one.

[Hitsumei]

Are you wanting arguments against the existence of your God or just a god in general?  I think you were speaking generally but was not sure.  I don't think it is possible to argue against an undefined god aside from pointing out logical errors in arguments for one.

I don't think that it is either.

[Uriel]

I haven’t heard of this “failed hypothesis” argument before so my ideas need a little polishing but here they are three arguments against it.

1)   The argument mainly is that if the god explanation has consistently been wrong why should I expect it to ever be right. Consistent failure doesn’t always equal complete failure. Some sources give the chance life existing in the universe to be 1/10 to the 282 power. Despite this improbability, life exists, I’m not saying that God exists because life exists but rather that the God explanation is not refutable because it has been consistently wrong in the past. Take this thought experiment, for example.
[spoiler:16hvy4ns]Imagine that you are a robot that has been traveling around the universe visiting a new galaxy every year since the beginning of the universe looking for living organisms. (A recent super computer simulation has estimated that there are more than 500 billion galaxies in the universe; the universe is only 14 billion years old.) Certainly after the first 2 billion years you would stop and ponder if there is life in the universe at all. You may come to the conclusion that if all the other galaxies you’ve visited had no life in them why should you assume that any other galaxies have life in them. I mean, you have not seen any life before; there has been no evidence for life, why should you assume that there is life in the universe.[/spoiler:16hvy4ns]You can apply this same approach to failed hypothesis argument.

2)   The second argument against the failed hypothesis argument is that the entire argument only deals with the western idea of God, a god that is involved with human affairs. Hinduism has Brahman, a non-moral being beyond good and evil and incapable of deliberate action. Taoism has the Tao which is the ultimate realty that all Taoists attempt to achieve union with.

3)   Thirdly I would argue that the Christian view of God doesn’t deal with explaining seemingly supernatural events rather it deals with our relationship with God. If the idea of a god cannot be totally refuted as most people agree on, what is our relationship with God? That is what most religions attempt to explain. I guess this argument can be summed up as, “The failed hypothesis argument has a misguided view of religion.”

EDIT: Sorry didn't translate right from Microsoft word. changed 1/10282 to 1/10 to the 10282 power

[curiosityandthecat]

Couple things that pop out at me...

1) 1/10282 (btw I'd like to see the source on this; sounds interesting) seems like a very small chance, but if you consider the vastness of space and the sheer number of galaxies, solar systems and theoretically inhabitable planets, 1/10282 could still account for 1,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

2) Never claimed to be talking about Eastern thought, but the theory works just the same. Instead of using God as a hypothesis to explain natural phenomena, superstition is used to help people come to terms with loss or gain (like ancestor worship or a failed crop).

3) This is when you need to look at the anthropology and sociology of religion, rather than Christian apologetics. I never tried to explain how people relate to God, only why they needed God. The point, which Nietzsche put so bluntly: God is dead and we have killed him. We're better for it.

[Uriel]

1) 1/10282 (btw I'd like to see the source on this; sounds interesting) seems like a very small chance, but if you consider the vastness of space and the sheer number of galaxies, solar systems and theoretically inhabitable planets, 1/10282 could still account for 1,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

Check the edit, sorry about that didn't double check it. I typed it up in Microsoft word and didn't double check to see if the forum translated it correctly.

2) Never claimed to be talking about Eastern thought, but the theory works just the same. Instead of using God as a hypothesis to explain natural phenomena, superstition is used to help people come to terms with loss or gain (like ancestor worship or a failed crop).

I'm not saying that the argument doesn't have some merit when applied to folk religion and certain branches of paganism. I'm just saying that most religions now a days deal with the individuals relationship to God or to help the individuals reach enlightenment.

3) This is when you need to look at the anthropology and sociology of religion, rather than Christian apologetics. I never tried to explain how people relate to God, only why they needed God. The point, which Nietzsche put so bluntly: God is dead and we have killed him. We're better for it.

[/quote]

I can respect that, major research would have to be done, though, to measure the effects of theism and atheism on a society to reach a conclusion on either side.

[curiosityandthecat]

Check the edit, sorry about that didn't double check it. I typed it up in Microsoft word and didn't double check to see if the forum translated it correctly.

I'd still like to see that source you're referring to. Seems like a misleading number, considering the Drake equation (even adjusted conservatively) returns 2.31 civilizations in our galaxy, alone. Know how many galaxies there are?  Here's a short list of articles on related topics.

[spoiler:3tojssxw]Apple, M. W. (2008). Evolution versus creationism in education. Educational Policy, 22(2), 327-335.

Ashford, E. (2007). Schools grapple with legality of prayer rooms for muslim students. Education Digest, 73(3), 40-42.

Askarova, G. B. (2007). The religious and ethical education of students in a secular school. Russian Education & Society, 49(1), 34-46.

Barker, E. (2003). And the wisdom to know the difference? freedom, control and the sociology of religion. Sociology of Religion, 64(3), 285-307.

Barrett, J. B., Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Frank, K. A. (2007). Adolescent religiosity and school contexts. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 88(4), 1024-1037.

Binder, A. (2007). Gathering intelligence on intelligent design: Where did it come from, where is it going, and how should progressives manage it? American Journal of Education, 113(4), 549-576.

Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the promotion of "secular" and not-so "secular" mainline christianity in public schooling and in the larger society. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(3), 195-210.

Burns, J. (2001). Why do bad things happen? Campus Life, 60(2), 20.

Coleman, J. (2003). School choice, diversity and a life of One’s own. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 101-120.

Coleman, L. (2008). Preferences towards sex education and information from a religiously diverse sample of young people. Health Education, 108(1), 72-91.

Court, D. (2006). How shall we study religious school culture? Religious Education, 101(2)

D'Andrea, L. M., & Sprenger, J. (2007). Atheism and nonspirituality as diversity issues in counseling. Counseling & Values, 51(2), 149-158.

D'antonio, W. V., & Hoge, D. R. (2006). The american experience of religious disestablishment and pluralism. Social Compass, 53(3), 345-356.

Donelson, E. (1999). Psychology of religion and adolescents in the united states: Past to present. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 187.

Downey, A. B. (2007). The godless freshman. Free Inquiry, 27(5), 56-57.

Duriez, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (2000). The relation between religion and racism: The role of post-critical beliefs. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 3(1), 85-102.

Duriez, B. (2003). Vivisecting the religious mind: Religiosity and motivated social cognition. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 6(1), 79.

Duriez, B. (2004). Are religious people nicer people? taking a closer look at the religion-empathy relationship. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 7(3), 249-254.

Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2005). Drawing the line: Views of atheists and moral boundaries in america. Prepared for Submission to the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,

Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in american society. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 211-234.

Edgell, P., & Tranby, E. (2007). Religious influences on understandings of racial inequality in the united states. Social Problems, 54(2), 263-288.

Elkind, D. (1999). Religious development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2)

Furrow, J. L., King, P. E., & White, K. (2004). Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 17-26.

Good, M., & Willoughby, T. (2006). The role of spirituality versus religiosity in adolescent psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 35(1), 39-53.

Hand, M. (2003). A philosophical objection to faith schools. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 89-99.

Hardy, S. A., & Raffaelli, M. (2003). Adolescent religiosity and sexuality: An investigation of reciprocal influences. Journal of Adolescence, 26(6), 731.

Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). Why more americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 165-190.

Iannaccone, L. R., & Makowsky, M. D. (2007). Accidental atheists? agent-based explanations for the persistence of religious regionalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 1-16.

King, P. E., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2004). Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development: Current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 2-6.

King, P. E., & Furrow, J. L. (2004). Religion as a resource for positive youth development: Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 703-713.

Krause, N., & Wulff, K. M. (2004). Religious doubt and health: Exploring the potential dark side of religion. Sociology of Religion, 65(1), 35-56.

Lehrer, E. L. (1999). Religion as a determinant of educational attainment: An economic perspective. Social Science Research, 28(4), 358-379.

Lehrer, E. L. (2004). Religion as a determinant of economic and demographic behavior in the united states. Population & Development Review, 30(4), 707-726.

Levison, A. (2005). Are nonreligious teenagers really deficient? Humanist, 65(5), 5-47.

Markstrom, C. A. (1999). Religious involvement and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 205.

May, C. M. (2006). Religion's legal place in the schoolhouse. School Administrator, 63(9), 32-35.

McKinney, J. P., & McKinney, K. G. (1999). Prayer in the lives of late adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 279.

Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699-723.

Noddings, N. (2008). The new outspoken atheism and education. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 369-390.

Norman, R. (2006). The varieties of non-religious experience. Ratio, 19(4), 474-494.

Perl, P., & Gray, M. M. (2007). Catholic schooling and disaffiliation from catholicism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 269-280.

Regnerus, M. D. (2000). Shaping schooling success: Religious socialization and educational outcomes in metropolitan public schools. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 363.

Regnerus, M. D., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Staying on track in school: Religious influences in high- and low-risk settings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 633-649.

Revell, L. (2008). Spiritual development in public and religious schools: A case study. Religious Education, 103(1), 102-118.

Riley, N. S. (2006). Keeping out the christians: Evangelical high schools meet public universities. Education Next, 6(3), 50-56.

Rizzo, T. R., Rizzo, E., & Empie, K. M. (2005). Yielding to deviant temptation: A quasi-experimental examination of the inhibiting power of intrinsic religious motivation. Deviant Behavior, 26(5), 463-481.

Rosenblith, S. (2008). Beyond coexistence: Toward a more reflective religious pluralism. Theory and Research in Education, 6(1), 107-121.

Rostosky, S. S., Wilcox, B. L., Comer Wright, M. L., & Randall, B. A. (2004). The impact of religiosity on adolescent sexual behavior: A review of the evidence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 677-697.

Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual plurality. About Campus, 12(2), 10-17.

Sherkat, D. E. (2008). Beyond belief: Atheism, agnosticism, and theistic certainty in the united states. Sociological Spectrum, 28(5), 438-459.

Short, G. (2002). Faithâ€"Based schools: A threat to social cohesion? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(4), 559-572.

Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Identifying the mechanisms whereby family religiosity influences the probability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35(4), 547-563.

Smith, C., Denton, M. L., Faris, R., & Regnerus, M. (2002). Mapping american adolescent religious participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 597-612.

Streib, H. (1999). Off-road religion? A narrative approach to fundamentalist and occult orientations of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 255.

Strike, K. A. (2007). Common schools and uncommon conversations: Education, religious speech and public spaces. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 693-708.

Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marriage & Family, 51(3), 641-653.

VanZanten Gallagher, S. (2007). Speaking of vocation in an age of spirituality. Change, 39(3), 32-37.

Warnick, B. R., & Fooce, C. D. (2007). Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy? Theory and Research in Education, 5(3), 357-378.[/spoiler:3tojssxw]

[Uriel]

I'd still like to see that source you're referring to. Seems like a misleading number, considering the Drake equation (even adjusted conservatively) returns 2.31 civilizations in our galaxy, alone. Know how many galaxies there are?  Here's a short list of articles on related topics.

I'll look into some of those, could be some good reading. Finding a copy of the Journal of Marriage and Family from 1989 may prove difficult though.  

[Hitsumei]

No one knows the probability of life arising in the universe, or even the conditions by which live can arise, it is wholly speculation beyond counting the planets and solar systems that are analogous to our own.

We don't quite understand how abiogenesis works, or if there are other circumstances by which it can occur, based on different chemicals and circumstances than our own origins.

That said, commonness is always a more justified assumption than uniqueness. Uniqueness is always less probable, so less justified to assume. All things being equal, the most probable conclusions is always more justified to assume.

[PipeBox]

I haven’t heard of this “failed hypothesis” argument before so my ideas need a little polishing but here they are three arguments against it.

1)   The argument mainly is that if the god explanation has consistently been wrong why should I expect it to ever be right. Consistent failure doesn’t always equal complete failure. Some sources give the chance life existing in the universe to be 1/10 to the 282 power. Despite this improbability, life exists, I’m not saying that God exists because life exists but rather that the God explanation is not refutable because it has been consistently wrong in the past. Take this thought experiment, for example.
[spoiler:f6ltsj60]Imagine that you are a robot that has been traveling around the universe visiting a new galaxy every year since the beginning of the universe looking for living organisms. (A recent super computer simulation has estimated that there are more than 500 billion galaxies in the universe; the universe is only 14 billion years old.) Certainly after the first 2 billion years you would stop and ponder if there is life in the universe at all. You may come to the conclusion that if all the other galaxies you’ve visited had no life in them why should you assume that any other galaxies have life in them. I mean, you have not seen any life before; there has been no evidence for life, why should you assume that there is life in the universe.[/spoiler:f6ltsj60]You can apply this same approach to failed hypothesis argument.

You cannot.  The argument is that there is no reason to expect god, at least my version is.  There has yet to evidence of any gods, but I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist, and you can't say definitively Russell's Teapot doesn't exist.  That isn't the argument, though.  The argument is "I have yet to see plausible evidence of a god, and all up to this point has been found to be explainable via materialistic means, ergo I have no reason to expect an external creator (the simplest version of a god)."  We might deal with the physical absence of gods if miracles could be proven - that is uncaused events - or if any kind of prayer was consistently answered.  And we all would accept the existence of a god that made itself apparent.  It just seems miserably unlikely, afloat in a sea of other options of which no one knows the correct choice.  But a god of the gaps in the form of a deist prime mover is not something I'd endorse.  It's also not anything that would care if I endorsed it, so I have absolutely no reason to without evidence.

Finally, the robot presumably has until the end of time to fulfill its sole purpose, so it cannot justify discontinuing its search.  Even when it finished surveying all of the universe, it must do it again, as life may have developed in its absence.  If it was programmed to discontinue, you put its free will off on something else, something else decided what a reasonable sample size was, whereas the implication is that it decides based on its own faulty reasoning, which would be faulty for it is immortal and has no need of inductive reasoning apart from protecting itself.  The only reason humans make assumptions about the state of the rest of the universe is because we are limited in time and capability.  Some things, though, can be assumed safely to be consistent across the whole universe.  The absence of 8-cornered spheres, for example.  So some things, like the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving, prime mover may be discarded out of hand, lest we be sophists and anything, even bald-face contradictions, be possible.

2)   The second argument against the failed hypothesis argument is that the entire argument only deals with the western idea of God, a god that is involved with human affairs. Hinduism has Brahman, a non-moral being beyond good and evil and incapable of deliberate action. Taoism has the Tao which is the ultimate realty that all Taoists attempt to achieve union with.

All of which are unevidenced unless we equate these concepts with actual observations.  Take Taoism.  I know little about it, but it's based on a duality, yes?  If we say all dualities are Tao, then all we've done is create a synonym for duality.  If I say my god is the sun, with no supernatural aspect, only claiming the observed functioning of the star as the functioning of god, then my god surely exists, but why would you call it god?  It's just an observed mechanic, and I don't doubt those.  In the case of any eastern idea of a prime mover, its assumption is still equally unwarranted by the evidence as any western one.

3)   Thirdly I would argue that the Christian view of God doesn’t deal with explaining seemingly supernatural events rather it deals with our relationship with God. If the idea of a god cannot be totally refuted as most people agree on, what is our relationship with God? That is what most religions attempt to explain. I guess this argument can be summed up as, “The failed hypothesis argument has a misguided view of religion.”

I may be putting words into your mouth.  If I am, I'm sorry.  It sounds to me like you're saying all the god myths are just exploration of the possibility that there's a god out there, and what it would mean for us.  In that case, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is also exploration of this concept.  But I wouldn't call the IPU an exploration of god.  I'd call it a machination of fantasy, much as I wouldn't call Harry Potter a study in the possibility of wizards.  There may be boundless speculation if we're willing to isolate reality, to say where it starts and stops, but we've yet to see anything but reality, so why would we assume there is anything else?

Finally, using religion as a catch-all term, you are correct, but we're not arguing against whether religion strikes us as existing, or if it might server a purpose, but a god.  I'd like to see justification for why the failed hypothesis argument doesn't apply to any particular concept of god, though, if I'm misunderstanding you, and you meant religion as a synonym for a belief in god, because you still haven't demonstrated that there is a reason to assume deities.

[Hitsumei]

Even though I wanted to stay out of this, I can't help but point out the problems with the robot scenario. Firstly, to say that we have no reason to assume that the future will resemble the past is to reject induction, which is the foundation of science, and is simply required to function in the world.

Humans, as well as many animals understand that the future resembles the past. It isn't provable -- Hume showed that -- and there is always the possibility that things should change, but that doesn't render inductive assumptions unjustified. To say that implies countless absurdities. People don't jump off of cliffs without knowing that they will fall, they certainly don't think that all because in all of their past experience things fall down, it in no way implies that they will fall down this time when they jump.

When we establish any amount of probability, it relies on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, as probability is established by examining the reiteration of similar events, and projecting the statistics onto future similar events. One cannot simultaneously reject inductive reasoning, and use probabilistic arguments, like you have. That is a contradiction.

The robot had to have been created by someone, as robots are artificial entities, and thus its creators, and designers were living things that evolved -- so the robot is aware of life arising in the universe, and thus the assumption that it arose more than once, or will arise more than once is always justified by the inductive inference from the knowledge that it has happened in the past. So life is verified, and the robot knows that it can exists, and can arise in the universe, it just isn't aware of the probability, but it knows that if it happened once, then it stands to reason that it will happen again.

The argument being presented is that 100% of the time natural explanations have come out on top, and a supernatural phenomena, entity, or event has never been identified nor verified.

It is a false analogy for this reason.

Now, I'm not attempting an argument against a god, or the supernatural, I am merely pointing out the problems with the robot scenario.

[Sophus]

Uriel, I have many arguments against god but in reality none of them are needed. The burden of proof is on the theists.