Arguments Against a God

[PipeBox]

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

QFT.  It really is that simple.

[Hitsumei]

It's all well and good as long as you aren't claiming it to be false, that would be different.

"I'm unconvinced, ergo it's false" certainly doesn't follow. The thread appears to be in search of people that think it's wrong, and thus should have arguments to support that it is false, and the fact that it has not been demonstrated true to their personal satisfaction is by no means such an argument.

[PipeBox]

It's all well and good as long as you aren't claiming it to be false, that would be different.

"I'm unconvinced, ergo it's false" certainly doesn't follow. The thread appears to be in search of people that think it's wrong, and thus should have arguments to support that it is false, and the fact that it has not been demonstrated true to their personal sanctification is by no means such an argument.

No, but we haven't been given a definition of god so the best we can do is say we've seen no evidence, so your ubercreator either doesn't exist, is very hard to find, or is deliberately absent.  If Uriel wants to give us something more specific, we can possibly show issues with that conception of god.  It's just asserting something external to reality in most cases, where I might assert the whole universe is just a thought of a cowboy in cowboyland.  You don't tell me I'm wrong, you ask what reason there is for me or you, to believe I'm right.  "We exist, so the cowboy is thinking of us," would be specious.

But no, you're right, saying I haven't seen any reason for god to exist is no more an argument than someone telling someone else to "prove it."  We'll address the finer details when we have a finer description.  

[Hitsumei]

I wouldn't get that far. One can't form an argument against an undefined entity X.

[Uriel]

Sorry I haven't been able to post. Been preparing for Easter.

[PipeBox]

Sorry I haven't been able to post. Been preparing for Easter.

No worries.  You probably won't be able to reply today.  We'll all get by somehow.  

[pastafarian]

Whenever someone asks me to disprove their god(s), I just ask them to disprove unicorns or leprechauns and echo what they say back at them  

[Uriel]

The debate seems to be boiling down to that God may or may not exist but there is no evidence to point to his existence so why believe in him. I've decided to make a list of evidence of God's existence.

1. The existence of good and evil. Without an absolute moral compass good and evil cannot exist. Plato argued something along these lines when trying to pinpoint the definition of piety. He ran into the problem that what one of the Greek gods would consider pious another would consider impious. For goodness to exist there would have to be something that is ultimately and always good.
Murder, rape, and child abuse are justifiable if good and evil do not exist. Most atheists I know would say that these things are evil. In their belief system, though, morality can only arise from the agreement of society on certain moral laws. We can all agree, though, that entire societies have been wrong on certain subjects ex. slavery, the role of women, and racism.

2. The fact that the universe has certain laws that cannot be broken. If I drop a rock it will fall to the earth do to gravity; 2 + 2 will always equal 4; hydrogen reacts with oxygen to form H2O. There is no reasonable reason why these laws should exist. The only argument for these laws is the laws themselves. But you cannot argue that something happens because it happened. Something always has to have a cause; this leads me to my second point.

3. If all events have a cause the universe must have had a cause.

P.S. The robot scenario is an analog; it is not to be taken literally. I was not talking about the probability of life or the literal idea of a robot existing out in the universe somewhere. I'll give some other examples to make the idea a little easier to understand.
Ancient Europeans would not be right if they assumed that the Americas don't exist despite the lack of evidence for them back then. Indigenous Amazon tribes wouldn't be right if they assumed that the U.S. doesn't exist despite lack of evidence for it from their perspective.
Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[curiosityandthecat]

Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Hitsumei]

1. The existence of good and evil. Without an absolute moral compass good and evil cannot exist. Plato argued something along these lines when trying to pinpoint the definition of piety. He ran into the problem that what one of the Greek gods would consider pious another would consider impious. For goodness to exist there would have to be something that is ultimately and always good.
Murder, rape, and child abuse are justifiable if good and evil do not exist. Most atheists I know would say that these things are evil. In their belief system, though, morality can only arise from the agreement of society on certain moral laws. We can all agree, though, that entire societies have been wrong on certain subjects ex. slavery, the role of women, and racism.

Euthyphro dilemma refutes this -- but only that a god could be the moral standard. It doesn't refute moral absolutism, though, can you demonstrate a single moral absolute?

2. The fact that the universe has certain laws that cannot be broken. If I drop a rock it will fall to the earth do to gravity; 2 + 2 will always equal 4; hydrogen reacts with oxygen to form H2O. There is no reasonable reason why these laws should exist. The only argument for these laws is the laws themselves. But you cannot argue that something happens because it happened. Something always has to have a cause; this leads me to my second point.

Miracles claim to break natural laws, so to sustain this argument you must reject theism. Theism entails an interventionist god who works by way of miracle which violate natural laws, and thus refute your argument that they cannot be violated.

That aside, this comes from a misunderstanding of what a "natural law" is, and even conflates it with a tautology, 2+2 equaling 4. Natural laws are not the same as authoritative, or judicial laws, they are bound up within scientific theories, and science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Also, natural laws often turn out to be violated. Newtonian physics is violated at high speeds, and Einsteinian physics are violated on the quantum scale. We merely adjust, and adapt our laws and theories for the new discoveries, and then work out new ones to describe the new phenomena, and observations.

3. If all events have a cause the universe must have had a cause.

This is a compilation fallacy. It is fallacious to infer things about a whole based on its individual parts. Also, all events do not have causes, events on the quantum scale violate causality, and casualty is observer depended, and does not apply to things moving at speeds greater than light. It also is reliant on chronology, and thus it is illogical to talk about a cause of time itself, as an event cannot precede time itself.

Ancient Europeans would not be right if they assumed that the Americas don't exist despite the lack of evidence for them back then.

Still a false analogy. Europeans knew that continents, islands, and such existed. You are attempting to parallel this with something that we don't have any evidence that anything like it at all exists. It isn't just more of something we already know exists.

Indigenous Amazon tribes wouldn't be right if they assumed that the U.S. doesn't exist despite lack of evidence for it from their perspective.

The US is a concept, and not actually a thing. It would be difficult for them to deny that the area that corresponded to the US did not exist if they themselves occupied part of that area.

Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

No, it does not. Absence of of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though your analogies appeared to be attempting to establish that assuming the positive would be reasonable, as all of the subjects were things that were true. This is also not the case. If there is no evidence either way, then suspension of judgment until further notice is the most reasonable course of action.

[Sophus]

Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Prove it.  

No, I agree. But when there's no evidence for something and reason leads us to believe something else - why believe in that something? People don't just believe in things for no reason.

[SSY]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Classic

[Uriel]

Euthyphro dilemma refutes this -- but only that a god could be the moral standard. It doesn't refute moral absolutism, though, can you demonstrate a single moral absolute?

I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents; I just don't believe that it's that persuasive. We only accept moral absolutes and good and evil as unchangeable and logical because that is how our world runs. We can not accept moral absolutes any different than they are know, than can we accept a universe without light and gravity. The Euthyphro dilemma is purely based on our unwillingness to accept our own limits as humans. We are unwilling to accept a God that is greater than us; no one can fully understand something greater than themselves.

Miracles claim to break natural laws, so to sustain this argument you must reject theism. Theism entails an interventionist god who works by way of miracle which violate natural laws, and thus refute your argument that they cannot be violated.

First off, not all theist beliefs believe in miracles or a intervening God. Check what I said earlier about Eastern religions. Secondly I said that the laws exist, never did I say that they can't be broken, especially by an omnipotent God. God created the laws, he can break the laws. Put it this way, a programmer writes the code, the code can not break its own design, the programmer certainly isn't restricted to his code's design.

Natural laws are not the same as authoritative, or judicial laws

And I'm arguing that minus the enforcement part scientific laws may be authoritative or judicial laws.

they are bound up within scientific theories, and science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Meant scientific laws, not natural laws. A scientific law is an observation of a predictable event. A scientific theory is a conclusion conclusion drawn from these observations.

Also, natural laws often turn out to be violated. Newtonian physics is violated at high speeds, and Einsteinian physics are violated on the quantum scale.

I was not arguing that we already know all that there is to know about science. The current laws we have come up with are probably wrong under certain circumstances we don't know about. This doesn't change the fact that the universe is guided by laws.

The basic premise of my argument is that the universe is logical, there is absolutely no reason that the universe should be logical, but it is. The universe could be chaotic and illogical and we would have no argument against it being that way.

No, it does not. Absence of of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though your analogies appeared to be attempting to establish that assuming the positive would be reasonable, as all of the subjects were things that were true. This is also not the case. If there is no evidence either way, then suspension of judgment until further notice is the most reasonable course of action.

So we agree that rejection is not the reasonable conclusion. I agree that acceptance without evidence is not either, that is why I'm presenting evidence for it.

[PipeBox]

I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents; I just don't believe that it's that persuasive. We only accept moral absolutes and good and evil as unchangeable and logical because that is how our world runs. We can not accept moral absolutes any different than they are know, than can we accept a universe without light and gravity. The Euthyphro dilemma is purely based on our unwillingness to accept our own limits as humans. We are unwilling to accept a God that is greater than us; no one can fully understand something greater than themselves.

Am I to understand you are accepting moral absolutes which you cannot define?  Aside from being way too convenient for my tastes and applicable to whichever god you like, it still doesn't count as demonstration of any moral absolute.

First off, not all theist beliefs believe in miracles or a intervening God. Check what I said earlier about Eastern religions. Secondly I said that the laws exist, never did I say that they can't be broken, especially by an omnipotent God. God created the laws, he can break the laws. Put it this way, a programmer writes the code, the code can not break its own design, the programmer certainly isn't restricted to his code's design.

You believe in an intervening god, though, yes?  We'll address that.  God should be able to break the laws, he just shouldn't need to.  A programmer only rewrites code when it wasn't right the first time, or to add features they hadn't thought of previously.  God's code shouldn't require this micromanagement, but rather everything should already be accounted for.  After all, the code wouldn't be perfect, otherwise, and if you claim that sin broke God's code, then the program did rewrite itself!  The analogy isn't any good.

And I'm arguing that minus the enforcement part scientific laws may be authoritative or judicial laws.

Being no expert on the judicial system, I don't feel qualified to hammer out the differences, other than to say I don't like how this argument sounds.  But semantically, you could be right.

Meant scientific laws, not natural laws. A scientific law is an observation of a predictable event. A scientific theory is a conclusion conclusion drawn from these observations.

The observations are still descriptive, but through induction we may apply them to the future.  Scientific observations are still accounted for by the over-arching theories.  I'm not really sure this is important, though, as it seems like a semantic disagreement.  But hey, I just woke up, so I might be missing a broader implication.

I was not arguing that we already know all that there is to know about science. The current laws we have come up with are probably wrong under certain circumstances we don't know about. This doesn't change the fact that the universe is guided by laws.

(I put on my robe and sophist hat) The universe isn't necessarily guided by any laws, it could just be the most epic coincidence ever that it's looked like it is this whole time.  Tomorrow the sun may rise purple as the salad reverses the 3-sided circle.  (sophist hat off, robe stays on) But that's ridiculous beyond all credibility, and I'm just playing around.  

[Hitsumei]

I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents;

I don't think that you do, given that you completely failed to address it. The argument is simply: is something moral because god says so, or does god say it because it is moral? If the former, then morality is arbitrary, and if the latter, god is superfluous.

There is no third option. It is logically impossible that god be the standard of absolute morality, as if morality is merely based on what a god thinks, and nothing objective, then it is arbitrary, and anything at all could be moral or immoral solely based on its dictates. Genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, homophobia, xenophobia, and all of those nice things that appear in the bible would then be moral, solely because god says so. This is an evil and tyrannical king, not an absolute moral standard.  

First off, not all theist beliefs believe in miracles or a intervening God.

Yes, they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Check what I said earlier about Eastern religions.

There are no eastern theistic religions. There are some polytheistic ones, and some nontheistic ones.  

Secondly I said that the laws exist, never did I say that they can't be broken, especially by an omnipotent God.

Actually that is exactly what you said: "2. The fact that the universe has certain laws that cannot be broken."

God created the laws, he can break the laws. Put it this way, a programmer writes the code, the code can not break its own design, the programmer certainly isn't restricted to his code's design.

I was only going by what you said about the laws of nature. Something that "cannot be broken" is not breakable be definition, if you want to say that they can be broken now, then that is different than what you said before.

And I'm arguing that minus the enforcement part scientific laws may be authoritative or judicial laws.

They aren't. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. I suggest that you engage yourself in some philosophy of science.  

Meant scientific laws, not natural laws. A scientific law is an observation of a predictable event. A scientific theory is a conclusion conclusion drawn from these observations.

This is just false. A scientific law is a general principle stipulated in a hypothesis, and if lucky will someday be included in a scientific theory. Laws are more old school science though, modern science doesn't really create laws very often anymore.

I was not arguing that we already know all that there is to know about science. The current laws we have come up with are probably wrong under certain circumstances we don't know about. This doesn't change the fact that the universe is guided by laws.

This isn't a fact... what laws are you talking about then if not scientific ones, and what do you mean by "law" in this context? You specifically said you were talking about scientific laws. What are you talking about then? I'm aware of no other relevant laws. How can it be a fact, if we are not aware of them? Facts are things we know.

The basic premise of my argument is that the universe is logical, there is absolutely no reason that the universe should be logical, but it is. The universe could be chaotic and illogical and we would have no argument against it being that way.

Logic is a formalized system of reasoning, and is extrapolated from our natural reasoning faculties that has evolved over billions of years. Besides that, the universe does not work by logic, logic is abstract, and deals with ideas, semantics, and the rules of a formalized system. Logic cannot establish anything true about the world. It can only establish negatives which are denied because they break semantic rules. For example, you can say that there are no square-triangles, because it is not logically possible for an objective to simultaneously be three-sided, and four-sided. But the universe doesn't work by logic, as there is nothing logically impossible about having a coin you flipped turn into a dragon and fly away, or the moon being made of cheese. Logic governs the systems, and principles we create, not the universe.    

Also, the universe is largely chaotic, and every so gradually moves further and further towards chaos, or maximum entropy.  

So we agree that rejection is not the reasonable conclusion. I agree that acceptance without evidence is not either, that is why I'm presenting evidence for it.

You've presented none. Even if everything you said was true, was true -- which it wasn't -- you offered nothing more than a personal interpretation of it, that gives you an intuitive feeling. That is not evidence. Though I don't even know what you are actually arguing for, you have refrained from defining or describing what you mean by god, so you can't offer me evidence for something that I don't know what you're talking about.

You need to first develop a god model before you can start looking for evidence. It reminds me of ghost hunters I see on TV sometimes, with all of these gadgets, and cameras and what not, and saying that it helps locate ghosts... How do they know that? Where did that get that idea? On what basis do they assume that those things will help them find ghosts any better than a roll of soggy toilet paper?

You can't find evidence to support something that has not even been outlined, or established what would constitute evidence for it.