Re: Evidence disproving gods exisence?

[Iamwaves]

Hello everyone,
I am new here and i would like to first off thank everyone for any responses i get on this topic. I am taking a philosophy course at my local community college and the professor has assigned us an opinion based paper on if we believe in god. She would like us to provide evidence as to why we think the way we choose. Now, i believe the professor is a christian, although she has not said so, I can tell by the way she talks about god. This is irrelevant BUT she teaches us philosophers and their ways of LOGICALLY proving the existence of god. I have my belief that god does not exist and the universe was created without a supreme beings helping hand. I came here to ask this question. Can anyone point me in the right direction that logically proves this? Another thing is, I thought there was a unified understanding that no one could prove or disprove gods existence in philosophy but my professor seems to tell us otherwise and when me and my bro challenge her on this, she says he is logically proven to exist because you can think he exists. You can then move down to your mind and then senses to know what you know. I would like to throw something good in her face but I cant put my finger on it which is why I came here

Edit: If you are going to flame me for not doing research please do not bother responding. Rest assured that I am doing research outside this forum, I just want the opinion of other atheists. Thanks

[Whitney]

If your class is Philosophy of Religion hasn't selected a textbook that covers arguments against god I would go demand my money back.

That said, you should check out the following books for your research:

Critiques of God edited by Peter A. Angeles

Atheism : A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin

Atheism:  A case against god by George H. Smith

btw, most arguments against god are basically set up as responses to arguments which support god. This is because you can't have 'evidence' of something not existing you can only show why evidence of that something isn't actually valid.  A prime example of this is the Invisible Pink Unicorn; you can't provide evidence that it doesn't exist yet we know it isn't real.

[G-Roll]

is everyone taking a religion class posting here?

he is logically proven to exist because you can think he exists. You can then move down to your mind and then senses to know what you know.

i can think that odin existed. i can also think that the gods before yahweh existed. so if i move down my mind and then my senses and i now know what i know.
i can also think that a car exists, and a train, and a bus, and a unicorn. i can go on for days with what i can think about existing. then send that to my mind and senses... whatever that means.

i would suggest you browse the forum and read older posts about the subject.

on another note i think the internet has changed class rooms for the worst. how many people come here and just ask for an answer rather than actually research (you know study) and what not? is this post searching for an answer to a paper as to avoid just browsing the other threads? or reading a book? or looking up info on the internet?
im not against being lazy, and i am actually only half assed accusing... but really?

[Iamwaves]

I like the pink unicorn analogy. The book for the class does mention Atheism and such but I feel like the professor gave the null headed god believers a way of proving his existence using logic and reason. The philosophers that came up with these techniques were Descartes, Kant, Pascal, and Bacon. I am a strong believe that Man created the idea of God but my professor LOVES to bring up Descartes Cartesian circle that states "since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannot create god." Maybe im just looking for responses to these Philosophers that use logic and reason...

[Whitney]

is everyone taking a religion class posting here?

Maybe that means we are all really smart and therefore people want to ask us questions.  

[Iamwaves]

i would suggest you browse the forum and read older posts about the subject.

I am.

[Whitney]

I like the pink unicorn analogy. The book for the class does mention Atheism and such but I feel like the professor gave the null headed god believers a way of proving his existence using logic and reason. The philosophers that came up with these techniques were Descartes, Kant, Pascal, and Bacon. I am a strong believe that Man created the idea of God but my professor LOVES to bring up Descartes Cartesian circle that states "since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannot create god." Maybe im just looking for responses to these Philosophers that use logic and reason...

It's been about 4 or 5 years since I took philosophy of religion, so the details of most of the arguments have kinda faded (and is part of why I gave you a book list).  I remember going over the arguments that basically try to prove god into existence by saying the greatest thing you can conceive of to exist is god and therefore god must be real (total bullshit since I can think of all sorts of things which could feasibly exist yet don't).  

"since god is a supreme being he created man so man cannon create god" is not an argument for the existence of god because it fails to address the issue of if god exists in the first place; of course if a god did exist man wouldn't be able to create him after the fact.


I think you should ask for your money back from the class....your professor shouldn't be teaching in such a biased manner and apparently is promoting some of the worst example of arguments for god that were ever conceived.  She could at least use the prime mover argument; it at least makes some sense even if it ultimately just drives home the fact that we have no clue why there is something rather than nothing.

[Whitney]

is everyone taking a religion class posting here?
im not against being lazy, and i am actually only half assed accusing... but really?

Eh....I basically had internet access from middle school on and it didn't affect my ability to actually read the textbooks and do proper research.  Online research is a good starting point but on philosophical topics I've found that there aren't very many good online sources aside from maybe looking at wiki to quickly figure out was "a priori" or something like that means.

[Iamwaves]

Yeah I see how that the argument that man cannot of created god is flawed so maybe I will start my paper off with a statement similar to that and how it doesn't prove the existence of a god and state my evidence for how man created the idea of god. I am currently reading Did Man Create God? by David E. Commings. It does provide ample examples as to why man created god that are connected to evolution, genetics, cosmology, other religions, neurology, spirituality, string theory, etc

But look at this "Cartesian circle" and tell me what you think if any of you have a counter to this idea. This is my professors "logical way of proving god"
1. God must exist because I have the clear distinct idea of God in my mind.
2.The mind is reliable, proved by doubting. I can trust cleat distinct ideas to be real.
3. A lesser being cannot create a greater being. I, lesser, did not create God. God, greater, created me.
4. God put clear distinct innate ideas in my mind. They have always been there and I can trust them
5. I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

Thats the "Cartesian circle" from Descartes that supposedly logically proves the existence of a God.

[godlessgirl]

But look at this "Cartesian circle" and tell me what you think if any of you have a counter to this idea. This is my professors "logical way of proving god"
1. God must exist because I have the clear distinct idea of God in my mind.
2.The mind is reliable, proved by doubting. I can trust cleat distinct ideas to be real.
3. A lesser being cannot create a greater being. I, lesser, did not create God. God, greater, created me.
4. God put clear distinct innate ideas in my mind. They have always been there and I can trust them
5. I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

Thats the "Cartesian circle" from Descartes that supposedly logically proves the existence of a God.

I'm not a logician or philosopher, so I may not get things right, here... but my initial responses are these:

1. I have a clear, distinct idea of a unicorn in my mind. Does that make it real?
2. The mind is not reliable. Mentally ill people have delusions that form in the mind. The mind can be manipulated and tricked to produce experiences that do not involve reality.
3. I agree that a human cannot create an actual deity, but humans can create the idea of a deity. We can make up superheroes and mythological characters who are "greater" than us, but still do not exist. That doesn't mean Spider-Man or Apollo created me.
4. Assumption without evidence. what if there is no god? Even if there was, how is it known that god can put ideas into someone's mind?
5. Again, I have a distinct idea of a unicorn in my mind. Therefor it must exist?

 

[G-Roll]

edit... godless girl beat me to the post.  :hmm:[/quote]

Lol i like that idea.

[elliebean]

Take any 'proof' of a god's existence, replace the word 'god' with a word for any other object, idea, or concept - the more absurd the better, then have fun 'proving' the existence of anything you can come up with.

Here are some suggestions, just listing off the top of my head:

Leprechauns
Antigod (god's evil twin)
All other gods
The Benevolent Toothache
Evil Jesus
The part of the universe where god doesn't exist
Bert and Ernie
The highest integer
The opposite of everything
Nothing
Free Lunch
An inside-out bicycle
The Force
The Funk
Universe-building bees
Another god who created the god who created that god
Creationlessness
Godlessness
An ultimate color, existing outside the light spectrum, which created all color
et cetera
ad infinitum

 

Enjoy!

[ScottKnick]

Here's the ruse behind attempts to prove the existence of God, as well as the (incorrect) nostrum that you can't disprove God's existence. Proofs for God's existence tend to conflate God to a single characteristic, such as being an uncaused cause or being supreme, and then attempt to prove that that single characteristic is a logical necessity. Whether any such philosophical attempts will ever be successful (and none have, so far) the fact is that they should offer no comfort whatsoever to believers in Yahweh or Allah or whatever. The God of the Bible is not a single characteristic, he is a combination of characteristics. And that combination is logically impossible. You cannot be A) Omnipresent, B) Omniscient, C) Eternal, D) Unchanging, AND E) A person. Personality is defined by restriction, limitation and change over time. All the emotions, motivations and reactions attributed to the Abrahamic God are impossible for a being not bound by time and space. The God they care about cannot exist. QED

You could keep E and give up A, B, C and/or D, but then you'd be a pagan.
You could keep A, B, C, and D and give up E, but then you'd be a mere deist, and absolutely no moral or spiritual principals would follow from your conclusion. You might as well worship Hydrogen.

[Ellainix]

1. God must exist because I have the clear distinct idea of God in my mind.

1a False Premise : One has a clear distinct idea of God in their mind.
Reasons:
1a.1. Anyone who has a clear distinct idea of God in their mind does not have the same clear distinct idea of God as everyone. (Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.) If this premise were true, God would either be inconsistent, or there would be an infinite number of gods.
1a.2. The clear distinct idea of God was placed in the mind by indoctrination and culture.
1b False Premise : AAAA must exist because BBBB( of AAAA).
Reasons:
1b.1. "Distinct Ideas", by definition, are not real. Hence they're are called "ideas" and not "things".
1b.2. This logic would prove that Santa Claus and Death Notes were real. We know that both of these subjects are not real.

2.The mind is reliable, proved by doubting. I can trust clear distinct ideas to be real.

I don't think this is sound logic at all.

3. A lesser being cannot create a greater being. I, lesser, did not create God. God, greater, created me.

3a. False Premise: God created (Not supported).
3b. False Premise: God exists (Not supported).

4. God put clear distinct innate ideas in my mind. They have always been there and I can trust them

4a. False Premise: God exists (Not supported).
4b. False Premise: God put distinct ideas in a mind (Not supported).
4c. False Premise: You can trust thoughts placed in your head by God (Not supported).

5. I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

This is the same as the first point.

[Sophus]

I have a clear distinct idea of God in my mind. Therefore, God must exist.

1. I have a clear, distinct idea for a painting in my head.

2. I go to paint it but stopped when I realized it must already be hanging in a gallery somewhere because I have a clear, distinct idea for it in my head.