A case for non-existence of god by outlaw 2011/05/05 11:53
Lengthy post warning: People with a short attention span are advised to stop reading.
My "atheism vs agnosticism" argument with oomph in the other thread had me thinking: Instead of merely rejecting the hypothesis that there is a god based on a lack of evidence, is it possible to make a positive case for the non-existence of god? If it were possible, then strong atheism (there is no god) would be considered a tenable position. That is, it would be possible to assert with some confidence if not certainty that there is no god. (Normally, atheists don't make this assertion). So I'm going to try and make a rigorous case for the non-existence of a god, even if it turns out to be an exercise in futility. Before i begin, i must clarify one thing: I'm not about to present any evidence against the possibility of a god, I'm just going to argue from logic. Even though there is scientific evidence which contradicts certain religious claims. Evolution, for example, proves that god did not create humans in their current form. That however is not an essential claim about god, and i consider it an insufficient rebuttal. We'll instead look at whether the most basic claims about god are true.
First of all, to prove the non-existence of an entity, the entity in question has to be sufficiently defined. Some people intentionally define "god" as something vague and indefinite, like "god is love". I would avoid addressing such a vague definition. I'm saying this at the beginning as sort of a disclaimer that my case against god can never be exhaustive, in that it wont address a definition of god which i haven't heard yet, but i can hardly be blamed for not believing in something i haven't heard of. We'll begin with the more popular definition of god and then move into obscure territory.
Lengthy post warning: People with a short attention span are advised to stop reading.
My "atheism vs agnosticism" argument with oomph in the other thread had me thinking: Instead of merely rejecting the hypothesis that there is a god based on a lack of evidence, is it possible to make a positive case for the non-existence of god? If it were possible, then strong atheism (there is no god) would be considered a tenable position. That is, it would be possible to assert with some confidence if not certainty that there is no god. (Normally, atheists don't make this assertion). So I'm going to try and make a rigorous case for the non-existence of a god, even if it turns out to be an exercise in futility. Before i begin, i must clarify one thing: I'm not about to present any evidence against the possibility of a god, I'm just going to argue from logic. Even though there is scientific evidence which contradicts certain religious claims. Evolution, for example, proves that god did not create humans in their current form. That however is not an essential claim about god, and i consider it an insufficient rebuttal. We'll instead look at whether the most basic claims about god are true.
First of all, to prove the non-existence of an entity, the entity in question has to be sufficiently defined. Some people intentionally define "god" as something vague and indefinite, like "god is love". I would avoid addressing such a vague definition. I'm saying this at the beginning as sort of a disclaimer that my case against god can never be exhaustive, in that it wont address a definition of god which i haven't heard yet, but i can hardly be blamed for not believing in something i haven't heard of. We'll begin with the more popular definition of god and then move into obscure territory.
TheMouse 2011/05/05 12:22
If God is omniscient, can he/she create an item of hidden knowledge which contents he/she has no knowledge of? (another paradox). - A question: As evolution moves on, I assume that in just a one hundred thousand years or so, there will be no humans but a species or number of species which will have developed from humans; - what of the possibility that a God created all but we are actually, within this creation, something totally minor with not the importance we are, in religious systems, tempted to assume that we have (humans created for the universe, not the [religious view] universe for humans) Well, humans have, generally, even no shadow of a trace of an imagination of the extent of the universe; most of their thinking would be different if they had.
If God is omniscient, can he/she create an item of hidden knowledge which contents he/she has no knowledge of? (another paradox). - A question: As evolution moves on, I assume that in just a one hundred thousand years or so, there will be no humans but a species or number of species which will have developed from humans; - what of the possibility that a God created all but we are actually, within this creation, something totally minor with not the importance we are, in religious systems, tempted to assume that we have (humans created for the universe, not the [religious view] universe for humans) Well, humans have, generally, even no shadow of a trace of an imagination of the extent of the universe; most of their thinking would be different if they had.
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2011/05/05 13:11
Analyses of the conceptual components of “God.��?
All knowing: X is All knowing. For every truth, X believes it and has total justification for it.
All powerful: X is All powerful. For every possible event, X has the ability to make it happen and X can prevent it from happening.
All loving: X is All loving. For every being, X wants only good things to happen to the beings and to happen to the maximum degree.
What about bad things? If X wants only good things to happen to someone, then that omits bad things.
Universal Creator: For everything that exists, God made it.
Application of the analyses to the argument.
P1. If God exists then there is no suffering.
P2. There is suffering.
:.God does not exist.
If God is all knowing, then he knows about the suffering. If God is all powerful, then he has the power to stop it. If God is all loving, he would not want anything but good to happen. But since there is suffering in the world, God does not exist.
Classic responses to premise 1 of the Argument from Evil are:
A. Leibniz’s “Best of all possible worlds��? response.
B. Free Will Response
C. The Contrast Response.
Leibniz’s “Best of all possible worlds��? response.
Leibniz states that since God is all loving, he would want the best possible word. And without suffering, it would be the best of all possible worlds. Objections to this are.
1. It makes moral action impossible. No need to decide whether your act is moral because whatever you do would be for the best since it’s the best of all possible worlds.
2. It makes free will ridiculous. Does anybody really have a choice in anything since whatever they do leads to the best of all possible worlds?
3. There is no reason aside from a prior belief in God to think that this is the best of all possible worlds.
4. There is at least one reason to believe that this isn’t the best of all possible worlds.
Free Will Response
God gave people free will. With free will, people have the ability to choose evil which leads to suffering. Objections to this are:
1. Giving free will is like giving loaded guns to prisoners.
2. Free will does not account for naturally occurring suffering.
The Contrast Response
God wanted people to appreciate the good by having suffering. In order to appreciate what is good, one must know what is bad. Objections to this are:
1. God is overdoing it. If Mandik broke his daughter’s legs so she would appreciate walking, it’s a bit much.
2. Since God is all powerful this is totally unnecessary. He could just give us true belief and justification without any effort.
Analyses of the conceptual components of “God.��?
All knowing: X is All knowing. For every truth, X believes it and has total justification for it.
All powerful: X is All powerful. For every possible event, X has the ability to make it happen and X can prevent it from happening.
All loving: X is All loving. For every being, X wants only good things to happen to the beings and to happen to the maximum degree.
What about bad things? If X wants only good things to happen to someone, then that omits bad things.
Universal Creator: For everything that exists, God made it.
Application of the analyses to the argument.
P1. If God exists then there is no suffering.
P2. There is suffering.
:.God does not exist.
If God is all knowing, then he knows about the suffering. If God is all powerful, then he has the power to stop it. If God is all loving, he would not want anything but good to happen. But since there is suffering in the world, God does not exist.
Classic responses to premise 1 of the Argument from Evil are:
A. Leibniz’s “Best of all possible worlds��? response.
B. Free Will Response
C. The Contrast Response.
Leibniz’s “Best of all possible worlds��? response.
Leibniz states that since God is all loving, he would want the best possible word. And without suffering, it would be the best of all possible worlds. Objections to this are.
1. It makes moral action impossible. No need to decide whether your act is moral because whatever you do would be for the best since it’s the best of all possible worlds.
2. It makes free will ridiculous. Does anybody really have a choice in anything since whatever they do leads to the best of all possible worlds?
3. There is no reason aside from a prior belief in God to think that this is the best of all possible worlds.
4. There is at least one reason to believe that this isn’t the best of all possible worlds.
Free Will Response
God gave people free will. With free will, people have the ability to choose evil which leads to suffering. Objections to this are:
1. Giving free will is like giving loaded guns to prisoners.
2. Free will does not account for naturally occurring suffering.
The Contrast Response
God wanted people to appreciate the good by having suffering. In order to appreciate what is good, one must know what is bad. Objections to this are:
1. God is overdoing it. If Mandik broke his daughter’s legs so she would appreciate walking, it’s a bit much.
2. Since God is all powerful this is totally unnecessary. He could just give us true belief and justification without any effort.
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2011/05/05 13:15
I fear that our less educated brethren will have no clue as to what any of all what we have posted here. If there are any responses they will be meaningless and classic responses. .hehe.
I fear that our less educated brethren will have no clue as to what any of all what we have posted here. If there are any responses they will be meaningless and classic responses. .hehe.
-DeMoN_OvErLoRd- 2011/05/06 10:15
Cant argue on that, your absolutely correct!
Quote: outlaw: Unfortunately, indoctrination supersedes a real education. That's why we have highly educated people, some even scientists, who see the hand of god in everything.
Cant argue on that, your absolutely correct!
biznatch 2011/05/06 23:14
superlike!
Neo creationism: If the universe universe was designed by an intelligent being then why has he restricted life to just earth? if he is really such a smartass i wonder why he didn't design life in a manner such that all of us could adapt ourselves to any planet in the universe? outer space is such a waste of property man! what could be his cause of creating light-years of nothing? doesn't sound very intelligent to me!
superlike!
Neo creationism: If the universe universe was designed by an intelligent being then why has he restricted life to just earth? if he is really such a smartass i wonder why he didn't design life in a manner such that all of us could adapt ourselves to any planet in the universe? outer space is such a waste of property man! what could be his cause of creating light-years of nothing? doesn't sound very intelligent to me!
biznatch 2011/05/06 23:36
Now, ever since our beloved brother Dotmon boycotted us.. this place has become boring as sin. So, just for the sake of fun i will try and refute some of your arguments or propose new concepts of God.. Let me see
Now, ever since our beloved brother Dotmon boycotted us.. this place has become boring as sin. So, just for the sake of fun i will try and refute some of your arguments or propose new concepts of God.. Let me see
biznatch 2011/05/06 23:49
Quote: -DeMoN_OvErLoRd-: Analyses of the conceptual components of “God.��?
All powerful: X is All powerful. For every possible event, X has the ability to make it happen and X can prevent it from happening.
All powerful: X is All powerful. For every possible event, X has the ability to make it happen and X can prevent it from happening.
Quote: outlaw: The simplest one is: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"
If we are to go by demon's definition of 'all powerful' then God is capable of making every logically possible event happen. Quote: outlaw: The simplest one is: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"
Is this a possible event? If we refuse to accept hackneyed statements like "God is above logic" then is it fair to expect anything logically impossible from God?
biznatch 2011/05/07 20:19
but only man has attributed omnipotence to God coz to us he seems to be all powerful. Could it be that God is not all powerful but very powerful? More powerful than any other being in this universe?
Quote: outlaw: In other words, and i hope I'm not too drunk to understand this, "creating an object so heavy you can't lift it" becomes a logically impossible event ONLY if you are omnipotent. We can't presuppose omnipotence in this argument and then determine which events are logically possible for an omnipotent being and which aren't. The being in question has to logically earn his omnipotence before he can argue FROM it. Omnipotence has to follow from the argument, not be the basis of it.
ah that makes perfect sense but only man has attributed omnipotence to God coz to us he seems to be all powerful. Could it be that God is not all powerful but very powerful? More powerful than any other being in this universe?
sH1vAm 2011/05/10 07:59
Personally, I don't care one way or the another. We don't need God to live moral or fulfilled lives or anything like that. Seeing how this is my conclusion I don't see why we should care if God exists. Sure I want to know how reality really is but as for my preference between these two options I have none.
Personally, I don't care one way or the another. We don't need God to live moral or fulfilled lives or anything like that. Seeing how this is my conclusion I don't see why we should care if God exists. Sure I want to know how reality really is but as for my preference between these two options I have none.
#78 Faith/Beliefs
Share your views and beliefs on religion, theology, culture and matters of faith.