What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[ianb321red]

From page 1 "What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved..."

A tendency? So it's not universal? Doesn't that, yet again, prove you're wrong?

Nice try, but you've not proven me wrong on anything yet - and the above statement is just another bungled attempt.

Tendency - "A predisposition to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way."
Predisposition - "the condition of being predisposed"
Condition - "A mode or state of being"

Agree with this?

So actually we are talking about why a predisposition (to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way) to believe evolved?

Which in other words means why do we have a predisposed condition or state of being to believe?

I mean - correct me if I've misunderstood, but what else can it mean?

Am I being unfair here, but doesn't that, yet again, prove you're wrong?

And to continue - let's put the quote back in it's context:

"These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain."

So when you read it in it's context, there is agreement that (religious) belief has evolved.
This tendency is universal as I have just demonstrated..
So the question is not whether this predisposition exists - it's how it actually came to exist as it does now!

Try reading past page 1...

 

[SithDoughnut]

No - not at all...

Then you retract your statement that belief in God is a universal need?

 

[ianb321red]

An article on your researcher. Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph. Here are some examples of his evidence for a belief in god:

In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".



Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.



How does that demonstrate a belief in god?

Ask Martin Beckford.

Dr Barrett is actually really talking about predisposition, rather than belief.
Belief is misleading - your article says "born believers" but that's journo talk, and needs to kept separate from predisposition

 

[ianb321red]

Something is only a universal need if everyone requires it (the clue being in the word "universal"). I and many other people do not, therefore it is not a universal need. Eating and drinking (or to be more specific, consuming food and water) is something that every single human being has to do, while the existence of atheism demonstrates that belief in God is not something that everyone has to do. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of definition and the logical and semantic consequences thereof.

To put it even more simply, if theism is a universal need then I am not an atheist. So, either you're claiming that every atheist and agnostic who has ever existed is lying about their beliefs, or theism is not a universal need. Those are the only two logically sound options you have. Which one are you going to proceed with? Are you accusing me of being a liar or not?

Purely to address your point,I think we should differentiate between:
1) A need for God
2) A belief in God

I am arguing that (1) is universal, and (2) is clearly not, and therefore I agree with you on the second point.

The very existence of atheism does NOT in any way, shape or form demonstrate that the need for God is not a universal need. All it shows is that is there is universal free will to think and to decide to accept and reject pretty much whatever you want, and that includes believing in or believing in a need for any god of any description.

You are entirely free to state that you don’t believe in God, but no one is in a position or is indeed capable of categorically stating that there isn’t a need for God. You can say that you (and/or other people) don’t believe there is a need for God, but this statement isn’t evidence enough in itself to disprove or do away with the existence of this need irrespective of your acceptance or rejection of the need.

Regarding your second point – good try, but very easy to counter argue (without calling you a liar)

The argument here is specifically regarding needs, not beliefs. So because of this your argument falls at the first hurdle. I’m not saying that a belief in God is universal, so it logically follows that I’m not saying that all non-believers are liars.

So I’m not saying that all atheists are liars – I’m saying that you’re free to believe and reject whatever you want. But I’m also saying that a belief has got no relevance in disproving whether a need exists or not. So your statement “Something is only a universal need if everyone requires it …..I and many other people do not” is purely a belief or perception of what we are discussing – not in any way evidence to disprove that an actual need for God is an intrinsic part of being human.

 

[ianb321red]

Then you retract your statement that belief in God is a universal need?

Complete misquote - I can't retract something I never said

God is a universal need, NOT belief in God (see above post)

As I said a couple of posts ago I'm talking predisposition not personal choice.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nice try, but you've not proven me wrong on anything yet - and the above statement is just another bungled attempt.

Tendency - "A predisposition to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way."
Predisposition - "the condition of being predisposed"
Condition - "A mode or state of being"

Agree with this?

Yes I do as far as it goes. The bit you've (deliberately?) failed to mention in defining a tendency is "an inclination or leaning". A tendency is not universal.

And to continue - let's put the quote back in it's context:

"These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain."

So when you read it in it's context, there is agreement that (religious) belief has evolved.

I didn't say it had or hadn't evolved because that's irrelevant to the argument. What I said, and what we're arguing about, is whether or not it is a universal condition. Which it isn't.

This tendency is universal as I have just demonstrated..

No it isn't and no you didn't.

So the question is not whether this predisposition exists - it's how it actually came to exist as it does now!

Why are you trying to move the goalposts?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ask Martin Beckford.

Dr Barrett is actually really talking about predisposition, rather than belief.
Belief is misleading - your article says "born believers" but that's journo talk, and needs to kept separate from predisposition

You're a slippery little eel, aren't you? What your post said was

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.

When you've lost the argument you change the subject.

 

[SithDoughnut]

My mistake with misunderstanding your argument. It would help however if you stuck to one argument, because it's difficult to follow what you're saying when you change it so often.

As I said a couple of posts ago I'm talking predisposition not personal choice.

Predisposition does not indicate universal need. Children also have a predisposition towards wanting to be with their parents, but that does not make having parents a universal need, as demonstrated by the survival of orphaned children.

 

[ianb321red]

Yes I do as far as it goes. The bit you've (deliberately?) failed to mention in defining a tendency is "an inclination or leaning". A tendency is not universal.

That's a synonym - which means it's nearly the same.

To be fair to you, the meaning is ambiguous. Yes it can mean inclination - but it can also mean predisposition:

tendency [ˈtɛndənsɪ] "an inclination, predisposition, propensity, or leaning"

But read it in the context of the article, and I think it's clear it's referring to a predisposition.

 

[ianb321red]

You're a slippery little eel, aren't you? What your post said was
When you've lost the argument you change the subject.

That's a fair accusation, and I apologise I wasn't trying to change the subject or shift any goal posts.

I still stand by the predisposition argument as my position is that there is a universal need for God.

There is not a universal need to believe in God.
We are born with a need for God, but we have to believe in God through our own choice and desire - our own free will. This is clearly frequently renounced or rejected, but the needs remains whether we acknowledge it or not.

 

[ianb321red]

Predisposition does not indicate universal need. Children also have a predisposition towards wanting to be with their parents, but that does not make having parents a universal need, as demonstrated by the survival of orphaned children.

Sure, they survive in a life versus death sense - but what about the deprivation of love, belonging, security and so on from not having parents?
Are these not needs that are deprived, and thus have consequences?
And are these needs not common to all children?

Yes, they may survive, but to grow up with the related needs of love, belonging, security etc deficient we all must agree has significant consequences on personality, socially and pyschologically once the child grows older?

 

[ianb321red]

Here's another article fyi:
Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

I didn't actually realise the magnitude of the project until I read this:

The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

You can carry on arguing that there is "no evidence" in my argument, but you'd really have to be blindly ignoring the above example of "evidence" to do so...

 

[SithDoughnut]

Sure, they survive in a life versus death sense - but what about the deprivation of love, belonging, security and so on from not having parents?

Can you demonstrate that no orphaned child receives any of these?

Yes, they may survive, but to grow up with the related needs of love, belonging, security etc deficient we all must agree has significant consequences on personality, socially and pyschologically once the child grows older?

It has consequences, but that doesn't make it a universal need.

I think this needs to be clarified: what is your definition of universal need, and how does this definition support the existence of God? Considering that this all started when you took issue with me saying that there is no demonstrated necessity for God, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually understood what I said.

 

[ianb321red]

I think this needs to be clarified: what is your definition of universal need, and how does this definition support the existence of God? Considering that this all started when you took issue with me saying that there is no demonstrated necessity for God, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually understood what I said.

Ok, fine.
I understood what it meant to me, but why don't you explain what you mean that "there is no demonstrated necessity for God"...?

To clarify, I took that statement to mean the following:
-no demonstrated = no evidence, or nothing to support the claim
-necessity for God = a need for something..a need for God

So no evidence of a need for God.
The fact that it was an absolute statement "no evidence" rather than a relative statement "no evidence for me personally" brought in to the discussion the notion of universality.

So have I understood you correctly or not?

 

[ianb321red]

Can you demonstrate that no orphaned child receives any of these?

Can you demonstrate that there are any cases when deprivation in these needs doesn't have the consequences I mentioned?

 

[ianb321red]

I think this needs to be clarified: what is your definition of universal need, and how does this definition support the existence of God?

I never made the connection between the two.

As you say, you made the comment in post#10 "Basically, there is no evidence or demonstrated necessity for God"

In fact, if I'm honest I don't see the issue with an atheist worldview and a human need for a god.
I see the issue with belief, but less so with need.

Belief is an active choice, whereas if you're born with a need for a god then effectively you've had no more of a say than you did in being born in the first place! Hardly grounds for devotional belief?

And honestly, if someone posted something "ok, I agree - there is a human need for a god" then I wouldn't even consider saying "great - thanks. That proves God exists" - that would be complete nonsense!

The reason why I say this, as I mentioned in a previous post is because the need for god is often found in many ways - religion, idolatry, Christianity, nature, astrology, spirituality, mysticism and so on...

As I said in another previous post, atheism is opposed to a belief in the theistic god and this is what I am actually interested in discussing!!
So to conceed that a universal need for god actually exists is all well and good, but in my view is still a million miles from excepting that god exists.

And once you believe that a god exists, like Anthony Flew eventually did, you then need to decide which god is real and which is false (which he didn't do unfortunately)..

And once you've done that I pray that you'll realise that the Christian god is the only true God.

Sermon over!

 

[SithDoughnut]

So have I understood you correctly or not?

I see the problem, you're confusing necessity and need.

By "necessity for God", I meant a logical requirement. A need has various meanings, but a necessity is something necessary. It's not just a need, but something without which something else cannot exist. There is nothing that we know of that cannot have existed without God.

To explain my original post, there are two ways to demonstrate the existence of God. You can either provide evidence of God himself or you can provide evidence of something else, for which the only possible cause or reason for existence can be God. To my knowledge, neither of these exist. That is the best argument currently against the existence of God, and the only one that is necessary to not believe in theistic claims, in my opinion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here's another article fyi:
Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

I didn't actually realise the magnitude of the project until I read this:

The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

You can carry on arguing that there is "no evidence" in my argument, but you'd really have to be blindly ignoring the above example of "evidence" to do so...

I will agree that the articles you provide say we are predisposed to do something, but "believe in gods"? No. What the research shows is typical human reaction - we hate not having an explanation for things. What we see is humans not being able to explain or understand something so they invent a cause. That may or may not be some sort of god. It does not, though, prove a need for a god. It proves a need for understanding our world. Once we have an explanation for the previously unexplained the god explanation goes away. And since we've all agreed that you cannot remove a need then this predisposition cannot be one.

You got any other lines of argument left?

 

[ianb321red]

I see the problem, you're confusing necessity and need.

By "necessity for God", I meant a logical requirement. A need has various meanings, but a necessity is something necessary. It's not just a need, but something without which something else cannot exist. There is nothing that we know of that cannot have existed without God.

To explain my original post, there are two ways to demonstrate the existence of God. You can either provide evidence of God himself or you can provide evidence of something else, for which the only possible cause or reason for existence can be God. To my knowledge, neither of these exist. That is the best argument currently against the existence of God, and the only one that is necessary to not believe in theistic claims, in my opinion.

Thanks for the clarification.

I will answer your points shortly, but firstly I have a question which is slightly off at a tangent, but one that I feel needs to be asked.

Why do you think anyone actually believes in God in the first place?

This is a sincere question which I ask, because far too often the theist is placed in the position of explaining themselves and providing evidence for what they believe in.
You are an atheist and therefore believe that the theistic god does not exist.
Given your (un)belief, I am interested in your view on why you think people (like me) hold a belief of a worldview contrary to yours.

Because to follow your above point through logically, a theist believes in something for which there is no evidence of its existence and no actual necessity for..

 

[SithDoughnut]

Why do you think anyone actually believes in God in the first place?

There are any number of potential reasons, so I'm sure I'll miss out the reasons for many theists here, so here is a very general overview of why I think theism exists in the first place.

One of the reasons that we were successful as a species is because our brain evolved to look not just for what there is, but for intent and purpose. Many other animals see a predator, and flee. Humans can look at a predator, see what it is doing, and then make an informed decision based on the apparent intent of the predator. Another aspect of this is that we can understand reasons and causes, and our brains are wired to match up what we see to what we know. So if we see a predator that we haven't seen before, but we can still see big teeth and sharp claws, we can anticipate a similar reaction as the first predator that we understood.

This line of thinking, however, applies to everything. We like to see patterns and purpose in all sorts of things, because that's what our brains do. It's the same thinking that makes you see shapes in clouds or Jesus in toast. It's not difficult for a brain that works like that to look for reason and purpose in everything else around us. That's why early religions were quite polytheistic, because everything had it's own cause and purpose, which became the concept of Gods. These thoughts evolved and changed over time until they became the religions we have today.

As for why individual people believe in God, that depends on the person in question. It could be anything from personal experience to believing because your parents do and for many people it's a combination of all sorts of reasons, many of which they probably don't realise themselves (belief being an unconscious process).